In Theaters Aug 22 2008 @ 07:50 am
REVIEW: Death Race
Directed By: Paul W. S. Anderson
Written By: Paul W. S. Anderson
Starring: Jason Statham, Joan Allen, Tyrese Gibson, Ian McShane, Jacob Vargas
Running Time: 105 minutes
Rated R for strong violence and language
Director Paul W. S. Anderson (Resident Evil, Alien Vs. Predator) probably continues to work because he can either 1) bring movies in under budget, 2) on schedule, or 3) with as little fuss as possible (i.e., no arguments with studio execs over his ‘vision’). The man is a glorified Assistant Director, and the nicest thing that can be said about Death Race is that it isn’t shameful. Given Anderson’s oeuvre (if he even warrants the use of that word), that’s actually quite the compliment.
Armored semi-trucks with flamethrowers. You either dig it or you don\'t.
An “in name only” remake of the ‘75 Roger Corman schlock-fest Death Race 2000 , Anderson’s version stars Jason Statham as a Nascar driver framed for his wife’s murder so a ratings hungry prison warden (Joan Allen, cashin’ a paycheck) can force him to drive in her nationally televised pay-per-view racing sensation, where expendable inmates drive souped-up armor-plated muscle cars in a race to the (drumroll please)…death. When the cars speed over various markers embedded in the racetrack, their gatling guns/rocket launchers/oil slicks are ‘powered up,’ allowing them to splatter (literally) the competition. I fully expected to see red shells and banana peels by the film’s end, since Anderson is conspicuously channeling Mario Kart ($20 says his on-set trailer was outfitted with a Wii).
Paul Verhoeven would have been a better choice to direct, as Death Race’s take on the gore hungry reality TV audience of the future ($250 gets you access to 100 different camera angles from the comfort of your living room!) would have found a better home in the Dutch German director’s satirical hands (see RoboCop and Starship Troopers for proof), but Anderson doesn’t embarrass himself, delivering on everything that the high concept promises. Toss in a supporting cast that has entirely too much fun with lines like “It’s kill or be killed” (wise crackin’ grease monkeys Ian McShane and Jacob Vargas stand out in particular), and you have an unashamed B-movie that is pure pleasure in the guilty sense.
I certainly won’t draw my sword in Death Race’s defense, but 5 years from now, if it’s taking up space on some basic cable channel’s afternoon matinée, I’ll certainly wile away a lazy Saturday with it. Death Race can happily join The Running Man, Total Recall, and Tremors in that hallowed pantheon of B-movie howlers, and for a director like Paul W. S. Anderson, that’s nothing to be ashamed of.
on Aug 22 2008 @ 8:42 am 1. Frank Gallo said …
I did like Running Man and Totall Recall, but I haven’t seen this just yet. Good review.
on Aug 22 2008 @ 9:16 am 2. Joe said …
Death Race! Now this is my kind of movie. I would say I do agree that Verhoeven would have been a much better choice to direct though.
on Aug 22 2008 @ 9:43 am 3. Haiku Girl said …
sigh… I will love this film. Yet isn’t this in concept closer to a remake of Runningman, than Death Race.
Mario Kart… LOL
on Aug 22 2008 @ 9:54 am 4. Luke Harrington said …
It’s basically a mash-up of The Running Man and Mario Kart, yes. But don’t you love the original? Isn’t this like sacrilege to you?
on Aug 22 2008 @ 12:12 pm 5. Frank Aida said …
…I may be seeing this tomorrow. I see it is in Edgewater….good review..
on Aug 22 2008 @ 1:04 pm 6. Lou A. said …
It’s a relief to know that this isn’t anything like “Death Race 2000.”
on Aug 22 2008 @ 1:28 pm 7. Evan Derrick said …
It’s nothing like the original, other than a few of the names are the same. Haiku Girl is right - this is more like The Running Man with cars, rather than Death Race 2000.
on Aug 22 2008 @ 2:16 pm 8. Maurice said …
At the end of every year I have a tradition. I look through the listing for the local AMC google-plex and pick the worst film showing. Thus, on December 30, I am happily snacking on candy and sending off the old year with an abysmal film salute and a burp. What I have noticed in years past is that it is becoming easier and easier to find a really bad film to see. That bothers me a bit, more than a bit at times. I prefer the flow of bad films be like my cash flow.
Is there a reason for this? I have wondered, is Hollywood a casino where film selection is just a crap shoot? It almost seems that, like the Bellagio, Hollywood feels that there will be losses but the house wins in the end. Unless, of course, you’re Harvey Weinstein and you just bet the house on the house. So, countless films that will go from the theatre to the ninety-nine cent bin at your local Wal-mart or straight to DVD are released annually. Trying to endure this onslaught is akin to Ralphie Parker’s entire third grade class peppering you with snowballs at lunch period. Which brings me to this: Are movies getting worse?
Between test audiences, focus groups and exit groups, today’s films are more intently scrutinized than a George Bush bowel movement. Hey! Here’s a fun poll you can take right now: How many times have you stood in front of a movie’s marquee board and tried to decide which movie sucked the least? Kinda hard to pull the pin on that grenade sometimes, eh? Which can be a problem, even for an expert such as me? The worst date I ever went on was with the girl of my dreams and the only film I could find that looked remotely entertaining was “Car Wash.” I figured “Hey, Richard Pryor and George Carlin are in this film. How bad can it be?” Well, by the time the scene of the fat loser fondling the hooker’s breast rolled around, I knew exactly how bad it was. (I later married a woman who didn’t think the 3 Stooges are funny but that’s a tale for another column. Yes. I did divorce her.)
You know, the whole movie experience is starting to turn on me like a badger whose foot I am standing on. Where once it merely involved purchasing a ticket and sitting down, there are now more twists and turns than a drawing by M. C. Escher. Now days, popcorn bags are bigger than the screens, the sound system is louder than the colicky baby of Lou Costello and Bjork and no one has yet to put a condom on that hot dog. And, by the way, what’s with the dancing candy, huh? If the candy can dance, and for that matter, move around, why should I be inconvenienced? It should casually wander from the snack bar, down the isle and meet me at my seat.
Leaving a film is just as bad as they are glutted with marketing ploys. Cripes, they hit you with so many movie related items to buy it’s like a booth outside a Kiss concert. I’m in the lobby buying posters, t-shirts, videos, DVDs, coffee mugs, bendable Wilem Dafoe action figures and books. The only thing I am not buying is the plot. I saw “Iron Man” and loved it. Great dialog, good FX and proper pacing by the director. But by the time it hit movie houses, the plot had been changed more times than a litter box at a cat farm. Scripts these days get passed around more than a goat skin flask at a Blue Oyster Cult concert. They are subject to more second hand guessing than schizophrenic’s week on Jeopardy. Sometimes it’s good but just keep it a secret will you?
Hollywood’s answer to this has changed over the years. Whereas Thallberg looked for ways to make a film better with what was at hand, now days the answer is to simply throw more money at any problem a film may have. Scripts get more rewrites, actors recast and directors replaced. Rather than write a decent dialog for a film, just spend a couple million more and get whatever Smith-DiCaprio-Lebouf-Ford-Cruise-justoutofrehab-faceonthecoverofeverymagazine-soldoutforbucks-flavorofthemonth to star in this turd and let them spout crap out while bouncing of the hood of a car or swinging from a rope. And while we’re at it, let’s Spielberg the whole thing up so it looks nice. Don’t leave it looking like your dorm room after you sponsored an “Animal House” frat party on three day weekend.
I saw the demise of small, independent, quality films in 1999. “The Blair Witch” project was released and totally destroyed independent films for the next thousand years. It had a budget around $40,000.00 and grossed over 100 million. It was a terrific film and well received, plus it had an interesting gimmick and is arguably the best independent film ever (I vote for “Clerks”). Now, Hollywood is frantically trying to duplicate that success by making scads of small budget films. For 100 million each. Like I said earlier, they do throw money as a solution. Unfortunately, it’s all rolled together in one big ball that crushes all in its path. You know, like Rosanne Barr.
Look, we are always going to have bad films. That’s a gummier. People like me will see the bad ones, either at theatres or on DVD. My issue is why make them at all? Why roll the dice and make “Beastmaster 3” when you know “Beastmaster 2” is a clunker? Is there that much money out there that folks are excited to spend on any movie? Maybe, like when I was growing up, bad films will be a fun thing to do and drive-ins and grindhouse will be again in vogue. Maybe someone will make a small film about a guy who’s losing his job and has to eat French fried “pertaters” and he and his family are trying to get a little girl to a beauty pageant and he has a stroke and can only communicate to his Robin Williams shrink with one eye and his wife will have to read him the story of his life every day so he won’t forget that he came to America with his brother from Iran and they……
Sorry. I lost my track there. This was an okay movie that took its title from a so so movie. I liked one but not the other and will take that secret to my grave. Thanks for another great review. I really enjoyed it.
on Aug 25 2008 @ 1:19 pm 9. Haiku Girl said …
@Luke.
Yes I love… no, Adore Deathrace2000. I watch it all the time. Il ove to come home and dim the lights, light a few candles and then rub the dvd case all over my…
never mind.
seeing it sometime this week, so I can podcast about it maybe this weekend.
on Oct 22 2008 @ 6:48 am 10. Oraijon said …
Looks like a whole lot of fun to watch, so will be doing that somewhere this week
But uhm…. Paul Verhoeven is Dutch (born in Amsterdam, Netherlands), not German
on Oct 22 2008 @ 9:08 am 11. Evan Derrick said …
Correction has been noted, Oraijon. Thanks for visiting, and thanks for the heads up.