Whats the appeal?


This movie has been in the back of my mind for a long time. I often heard people mention this film in recent years despite it being over 20 years old. I recently got the first one free with a newspaper. The second one is often shown on TV where I live. However, I can't understand the appeal. It starts off great. Suspense driven music with a fantastic and very funny chase. Then it SINKS!!!. Nothing happens. Boring dialogue and stupid incidents and next to no race! They showed some great cars but never made full use of them. Instead of employing so many stars it should have invested in a few car chases and crashes. I understand the appeal of "Smokey and The Bandit" but the first and second canonball runs are as bad as the SATB sequels. As they have completely no structure they were obviously made quickly to use up a studio budget before the year was out.

reply

I think part of the appeal is that it had so many big stars at the time. Burt Reynolds, Roger Moore, and some older stars like Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., etc. I think you could tell they had fun making the movie together, as seen in the outtakes at the end.

reply

I think that you just have to take it for what it is mate. It's the story of the people in the race as opposed to showing the racing itself. It was never going to be a great film, just an entertaining comedy about illegal road racing across the states using a number of well known film stars.

It does actually have clever little bits in it throughout the film, most notably how Roger Moore has a different woman in the car every time you see him.

reply

I think the OP missed the point entirely.
This is a comedy with some action added.
This is NOT an action movie with some comedy added. (example Bad Boys movies)

reply

To be honest I wish it had been an action comedy. It starts off giving one that impression.

reply

[deleted]

Not that any of these kinds of movies have THAT much appeal, but I got nothing out of 'Smokey and the Bandit' that blatantly fetishises crime and criminals (and beer).

This movie has similar themes, but does it in a more charming and 1980s-atmospheric way, and has -actual- jokes and good humor, plus that Roger Moore-stuff and even Jackie Chan, plus, its plot keeps moving (once it starts), and has way more depth and complexity with all the different personalities and race driver teams and such, this one is actually much better in all possible ways in my opinion.

So I guess I am 100% opposite when it comes to these two movies. The deeper, more complex and layered + interesting movie wins in my opinion. Also, this movie has better-looking.. err.. 'equipment'.

The flat, plotless crime celebration with uglier 'beaver carriers' just doesn't do anything for me.

This movie has a lot of appeal, from the 1980s atmosphere, to humor, to all kinds of visual pleasures and all that drama and action with everyone trying to sabotage each other and win.

The only 'appealing' thing in 'TSatB' is the black Trans Am Firebird.

THIS movie, however, has _MANY_ very interesting and beautiful cars (including Trans Ams, by the way), so even that is not enough.

Honestly, I don't get what the appeal of 'TSatB' is supposed to be.

This movie is not a cinematic classic, either, but it has more atmosphere, better idea, better story, more depth, layers and interesting complexity to keep the viewer engaged. Not to mention better visuals, soundtrack, intro, and humor.

reply

I heard Burt Reynolds was paid $5 million for this film and at the time, it was the most ever for a movie star

reply

I absolutely LOVE this movie and it's sequel. They're hilarious!

reply