The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Yeah they should have just stopped on number one but no here is another one and im not gonna like it I didn't see number two and im not going to see this one.
Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo
Release Date: June 16, 2006
Studio: Universal Pictures
Director: Justin Lin
Screenwriter: Chris Morgan
Starring: Unknown (for now)
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" is written by Chris Morgan ("Cellular"), who places the third entry in Tokyo: in this adrenalized new story, set in the sexy, underground world of Japanese drift racing, the newest and fastest customized rides go head-to-head on some of the most perilous courses ever seen.
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" follows the story of Shaun Boswell, who has always been an outsider. A loner at school, his only connection to the indifferent world around him is through illegal street racing -- which has made him particularly unpopular with the local authorities. To avoid jail time, Shaun is sent out of the country to live with his uncle in the military, in a cramped apartment in a low-rent section of Tokyo.
In the land that gave birth to the majority of modified racers on the road, the simple street race has been replaced by the ultimate pedal-to-the-metal, gravity-defying automotive challenge ... drift racing, a deadly combination of brutal speed on heart stopping courses of hairpin turns and switchbacks.
For his first unsuccessful foray in drift racing, Shaun unknowingly takes on D.K., the "Drift King," with ties to the Yakuza, the Japanese crime machine. The only way he can pay off the debt of his loss is to venture into the deadly realm of the Tokyo underworld, where the stakes are life and death.
Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo
Release Date: June 16, 2006
Studio: Universal Pictures
Director: Justin Lin
Screenwriter: Chris Morgan
Starring: Unknown (for now)
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" is written by Chris Morgan ("Cellular"), who places the third entry in Tokyo: in this adrenalized new story, set in the sexy, underground world of Japanese drift racing, the newest and fastest customized rides go head-to-head on some of the most perilous courses ever seen.
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" follows the story of Shaun Boswell, who has always been an outsider. A loner at school, his only connection to the indifferent world around him is through illegal street racing -- which has made him particularly unpopular with the local authorities. To avoid jail time, Shaun is sent out of the country to live with his uncle in the military, in a cramped apartment in a low-rent section of Tokyo.
In the land that gave birth to the majority of modified racers on the road, the simple street race has been replaced by the ultimate pedal-to-the-metal, gravity-defying automotive challenge ... drift racing, a deadly combination of brutal speed on heart stopping courses of hairpin turns and switchbacks.
For his first unsuccessful foray in drift racing, Shaun unknowingly takes on D.K., the "Drift King," with ties to the Yakuza, the Japanese crime machine. The only way he can pay off the debt of his loss is to venture into the deadly realm of the Tokyo underworld, where the stakes are life and death.
Page:
Found a trailer for this film..
http://www.nearlygood.com/video/3ast3urious.html
http://www.nearlygood.com/video/3ast3urious.html
munn wrote:
> tnc wrote:
> munn wrote:
> "I'm so cool because I don't like popular mainstream
> films"
>
> Any guy who doesn't like Fast cars fizzing by and Vin Diesel is ...
>
> sane ?
>
> Fast cars whizzing by usually means a film made up of action
> sequences squeezed together to form a plot so thin it has holes in,
> populated by cardboard cut-out characters
>
> And that's exactly what people watch it for. Action sequences. Anyone
> going to watch a film about racing expeting a film with a complex and
> thought provoking plot is delusional. Take it for what it is, a fun
> film with car chases.
>
> If you really have a desire to see "Fast cars whizzing by"
> I suggest you flick on the tv and watch a Grandprix, the
> entertainment value eclipses that of "Fast and Furious"
>
> Oh of course, lets watch a "sport" that has so many rules
> and regulations, no car is allowed to be different practically, and
> the only exciting times are about 10 seconds worth of refueling, to
> see if someone can overtake them because they were too slow gettign
> more petrol. Hurrah. Fun.
I'm fairly sure he was saying that the Grandprix is about as entertaining as Fast and the Furious i.e. it's not entertaining. The similarity is that they both have fast cars. I could be wrong, and he might really like F1.
>
> Vin Diesel is yet another "OMG what a hunk" actor who
> doesn't have a scrap of talent and is awful without needing to
> resort
> to calling him a homo
>
> He's teh Sly Stallone/Arnie of the present era then. He's the exact
> same, pretty much.
Exactly, and they were both poor actors.
>
> The Fast and Furious maybe "mainstream", as you called it,
> but just because it is doesn't mean everyone should pretend to like
> it. I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess
> over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
>
> Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What
> else do you want in a film?
The point he was trying to make, I think, is that Fast and Furious is a bad film. It may have cars action and women, but that does not make a good film.
> tnc wrote:
> munn wrote:
> "I'm so cool because I don't like popular mainstream
> films"
>
> Any guy who doesn't like Fast cars fizzing by and Vin Diesel is ...
>
> sane ?
>
> Fast cars whizzing by usually means a film made up of action
> sequences squeezed together to form a plot so thin it has holes in,
> populated by cardboard cut-out characters
>
> And that's exactly what people watch it for. Action sequences. Anyone
> going to watch a film about racing expeting a film with a complex and
> thought provoking plot is delusional. Take it for what it is, a fun
> film with car chases.
>
> If you really have a desire to see "Fast cars whizzing by"
> I suggest you flick on the tv and watch a Grandprix, the
> entertainment value eclipses that of "Fast and Furious"
>
> Oh of course, lets watch a "sport" that has so many rules
> and regulations, no car is allowed to be different practically, and
> the only exciting times are about 10 seconds worth of refueling, to
> see if someone can overtake them because they were too slow gettign
> more petrol. Hurrah. Fun.
I'm fairly sure he was saying that the Grandprix is about as entertaining as Fast and the Furious i.e. it's not entertaining. The similarity is that they both have fast cars. I could be wrong, and he might really like F1.
>
> Vin Diesel is yet another "OMG what a hunk" actor who
> doesn't have a scrap of talent and is awful without needing to
> resort
> to calling him a homo
>
> He's teh Sly Stallone/Arnie of the present era then. He's the exact
> same, pretty much.
Exactly, and they were both poor actors.
>
> The Fast and Furious maybe "mainstream", as you called it,
> but just because it is doesn't mean everyone should pretend to like
> it. I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess
> over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
>
> Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What
> else do you want in a film?
The point he was trying to make, I think, is that Fast and Furious is a bad film. It may have cars action and women, but that does not make a good film.
I'll probably give it a look. The first one is an alright film as long as you don't expect too much from it. 2 Fast 2 Furious is a bit thin and there really isn't much substance to it, but again it's alright if you don't expect anything from it.
You can't judge all films with the same measuring stick. Movies like The Fast and The Furious were never intended to be complicated and clever like Memento and they weren't meant to be epics like The Godfather.
You can't judge all films with the same measuring stick. Movies like The Fast and The Furious were never intended to be complicated and clever like Memento and they weren't meant to be epics like The Godfather.
munn wrote:
> Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What
> else do you want in a film?
Hmm. Let me think. How about a plot that's at least bearable, if not feasible in the slightest. Actors who have more acting talent than the inmates of Edinburgh zoo and perhaps some humour
But perhaps it's too much to ask of a film like Fast and Furious to come close to minimal standards in anything apart from showing cars and special effects
The difference with Sly and Arnie is they had a scrap of talent
> Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What
> else do you want in a film?
Hmm. Let me think. How about a plot that's at least bearable, if not feasible in the slightest. Actors who have more acting talent than the inmates of Edinburgh zoo and perhaps some humour
But perhaps it's too much to ask of a film like Fast and Furious to come close to minimal standards in anything apart from showing cars and special effects
The difference with Sly and Arnie is they had a scrap of talent
tnc wrote:
> munn wrote:
> "I'm so cool because I don't like popular mainstream
> films"
>
> Any guy who doesn't like Fast cars fizzing by and Vin Diesel is ...
>
> sane ?
>
> Fast cars whizzing by usually means a film made up of action
> sequences squeezed together to form a plot so thin it has holes in,
> populated by cardboard cut-out characters
And that's exactly what people watch it for. Action sequences. Anyone going to watch a film about racing expeting a film with a complex and thought provoking plot is delusional. Take it for what it is, a fun film with car chases.
> If you really have a desire to see "Fast cars whizzing by"
> I suggest you flick on the tv and watch a Grandprix, the
> entertainment value eclipses that of "Fast and Furious"
Oh of course, lets watch a "sport" that has so many rules and regulations, no car is allowed to be different practically, and the only exciting times are about 10 seconds worth of refueling, to see if someone can overtake them because they were too slow gettign more petrol. Hurrah. Fun.
> Vin Diesel is yet another "OMG what a hunk" actor who
> doesn't have a scrap of talent and is awful without needing to resort
> to calling him a homo
He's teh Sly Stallone/Arnie of the present era then. He's the exact same, pretty much.
> The Fast and Furious maybe "mainstream", as you called it,
> but just because it is doesn't mean everyone should pretend to like
> it. I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What else do you want in a film?
> munn wrote:
> "I'm so cool because I don't like popular mainstream
> films"
>
> Any guy who doesn't like Fast cars fizzing by and Vin Diesel is ...
>
> sane ?
>
> Fast cars whizzing by usually means a film made up of action
> sequences squeezed together to form a plot so thin it has holes in,
> populated by cardboard cut-out characters
And that's exactly what people watch it for. Action sequences. Anyone going to watch a film about racing expeting a film with a complex and thought provoking plot is delusional. Take it for what it is, a fun film with car chases.
> If you really have a desire to see "Fast cars whizzing by"
> I suggest you flick on the tv and watch a Grandprix, the
> entertainment value eclipses that of "Fast and Furious"
Oh of course, lets watch a "sport" that has so many rules and regulations, no car is allowed to be different practically, and the only exciting times are about 10 seconds worth of refueling, to see if someone can overtake them because they were too slow gettign more petrol. Hurrah. Fun.
> Vin Diesel is yet another "OMG what a hunk" actor who
> doesn't have a scrap of talent and is awful without needing to resort
> to calling him a homo
He's teh Sly Stallone/Arnie of the present era then. He's the exact same, pretty much.
> The Fast and Furious maybe "mainstream", as you called it,
> but just because it is doesn't mean everyone should pretend to like
> it. I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What else do you want in a film?
Not really, it's a case of being observant of trends you see. I've seen both the first film (out of choice) and the second (despite protesting). I noticed a trend - the first film was average at best, the second was dire at best.
From this we can deduce a formula :
Fast and Furious film + 1 = 50% worse than previous Fast and Furious film
Unless something spectacular happens and a film based solely on street racing, undertaken by mouthy american teenagers, manages to have a decent plot, even half decent acting, I predict this trend will continue.
Let's face it, these films are made for kids and those with incredibly short attention spans. No-one who has an ounce of creative thought and a recollection of decent car chases from good films, would consider these films to be anything less than a waste of 90 minutes.
From this we can deduce a formula :
Fast and Furious film + 1 = 50% worse than previous Fast and Furious film
Unless something spectacular happens and a film based solely on street racing, undertaken by mouthy american teenagers, manages to have a decent plot, even half decent acting, I predict this trend will continue.
Let's face it, these films are made for kids and those with incredibly short attention spans. No-one who has an ounce of creative thought and a recollection of decent car chases from good films, would consider these films to be anything less than a waste of 90 minutes.
Not liking a film you've seen is one thing.
Saying you dislike a film that you haven't seen is silly.
Saying that you won't like a film which hasn't even been made yet is... well... (be polite, Wooks)... unfathomable.
Saying you dislike a film that you haven't seen is silly.
Saying that you won't like a film which hasn't even been made yet is... well... (be polite, Wooks)... unfathomable.
See below
How can you not like Fast and Furious?
I tried to watch The Fast and The Furious once, but I just couldn't sit through it. Awful, awful movie. Even going "neeeee ooooow!" every time the cars went by didn't help.
Page: