I don't watch Fast and Furious movies. What I know about them comes from when I watched the first couple entries and a whole host of Cinema Sins recaps. Fast and Furious franchise is formulaic, braindead entertainment cobbled up in minimum time for maximum profit. Alternatively, the franchise could just be called "My Little Gearbox: Shifting Gears is Magic". So, I'd never willingly pay to see a Fast and Furious movie, but a spinoff? Now that's an interesting proposition.
The movie runs for 2h17m and features Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), two fixtures shown squabbling in a Cinema Sins recap for The Fate of the Furious (2017). It appears their relationship was simply plucked out of Fast and Furious movies and used to form a standalone movie. Fair enough, let's see what it's got.
The first 100 minutes of the movie are truly amazing, reminding me of 90s era movies with action stars like Stallone, Schwarzenegger and co. The pacing is brisk, the dialog hilarious and there's near-constant action. Every character gets to have a character arc, which is a really welcome surprise. The very title of the movie implies duality, and we actually get it – Hobbs is a brute and Shaw a sophisticated spy. There's a formidable villain, who describes himself as "black Superman", a fairly accurate assessment, and the climax fight is everything you could wish for, except that the movie keeps going.
There's a third character as well, she's the woman shown in the trailer as fleeing from danger. She finds herself between the two and they have to set aside their differences to help her and defeat the villain. I expected her to be a typical embodiment of "damsel in distress" trope but she's actually quite capable and helps move the story on her own. I think the movie got the balance between a vulnerable girl and an unrealistic battle fembot pretty good.
One niggle I had is that the movie shows no blood or open wounds, despite tons of shooting; this was most likely because it was meant to be PG-13, a label intended to indicate suitable movie material for teenagers and up. Movies scientifically aim for PG-13 with strategic use of swears but avoid anything that might give the movie an R rating, such as blood or naked bodies, again because it supposedly cuts off the lucrative teenager market. You can look back at Commando (1985) or Demolition Man (1993) – these movies were rated R and it shows in their unrestrained violence and devil-may-care attitude towards profanity, with the latter even making it an in-movie joke.
Movies we watch in the 21st century are more and more the product of studio formulas in the vein of "let's put in 1-3 instances of swears but remove this scene of a character bleeding so we get a better label" rather than artistic vision or just any guiding idea at all, which would neatly explain the entire X-Men movie franchise. This micromanagement of scenes makes movies seem less like organic beings and more like failed cloning experiments, almost letting you see through the poorly made stitches and into the flesh beneath. Once you know what's hidden from you, you just want to retch.
For example, in The Dark Knight (2008) there's a party scene where Bruce Wayne enters the building where a crowd is holding drinks. What's the problem? Nobody's drinking because holding alcohol is PG-13 but actually drinking it is R. The camera cuts back and forth and you can see plenty of people holding their glasses but all they do is gesture with them. A PG-13 movie world is hollow and sterile but generates more profit for the studios because it's suitably inoffensive so they'll just keep making them.
On the other hand, studios want to avoid PG and G ratings, which are for tweens and babies respectively, since those are seen as undesirable to teenagers. If you're watching a movie and the main characters suddenly have to visit a strip club, it was a scene specifically put in the movie to guarantee a PG-13 rating.
Just like I started talking about the movie but switched over to studio formulas meant to churn out movies designed for maximum profit, the movie itself gives way to the final ~37 minutes that are completely braindead and feel like a grafted-on sequence of scenes from the Fast and Furious franchise. At one point, our heroes go over to Samoan Islands to prepare a defense and emphasize the importance of family. I have no idea why Fast and Furious movies have such a hard-on for the family, but there it is: "brother" this, "brother" that and "family is all that matters" ad nauseam. Luke Hobbs says "brother" about 50 times in this final part of the movie. Well, is the ending any good? In short – no.
The island sequence is so poorly thought out, with stupid character decisions and continuity errors, that it makes me think this was literally two movies spliced together, with someone taking a discarded Fast and Furious ending and using it in a standalone Hobbs and Shaw movie because nobody's watching Fast and Furious anymore so now audiences have to be tricked into seeing one. It feels as if the ending was a dare to see how many mistakes can be crammed into a movie and still have the audience watch it through.
For example, the fight begins at dawn, continues at day and ends at sunset. Maybe it really lasted the entire day? Nope, the girl wears a timer, showing that it's been only 30 minutes since the attack started. Worse yet, the weather abruptly changes from bright, sunny day to hurricane conditions within that timespan. I could dedicate another 5,000 words to pointing out all the flaws in this final part of the movie, but that wouldn't help or hinder the first part of the movie. Let it be known that this final part makes negative sense and we'll leave it at that.
How come I rated Hobbs and Shaw (2019) higher than Avengers Endgame (2019)? I consider Hobbs and Shaw (2019), meaning the first part of the movie that can genuinely be called that, a masterfully executed movie, albeit PG-13. Everything is so well put together and immersive, save one or two scenes where Hobbs shows superhuman strength and Shaw has reflexes of a Formula 1 driver. Despite its flaws, the first part does so many things right.
In contrast, Avengers Endgame (2019) shows the signs of a massive movie that's been tinkered with until it became a mess. I wouldn't go back to watch Avengers Endgame (2019); I'd go back for Hobbs and Shaw (2019), but only until they go to the wretched island to shift gears and pull down a helicopter with bare hands.
Angry Joe review of this movie also mentioned that the villain rides a Transformer motorbike, which I realized is sort of true. In a sense, you can think of this movie as a way to lure us into watching Transformers and F&F movies. As long as you stop watching by the visit to the Samoan Islands, you're fine.