Watch Speed
Watch Speed movie
- IMDB rating: 7.20
- IMDB votes: 82
- Release Date: 1994
StumbleUpon
Del.icio.us
FavoritesMore information :
- Bomber terrorist's elevator plan backfires, so he rigs a bomb to a LA city bus. The stipulation is: once armed, the bus must stay above 50 mph to keep from exploding. Also if LAPD Officer tries to unload any passengers off, Payne will detonate it. Joe Morton co-stars as Jack's superior, and Jeff Daniels supports Jack helping him try to defuse the bomb. Written by Kris Hopson
- tags: Speed, Bomber, terrorist's, elevator, plan, backfires, rigs, bomb, city, stipulation, once, armed, must, stay, above, keep, from, exploding, Also, LAPD, Officer, tries, unload, passengers, Payne, will, detonate, Morton, co-stars, Jack's, superior, Jeff, Daniels, supports, Jack, helping, defuse, Written, Kris, Hopson
Added: 9 February 2008
Vote: 1
Appalling film about a bomb on a bus
Appalling this is possibly one of the worst movies ever made. It looksvery aesthetically pleasing but is absolutely woeful in content andcompletely predictable. Not that I wish to criticise the talents ofDennis Hopper, who is a good actor and his casting was pretty good, butas a movie it is woodenly acted and not my bag. I think that KeanuReeves more successful outings in Chain Reaction and The Devil'sAdvocate in a way that enables the viewer to engage with the plot,without seeing what may be coming next. Speed fails to do this, atleast with any conviction in any context and although it looks cool,once you get about an hour or so into it, you suddenly realize that itis anything but. I was disappointed as for finally seeing this filmjust over a year ago after wanting to see it since it came out and satthere wanting to like it while I was watching it, but come the end Idecided that it wasn't for me.
User: DrSatanAdded: 17 April 2000
Vote: 4
Predictable, cliched, boring
I remember seeing this movie in 94' when it came out. I was bored as helland my only entertainment came from heckling the lame dialogue andpredicting the cliched plot twists. One thing I noticed was that many ofthe situations that occur in this film also occured in a mid 70's disasterspoof "The Big Big Bus". If a movie can be successfully parodied by amovie20 years its senior, its a damned cliched film.
Added: 25 May 1999
Vote: 3
Absolutely aweful.
It's movies like this that make me wonder about the state of our society.The jokes (if you want to call them that) were aimed directly at thecommonfourth-grader -- and I'm sorry to say that they hit their target withdeadlyaccuracy. The plot couldn't have been any more predictable. Pretty muchthroughout the entire movie all I wanted to see were the end credits. Iwould then be able to leave the theater (and this horrid excuse for afilm)long behind me.
Oh yeah, and one more thing: Buses are extremely massive entites and Fdoesequal MA.
Added: 4 April 2000
Vote: 3
Too many cliche's
They use their own plot up and cannot think of anything new during thefilm..I personaly think it should have been called...Busting Tires,Blowingup cars,And running out of road.The first time they said..."Jack,beware theroad isn't finished".was slightly okay,but they had to use it again and whenthey should've just ended.I must admit though,this movie is good for alaugh,that is exactly how stupid it is. Reeves did do a very good job and that is all I can say for it!..The movieis very dumb!And I am sad to say I wasted Two hours watching thismovie,instead I could have done my homework two weeks early. The script stunk!The actress stunk!..Okay they blew up cars...WHAT A WASTEOF MONEY!!!!!!!!...WOW...What a kick watching cars getting blown up..If youwonna see that..Just go see big foot or something!Anything is mostdeffinetly better than this movie..I'll use this on my kid."Son,do yourhomework or I will make you watch Speed"!That name...HMMMMM...deffinetly notspeed..they were only going 50!!!!!!they could've at least made it60..!..Watch this movie only if you want to see a bunch of cliche's..and nooriginialty!
User: tgtroundAdded: 14 July 2000
Vote: 2
You'll believe a bus can fly!
A ludicrously plotted and badly acted movie. Gives Dennis Hoppper anotherexcellent opportunity to play an over-acting psycho persona and was yetanother nail in the coffin of Jeff Daniels career.
Keanu Reeves has all the engaging screen presence of a highway sign - buthehas got a nice body :-)
Added: 14 April 2002
Vote: 2
Has weak moments but when they're on the bus it never falters for a second
Cops Jack and Harry successfully defuse a hostage situation leaving only thebomber himself dead. Later they are awarded but find the bomber is not sodead. In fact he has wired a city bus to explode and wants $3 million in 3hours. He tips off Jack where the bomb is however once the bus goes over 50mph the bomb arms, if it falls below 50 it then goes off. Jack findshimself on the bus with a civilian driver and a load of passengersdesperately avoiding obstacle to keep the bus moving while Harry tries tofind the bomber.
The big summer sleeper of it's year, the simple premise of this film meantit was easily the most talked about film – the cheapest marketing available! The film opens with a set piece around a lift-full of hostages. Thisintroduces us to the characters and sets up the motive for the next bit onthe bus. The bus is the majority of the film and when it gets going it isvery good. When the story has to explain things or develop character thecamera goes static and you can feel the dullness set in (e.g. in thebar-room after the award ceremony). However the action around the bus meansthat you never have time to draw breath – no matter how implausible itis.
Director Jan De Bont cut his teeth on Die Hard and knows how to do a tightaction movie – however his desire for more and more bangs lead to a 20minute conclusion which is not only forced but feels like it was tacked ontothe end of the bus movie. It is stretched and just copies the action on thebus in an attempt to get the same effect – it doesn't succeed. Instead theending leaves a bit of a sour taste after such a great movie – the last 2times I watched this on TV I just turned it off after the bus bit ended, theending really is that much of a let down.
Keanu Reeves makes the most of his role after Willis, Cruise, Tom Hanks,Depp and Stephen Baldwin all turned it down. He does the tough guy thingreally well and still manages to come across as a semi-real person. Likewise Sandra Bullock gets herself star status and number one slot onevery `100 sexist…' lists for months to come by getting the role of Annieafter Halle (this moment is so much bigger than me) Berry turned the roledown. Bullock manages to be sexy and realistic – it's only at the end whereshe turns into your average women needing saving. Daniels is good insupport, as is Spin City's Alan Ruck and the always reliable Joe Morton. Dennis Hopper is a very good bad guy – it's not quite Blue Velvet qualitybut he's very believable.
Overall the majority of this film is a real roller coaster that keeps thepressure up. However with the 20 minute ending De Bont shows he doesn'tknow when to stop and ruins things by going too far with the train climax. Sadly this lack of restraint also caused him to make the terrible Speed2.
Added: 20 August 2004
Vote: 2
Inane, Unreal, Incredible
I can't believe that this film is so highly rated. Stretches thedefinition of "looking the other way" to a new elasticity with the 20to 30 mph "50" mph bus speeds, and the most ludicrous jump of a vehicleI've ever seen in a "dramatic" film. Reeves cannot act, Bullock isgame, but cannot pull this travesty back from the brink. Dennis Hopperis fun to watch as usual, but again, I just can't get past the physicalimpossibilities presented as fact. And the last sequences with thebeheading/subway crash, etc....just plain silly.
Avert your gaze, spend your time more constructively, walk the dog,vacuum the car, anything, but don't waste your time on pap like this.
1 and 1/2* out of 4.
Added: 2 May 2002
Vote: 1
A film for all people from Tucson to see!
Bad one-liners, stupid characters, a crackpot bad-guy, Keanu Reeves, a paper thin plot, a ridiculous bridge jump scene.........WHAT A GREAT MOVIE! Sometimes, the ridiculousness of film outweighs the brilliance, and Speed proves such a theory. The entire movie was hillarious. How the heck could one take this film seriously! Granted, the action was great and everything, but it just felt like some bad, live-action japanimation cartoon on crack. Read the memorable quotes section on this page, and you'll instantly understand the profound idiocy placed into this film. Also, for any person from Tucson, this is a must see. (there's a bunch of University of Arizona references, mostly hillarious)
User: ino_martAdded: 8 September 2006
Vote: 6
Good for a laugh
I saw the movie and, as in many action movies, found it to be bad.
Sandra Bullock is driving the bus with a smile. I think in suchsituations nobody has a smile.
The plot is weak, most characters are weak, ...
The bus "flying" over the missing part of the road has been doneearlier (taxi). I can't imagine a bus can actually do this without anydamage.
On the airport the bus is driving over something that is on the ground.Strange as the runway should always be clean.
And why has Jack to fasten the metro train to let it be derailed? Isn'tit much easier to decrease the speed so it stops? I can't believe theydid not get hurt at all at the end of the movie.
Howard called a few times with a phone. Why didn't they track thatnumber the first/second time he called?
This movie is full of errors and mistakes. Many of them could have beenavoided.
Added: 2 October 2001
Vote: 4
Just when you though the tosh couldn't get any worse
Many words come to mind when describing this film. Implausible, contrived,dire, pointless.... but I digress. This is the film industry at it'sworst.Trying to put two eminently attractive people in leading roles into a filmwhose plot has more holes than all Arizona's golf courses. I mean, whatwasthe point? I ought to sue - "I maintain that the producers anddistributioncompany did willingly deprive me of two hours of my life which I couldhavemore usefully spent inspecting my navel.
Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock may indeed be cute but they hardly rankhighly in the acting stakes. Want better, try your local village Christmaspantomime. The characters are so wooden, I was picking out the splintersfordays afterwards. The plot, well what can we say about that? A terroristwhohijacks lifts (elevators to you). Planes - yes, ships - perhaps, maybe,taxis - no, lifts - er.... we are joking aren't we. Then a bus? c'monguys,hasn't credulity been stretched a little past breaking point here. Then weget a sequel imaginatively entitled, Speed 2 - Cruise Control. Oh dearieme,my sides are splitting at that one. Puulleez.
Added: 20 October 1999
Vote: 2
The King of cheese.
Not a great way of speaking but this film is really cheesy. It is justanother dumb action film but it does have a great amount of action forthoseinterested in these small minded explosives. The action is high and veryfast. The music score is also very good and was used in the trailer toBraveheart. I would say it is very good but not absolutley great. But it isbetter than Star Wars. I give it 5 out of 10
User: caelumpanacheAdded: 20 December 2001
Vote: 1
They need to go back to high school.
The movie failed to entertain. The acting failed to convey the sense ofurgency and fear that one would expect. The movie threw away the laws ofphysics a couple of times. Sometimes movies will change natural laws,thosemovies are called science fiction or fantasy, as speed was neither, itshould have stayed with realism.
User: dantex-1Added: 5 September 2006
Vote: 1
50 mph is ridiculous
I drive a transit city bus and i know that for a transit bus of thatage to be able to manage 50 mph is absolutely impossible for manyreasons. My company has a few buses that are 88-91 made and they tendto overheat and shut down if they stay on the highway long enough. Sodo some of the newer buses. And if you ever drive a bus, you'll knowthat making any sort of a turn, even with an extremely wide pivot, ishard at 30 mph, 50 is quite literally impossible, because the bus wouldroll over. We use the movie during training, to show new drivers whatsomeone that knows nothing about buses could come up with. And eventhough it's done only after a week of training, they know just howridiculous the movie is. It's still a great movie, even though now thatI know better, I can laugh at every single part of it.
User: dougdoepkeAdded: 5 May 2008
Vote: 1
If You Like Cartoons
After the first 30 minutes of non-stop action and hair-raising closecalls with little or no dialog-- about the time the super-charged busmade a death-defyimg leap across a freeway chasm-- I figured there hadto be a pause coming up. You know the old-fashioned type movie-makingwhen the audience gets a chance to catch its breath and anticipate theaction to come. Maybe even a few minutes of human interest. But thatpause never came. Then after the second 30 minutes of non-stop actionand hair-raising close calls-- about the time the bus blows up theairplane real good-- I figured the pause had to come. But no, it neverdid. Instead, there was another 30 minutes of non-stop action andhair-raising close calls, and about the time the subway began to get amind of its own, something really strange happened. I realized I hadgotten bored. Now you wouldn't think that with all that non-stop actionand hair-raising close calls, a viewer could actually get bored. But Iwas. Something, I think, about too much of one thing becoming firstfamiliar, then old, and finally tedious. Then when the non-stop actionand hair-raising close calls finally did come to a stop, as all thingsmust, I had my final revelation. What I had just sat through onlylooked like a real life movie. But it wasn't. Not really. Instead itwas only a cartoon version of non-stop action and hair-raisingclose-calls with human versions of those familiar characters theRoadrunner and Wylie Coyote. Unfortunately, the money I spent was notcartoon money.
User: genius2469Added: 15 June 2009
Vote: 1
Die Hard on a bus
This movie is a piece of crap for many reasons. The main reason is thatit is almost a blatant copy of a previously made movie. This is alsothe reason I didn't like The Taking of Pelham 123. It's too much likeDie Hard(which is a great movie). Putting the hostages in a bus or asubway train doesn't make it much different.
Personally, the acting was too over the top and ridiculous. It's not asbad as John Travolta's over-acted part in The Taking of Pelham 123.
This movie is more of a movie that I would rent from Blockbuster andmake fun of than watch for actual entertainment. Sure, this movie isbetter than some of this year's summer blockbusters.(X-Men Origins:Wolverine, Terminator: Salvation)
In the end, just try not to watch this movie if you can. If you likeit, shame on you for bad taste in cinema. Watch Die Hard, or TheGodfather, or Pulp Fiction. Those movies are entertaining, fun towatch, and just awesome.
Added: 8 November 1998
Vote: 6
What??
This movie was so idiotic! There were like 10,000 errors that you could seeby just watching it once. Why didn't Jack just slow down the subway enoughto stop it normally? Phuh! Stupid.
User: latherzapAdded: 5 March 2000
Vote: 3
Almost as bad as "Twister"
It has been five years since I saw this movie, so I really don't have muchspecific to say. I do remember that the bus was traveling at high speedsand yet to me the film felt like it was standing still. I got kind ofexcited when I noticed that one of the passengers was almost certainly"Cameron" from "Ferris Bueller's Day off", that was amusing. But asidefromthat surprise cameo and a couple of good Dennis Hopper lines, I was boredsilly.
User: Dr.JollyAdded: 13 July 1999
Vote: 2
A perfect example on how special effects have become more important than plot.
When I first saw Speed in the theaters, I thought it was average atbest. Then I saw it about every other day on cable and I've found thatthisit is even worse than I originally thought. The only good thing to comeoutof this movie is that it put Keanu Reeves on a top list of Hollywoodactorsand enabled him to do great movies like Devil's Advocate and The Matrix.This movie is totally based on the materialistic wants of today's youngaudience and completely ignored realistic plots or even a plot at allalongwith down-playing the abilities of Jeff Daniels and DennisHopper.I did a report in school on the 51 things in Speed that couldn'tpossibly happen in real life and in fact, the whole plot by Hopper isimpossible at the beginning. When Reeves receives that phone call, hecould've easily phoned the bus services in L.A. and had them call thevictimized bus before it reached 50 miles an hour. Even without all that,the fact that Reeves made halfway across L.A. in 10 or so minutes isbulls**t, just ask anyone who lives there.Reeves does ok, but shows nothing of what he's capable with in thefuture, which makes it even more surprising when he does those futuremovies. This movie is what made Sandra Bullock and why I don't know. She'snot gorgeous and she has little acting ability. Any cute girl with alittlewit could've played the part. Dennis Hopper has the best role in the movieand does as good as he can with the lousy script he has. Hopper remainsoneof the least used talents in Hollywood. Why is Jeff Daniels in this movie?Daniels was in thismovie for no reason accept to get his name in there. What a sad waste oftalent. None of the bus passengers show anything accept average abilitiesand when the bitchy lady dies halfway through, I feel bad because I'mhappyabout it.Thismovie has a few neat scenes and is ok to sit through the first time.Hopperand Reeves are enough to watch for a while, anyway. I give this movie a 3out of 10. It is probably the most overrated movie in the 1990's.
User: Boyo-2Added: 5 August 2002
Vote: 2
When action compensates for logic
A thriller must be logical all the way down the line. It has to be verywell-thought out from a writers standpoint.
If the early scenes are referenced later in the movie, they must be treatedlogically.
If peoples' lives are on the line, as an audience member you realize thattheir main purpose in the movie is to move that plot along, that they aredevices for the writer, not actually PEOPLE in the best possible sense. Inthis way, the movie got it fairly right. No one on that bus is anythingmore than a stereotyped stock character, taken from many an Irwin Allendisasterous background.
The villian should be colorful, have a variety of snide remarks with whichto arm himself against the hero, and have a bone to pick with humanity as awhole.
The hero should have at least one expression other than anger, and theleading lady, if there is room for one in the budget, should be asking theillogical questions most of the audience wants an answer to.
It should all add up at the end, it should be accountable to itself.
This is not that movie although it got some things right. Bullock was notyet a star so had little to lose by just being herself. Keanu is soone-note that he looks constipated. Casting Dennis Hopper as a villian isas original as casting Meg Ryan as a bagette-carrying New Yorker with alaptop and a mop-top haircut, who has a lot to give the right guy.
Unfortunately, Jeff Daniels, Glenn Plummer and Joe Morton, previouslythought to respect their craft, are along for the ride, too.
One question - how did the bus still run after the gas tank was punctured? Just curious. I have two dozen similar questions, but need an answer tothat one first. If that has a decent answer, then maybe its just me alonethat expects it all to make some sense. 3/10.
Added: 2 March 2008
Vote: 2
The most overrated action flick ever.
This movie blows, and for one very particular reason: the IncredibleLeaping Bus scene. At one point in the film, the characters in the bus-- unable to slow down or they'll be blown up -- are faced with thechoice of taking a road under construction, which might involve drivingon dirt or other unpaved grades, or taking a bridge that is missing asection and thereby involves certain death. They choose the bridge. Weare then treated to several seconds of tension as they approach thedropoff where they will obviously all be killed. Just as they approachthe gap in the bridge -- where there is no launch ramp, the bus willclearly plunge downward as soon as the pavement ends -- the businexplicably leaps into the air, not even waiting to reach the edge ofthe pavement. It then sails perhaps thirty yards as if the laws ofgravity have been suspended and lands pretty as you please on the otherend of the bridge.
As a viewer, you tell yourself "Oh, so magic is involved!" The movie isruined. There is no more suspense because clearly, whatever troublethey get into, they can just snap their fingers to get out of it.
The critics told us Speed was great, and then the audience was treatedto this garbage. So when Speed II came out, it scarcely mattered whatthe critics thought of it, nobody was going to bother to see it. Andthen the critics couldn't figure out why Speed II tanked.
