Develiker terrible... so disappointed.

Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

KaZenPhi It's interesting to revisit movies I've seen a lot as a child either on grainy VHS or on tiny TV sets in their full splendor on recent HD releases. For a fan of movies this is one of the best possible future dystopias. The landscape of action cinema has changed dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years. With the dominance of comic book movies there are a lot more movies with action in them but fewer films that I would actually call action movies, ie where action has a meaning, drives the plot and the emotional connection with the audience forward and has a palpable danger that keeps you on the edge of your seat. In a lot of big modern movies the action lacks weight, both physically and emotionally, a notable if rare exception being Mad Max Fury Road. Furthermore they fail to tell action with a keen sense of the visual language of cinema. The late eighties to mid nineties gave us a few classics that might not have been smart movies but were made in incredibly smart ways, like the first die hard, terminator 2 or speed. Despite being completely dissimilar they share a few key elements that make them stand the test of time. The most important element being rhythm. Much like a musical piece there's tension and relaxation and exciting action doesn't work without build-up and the investment of the audience. This also translates into the visuals as well. It is much more evident in the golden age of Hong Kong action in the eighties, where the fight movies can be registered as elaborately choreographed dance moves, but Hollywood action used to share this strength albeit done with different props. For people who only watch movies and have never worked in the medium itself this may sound strange or unbelievable but a movie constantly leads the attention of your eyes from one point to another, much like a stage magician, and composing an image, especially one in motion is a tough challenge. So even movies that noone would call art because of their banal content can be serious pieces of art if you ask me.Speaking of which the premise of Speed is simple and genius for a thriller (although not entirely original since it was already done in a similar fashion in the japanese movie "shinkansen" decades before) it's almost a parody. If you were to scribble out the set-pieces for someone who hasn't seen the movie it would sound like the most absurd trash imaginable, however the language or should I say magic of cinema makes it work and Jan DeBont sells it to you piece by piece, much like John McTiernan and James Cameron did in their prime. What surprised me most about Speed upon revisiting it after many years is how gorgeously it is shot. DeBont's main strength as a cinematographer is showing strongly and fortunately it's not just eye-candy as the bone and grisl of the action is captured perfectly. There was some serious thought put into how to tell this movie visually that I miss in a lot of modern blockbusters. Think of a Tony Scott movie but less ridiculous. To be fair though 1995 would see the rise of Michael Bay, a vulgar plagiarist without taste and flair where every shot is so over-engineered and polished as to be absolutely meaningless. I can see how a parallel universe Speed may have looked like under his direction and I shudder. Not everything is shiny in retroland.As for the few negatives: Reeves (whom I honestly love as an actor) is a bit wooden, Dennis Hopper is hamming it up like crazy and despite the great presentation the finale goes a bit too much over the top and thus loses a lot of the believability that made the rest of the movie so exciting. A smaller scale would have been preferable here. Earlier in the film when we see Reeves just centimeters above the asphalt at breakneck speed we get a better sense of danger than can be achieved with the special effects shots of the ending.Still, a simple and entertaining movie that doesn't insult your intelligence, with relateable characters with enough nuance that they feel like people. Speed doesn't pretend to have a deep plot and lofty messages, it's just there to take you on a ride - and after being inundated with comic book movies good and bad the last ten years that simplicity and honesty is very refreshing.

Pjtaylor-96-138044 'Speed (1994)' gets straight into the action and barely lets its foot off the gas for a second, barrelling straight ahead with full force and gusto without stopping for a moment to let you catch your breath. It's an extremely fun, exciting and thrilling adventure that's wonderfully tangible and is sure to keep you on the edge-of-your-seat throughout. Sure, the third act seems out of place and like an unnecessary repeat of what came before, the flick is occasionally a little too cheesy for its own good, Dennis Hopper sometimes gets a bit too hammy and Keanu Reaves, ever so often, shows just how far his acting talent has come since 1994, but this is an incredibly entertaining, wholly engaging and breathlessly exciting action-triller that takes its relatively simple, slightly 'Die Hard (1988)' like premise and does wonders with it. It really is a fantastic, frenetic blast throughout; certainly one of the best pictures of its kind. 8/10

awp-25938 Speed is a fast paced, action packed movie that focuses all its attention on action and little to a logical story and dialogue sequence. There was little time for me to take a break from the high-tension action scenes because there could be (and was) another explosion or crash around every corner. Jack even made driving interesting as he launched his Crown Victoria into the air right at the beginning of the movie. Even though this was an original twist on an action film, the next scene was always predictable. Will the passengers survive? Will they make the jump? Will they blow up? These were easy questions to answer. The only unanswered questions I had were "Why don't they just..." questions such as "Why don't they just give him the damn money?" The dialogue was also a major downside to this film. From the first time every character talked, you could tell how they were going to act for the rest of the movie. Jack was going to be the heroic and smart lead, the bus driver was going to be too kind for his own good, Howard was going to be the evil psychopath, Annie was going to be the strong and assertive woman, and so on. Speed was also full of cheesy one-liners and flirting between the two main protagonists and didn't require much thought. However, that could be why this movie was so successful and can always be found while scrolling through channels. If you are coming home from a hard day's work and want to unwind, this may be the movie for you. Despite all the criticism, the high budget lead to some very realistic and believable special effects, good sets, and good camera work, even for today's standards. And it didn't have much of the textbook corny acting as seen in other action films around that time. Overall, if you haven't seen this it can be an interesting watch, but don't expect much from this 90's action film.

adonis98-743-186503 A young cop must prevent a bomb exploding aboard a city bus by keeping its speed above 50 mph. It's easy to see why and how Speed 2 wen't downhill with it's dumb acting and over the top action now the Original Speed is amazing from start to finish the acting is really good and the characters are likable and the action is handled very well done especially with the long chase scenes or the suspense that gets thrown in your face every 2 seconds just like The Matrix and Point Break Keanu Reeves gives a nice performance but also it's another great movie in his acting career. Speed is without a doubt a non stop action packed thriller that works perfectly fine!!