Review of 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) by Cameron J — 21 Nov 2013

"2 Fast 2 Furious and 2 Stupid to Believe"! Oh no, wait, that was just the first one, whereas this follow-up, regardless of what the critics say for some reason, is decidedly better than it's garbage predecessor by... um, I suppose a fair margin. Yeah, this is still mighty mediocre, yet it's better than the infuriating "The Fast and the Furious", even though they have the guts to cut out Vin Diesel, who was pretty much the only consistently good thing out of the previous film. Well, in all fairness, he doesn't really have a place here, because it's pretty much impossible to figure out what race Diesel is, so they didn't want to take any chances with him if they were going to bring this "story" back blacker than ever... while still keeping someone as white as Paul Walker around (As if it's not ridiculous enough that they made Walker the main character in the last film over Diesel, they actually dismissed Diesel and kept Walker in the lead position; yes, this series is that dumb), so much so that they went out and got one of the definitive "black people problem" directors of the '90s. I'd say it's a crying shame that John Singleton is following up hard-hitting dramas like "Boyz n the Hood", "Higher Learning", "Rosewood" and "Baby Boy" with something like this, but even though some of those films were actually pretty good, Singleton has never known subtlety (2000's "Shaft"! Can ya dig it?), probably because he makes films for black people. I mean no offense, folks, but man, no one knows unsubtle filmmaking quite like black people, and with this sequel being, as I said, blacker than ever, you'd figure that all subtlety would be out of the window entirely, but quite frankly, after "The Fast and the Furious", subtlety can go up. Well, sure enough, this film isn't quite as stupid as its predecessor, but it is still kind of dumb, although it isn't without some strengths, or at least isn't as flawed as its predecessor.

Now, I'm not saying that this film has only so many strengths going for it, but one of the best things to say about it really is that it's at least better than its really bad predecessor, and yet, it's still worth mentioning that there are a couple of glaring missteps in "The Fast and the Furious" that are relatively improved this time around, even when it comes to the soundtrack, which is still terrible, though not as bombastic as the first one's, which was grating to the point of reflecting a stupidity that was also emphasized by choppy editing and monotonously overbearing atmosphere, both of which remain present, but as prominent as they were in "The Fast and the Furious". The film is even more well-shot, or at least seems to be, considering that the tastes in location have certainly been flavored up this time around, presenting sets so dynamic and colorful that they all but immerse you into this film's environment, which isn't the only lavish element on the screen, seeing as how even the vehicles are slick and creatively designed enough to be genuinely impressive on an aesthetic level, as well as thrilling when thrown into action. Needless to say, the racing sequences that have made this messy series so iconic are still too underused to the fill the quota for entertainment value needed to compensate for mediocrity, yet the action is still both more recurring than the predecessor's action, and just as impressive as they were in "The Fast and the Furious", utilizing immersively dynamic camera angles and stylish, if somewhat frantic editing to thoroughly thrill. The tense, entertaining action sequences in this film mark heights in entertainment value, which is pretty prominent, at least about as much as it can be without saving the final product as decent, and therefore more prominent than it was in the exhausting predecessor, arguably because of more realized direction. Make no mistake, the directorial performance that John Singleton turns in isn't too much less misguided than David Cohen's for "The Fast and the Furious", but it is indeed more controlled, with a slightly less grating, if still somewhat overbearing atmosphere, as well as a substitution of the mean-hearted self-congratulatory feel that made the predecessor extra frustrating for a certain charm to ambition, augmented by a lively pacing and entertainment value that almost drives the final product to genuine decency. The film has its fair moments, a few moments where it's not much better than its disastrous predecessor, and plenty of moments where it falls so deeply into mediocrity that it borders on contempt, but on the whole, the final product generally leans about as close to decent as it does to disaster, and while that's not enough to save the film from mediocrity, it is enough for me to recommend it, lame-brain charm, thrilling action and all, a good bit more than I would recommend "The Fast and the Furious". Of course, when it's all said and done, by its own right, this effort doesn't quite make it decent, falling short under the weight of "story"telling that is still misguided, not unlike the acting.

The performances aren't quite as bad as those found within the often very poorly-acted predecessor to this film, with such major cast members as Tyrese Gibson and Cole Hauser being fairly charismatic and effective in their distinguished roles, though not quite as show-stealing as Vin Diesel, and therefore all that adequate of a distraction from other, more lame performances, some of which are just downright bad, with Paul Walker once again slipping not too deeply into the bad department of the cast, but still being an uneven, unconvincing and all around ineffective lead. Again, there are some decent beats here and there throughout this cast, but in a lot of ways, some of the most important performances fall-flat, thus, hardly any performer can carry his or her character, let alone the story, which isn't to say it can possibly be easy to bring life to the characters, let alone story. Thinly drawn, if not unlikable characters only stand among the many components to an unbuyable and dense narrative, whose minimalism was always to water down substance's bite, and therefore leave you with not much to get out of the story other than frustration over questionability, made all the more glaring by a messy script's interpretation of messy subject matter. Even development is lacking in Michael Brandt's and Derek Haas' misguided screenplay, which features superficial characterization and undercooked story structuring, and tops it all off with dumb dialogue and set pieces, some of which really bloat storytelling to a repetitious, if not rather monotonous point. The film wanders quite a bit, and when it does eventually shift, it jars to its next point, being not as incoherent as it could have been, but still seriously uneven, to where it becomes difficult to figure out just where this narrative is heading, which is saying quite a bit, considering that there is at least one consistent attribute to storytelling: predictability, spawned from genericism. The film, against my fears, doesn't quite tread plot ground that is much too similar to the ground that characterized the predecessor, which was itself near-embarrassingly formulaic, yet this effort pretty much makes up for not being too much like its predecessor by treading the basic path of another narrative type, continuing to hit trope, after trope, after trope, and reflect laziness about as much as other writing issues, as opposed to John Singleton's direction, which feels more ambitious than anything, to the point of crafting some degree of charm, but is just as emphatic of the shortcomings that prevent the final product from being close to what Singleton wants it to be. I doubt that Singleton takes this project nearly as seriously as something like "Boyz n the Hood" and "Rosewood", both of which still suffered from some bombastic limitations to Singleton's realization as a storyteller, but every inspired moment is met by more than a few moments in Singleton's direction that falls flat, until it's all but impossible to miss the other areas in which this effort falls flat, of which there are enough for the final product to fall through its potential decency and stick firmly into mediocrity.

When gas has run dry yet again, some improvements on elements from the previous film, lavish locations and vehicle designs, thrilling action sequences, and a certain charm to ambitious direction leave the final product to at least sputter out short of decency, which is ultimately lost in the flood of mediocre acting, lame-brain dialogue and set pieces, unevenness and under-assured direction that, behind a trite and disengagingly dumb story concept, drown "2 Fast 2 Furious" out as an almost fair, but ultimately mediocre misfire of a still admittedly superior sequel.

2.25/5 - Mediocre.