Movie Reaction: Hobbs & Shaw

Formula: The Fate of the Furious - The Fast and The Furious

I try to avoid the term "critic proof" for a few reasons. For one, as long as I'm writing reviews on a small, personal blog, calling myself a critic seems a bit presumptuous. Also, "critic proof" is a term used to shut down conversation, not invite it. And, it's a silly term in the way people use it. Most people think it's referring to the ceiling, but it's actually referring to the floor in the box office. Movies that tend to have the best multipliers after their release, which indicates audience approval more than "hype" going in, are the movies that critics give some sort of green light too. Being "critic proof" tends to mean that the opening weekend numbers won't be affected no matter how poor the reviews are.

Hobbs & Shaw, for a lack of a better phrase, is the ideal critic proof movie. You see, for as much as people like to bemoan what the Fast and Furious franchise means for studio filmmaking, critics have mostly accepted the movies for what they are. After panning the early movies, since Fast Five, the movies have all rated in the 66-81% range on Rotten Tomatoes. That's the critical equivalent of "See what you want. This isn't great, but you could do a lot worse". By being a spin-off, not a sequel, Hobbs & Shaw can use the Fast & Furious clout and disown whatever parts it wants by claiming that it is its own thing.

By the way, I'd like to remind you of my own stance on the franchise before getting into my thoughts on this movie. I was one of the more ardent haters of The Fast and the Furious when it came out. It's pretty incredible how much they've managed to win my favor over the last 18 years by being shameless and ambitious action movies. I also used to hate The Rock (a leftover from my WWE fandom days). I like him now too. So, against all the odds, I was actually looking forward to this movie a decent amount.

And, well, eh. So much for that.

Hobbs & Shaw simply isn't calibrated to anything I want. This kind of movie has a two part formula for success: Action + banter. I don't really need a believable story with genuine stakes. I just need good action and good banter. Surprisingly, I didn't care for either here.

Director Dave Leitch is one of the better action directors around. His work on John Wick and Atomic Blonde includes some of the best stunt work in the last few years. His talents are wasted in a movie like Hobbs & Shaw. Neither The Rock nor Jason Statham have made their names on precision. They are big and boisterous as action stars. The same with Idris Elba as the villain or Vanessa Kirby as the named female character. Leitch over relies on slow motion, trying to emphasize the power of punches, rather than staging good set pieces. Assorted fights and car chases never feel grounded. The less real an action feels, the less awe I feel seeing it happen on the screen. I don't need the action to be believable. I do need it to be impressive.

The big failure of the movie is the banter. Johnson and Statham bickering as part of a B-plot in a Fast and Furious movie is a pure delight. It can't sustain an entire movie though. Their insults never got past the same 2 or 3 jokes about body size, dick measuring, or intelligence. The fun of a partnership like this is that they are supposed to be childishly fighting in the middle of being very proficient at their jobs. Instead, the movie just makes them superhuman and lucky, which makes their squabbling less interesting. Vanessa Kirby is good in everything, but she doesn't have room to add much to this movie. Mostly, she's either being argued about by Hobbs and Shaw or rolling her eyes at whatever Hobbs and Shaw are doing. She is still a great addition though, because, as I said, Vanessa Kirby is good in everything. Idris Elba isn't charming or interesting as the villain. The movie seems to be aware that the pieces don't work and tries to fix the balance with some cameos featuring more proven comedy talent. Those are very forced moments.

None of my issues with the movie are small ones. "Fixing" them would require a change in the entire ethos of the movie, so I just have to accept that they weren't trying to make the version of this movie that would appeal to me. It's a big, loud, and mostly fun movie. The stars give you what you want from them. The $200 million budget is spent on all the explosions and destruction that price tag would imply. There's a good faith effort to make Hobbs and Shaw a duo worth following for many movies. I just made the mistake of hoping for Mission: Impossible - Fallout when I should've expected Mission: Impossible II. Oh, and it's too long.

One Last Thought: I had all sorts of age problems with this movie. First of all, Jason Statham and Vanessa Kirby, playing brother and sister in this, are 21 years apart in age. I'd be able to forgive that if the movie didn't repeatedly cut back to them as children who look virtually the same age. Yeah, Vanessa Kirby can pass for a little older* but not two decades. Good god, Hollywood. Be better. I'm also disappointed by the movie pushing Johnson and Kirby as an item. A refreshing trend I'd noticed in a lot of Johnson's movies was how age-appropriate his love interests have been (Neve Campbell in Skyscraper - 1 year age difference; Naomie Harris in Rampage - 4 years; Carla Gugino in San Andreas - actually a year older than Johnson). The 16 years between him and Kirby is more of a typical Hollywood move.

*This is referring to her poise, not saying that she looks old. I don't want to say anything that could be construed as negative about Vanessa Kirby.

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend