After five years of waiting, Belle Williams (Queen Latifah) is finally getting her hack license, and New York City had better watch out, because she makes the typical New York cabbie look like a driver's ed poster child. At the same time, Washburn (Jimmy Fallon), a bumbling New York City policeman, has just had his license taken away after totaling his third police car. When Washburn hears of a nearby bank robbery over his radio while walking a beat, he commandeers Belle's cab, and a new, extremely reckless partnership is born.
Surely, something bizarre is going on with the mainstream public opinion about this film as of this writing. While I can understand someone not thinking that Taxi is the best thing since sliced bread, it's unconscionable to give this film a 1 or 2. Anyone rating this film so low can't possibly be looking at the "whole picture", so to speak, or they must be watching with a ridiculous set of preconceptions/expectations.
When you rate a film, you have to consider the whole package, as an artwork. There's a lot more to it than whether you like the story or not, whether you thought it was funny or not, or whether you think it's realistic or not. For example, the cinematography in Taxi is incredible. Just the opening sequence alone, featuring "Belle" on a high speed, stunt-filled messenger bike ride through New York City makes the film worth a few points. The camera work and staging are stunning. There are all kinds of unique, subtle touches in the scene, like the shot of traffic where only the cabs are in color at first.
It seems that a lot of people don't like the film just because it's a remake of Gerard Pires' 1998 French film of the same name, or just because it's a Hollywood film, or just because they've changed the gender or dispositions of the characters, or because they're misunderstanding the idea of comedy and expecting realism. None of those facts make this an inherently bad film. The idea is that you're rating/reviewing a film, as an artwork, not making a political statement or rating cultural facts that have nothing to do with what's on the screen.
I disagree that fiction is necessarily making claims about how the actual world happens to be. Especially comedy cannot be just realistic and still be funny. To be comedy, something has to be absurd, exaggerated, made ironic, and so on. In general, I'm not looking for realism in films, even though Taxi has some very interesting and funny jabs at the real New York City. There are people like Belle and Washburn here, even if less comically exaggerated. There are cabbies who drive like Belle--I had the misfortune of riding home from the Newark airport with one who was going 100 mph (160 kph) while weaving in and out of traffic, often straddling two lanes. I've seen a number of people use Washburn's method of parallel parking (that's one of the reasons I pay for a garage instead).
A lot of people here live in converted warehouses, industrial spaces, and so on, often "illegally". Apartments are so expensive that this is often the only alternative. So it's not only funny and in character that Belle sleeps right next to her car, which she would rather work on in the middle of the night before she attends to her boyfriend, it's not that far removed from reality. If you did happen to be looking for realism, the film has plenty.
But Taxi is fiction, after all, and often cartoonish fiction at that. That's to be expected in much comedy. The opening bicycle ride isn't only amazing technically, it's funny _because_ it's supposed to be Queen Latifah on that bike! Jimmy Fallon's character was hilarious to me. He's a Clouseau-like bumbling nincompoop, but with a different kind of self-awareness that he's trying to veil with that special New York City "street tough" veneer. It perfectly skewers the public face that most people put on in the city. Latifah and Fallon complement each other in many ways. It was a pairing that I would have never thought of, but it is brilliant. There are a large number of scenes that will stand out in my mind for a long time.
And as good as Fallon and Latifah are, Ann Margaret, as Washburn's mother, nearly steals the scene every time she appears. She's a lovable drunk with an amicable, libertine outlook. Her apartment is a delight of tacky 1970s fashion, which brings up another exemplary technical aspect of the film--the production design.
But Taxi is also an exciting action/crime/thriller. The car chases often come close to those of another fantastic, unjustly underrated film--The Fast and The Furious (2001). The stunt driving is amazing. While the crime plot certainly isn't the focus of Taxi, it's more than just a throwaway device to propel our protagonists through their character development.
I'm not arguing that everyone should come away from Taxi believing that it's a 10 as I do. Tastes differ, and these characters, or these actors, in these kinds of situations with these personalities, as well as this kind of pacing, fancy camera work, etc., could be not quite to your taste. But the extremely low scores from some only show that those reviewers aren't taking their assumed role as film critics seriously (this is even true of some professionals--just read Roger Ebert's review of this film), and if they're not giving that much respect to the artform they're engaging with, it's difficult to see why anyone should give much respect or consideration to their views. To say that a film like Taxi is anywhere near the technical incompetence of a film like Back Woods (2001) or The Black (not Blair) Witch Project (2001), which is implied when you rate the film a 1 or 2, is beyond reproach.
Surely, something bizarre is going on with the mainstream public opinion about this film as of this writing. While I can understand someone not thinking that Taxi is the best thing since sliced bread, it's unconscionable to give this film a 1 or 2. Anyone rating this film so low can't possibly be looking at the "whole picture", so to speak, or they must be watching with a ridiculous set of preconceptions/expectations.
When you rate a film, you have to consider the whole package, as an artwork. There's a lot more to it than whether you like the story or not, whether you thought it was funny or not, or whether you think it's realistic or not. For example, the cinematography in Taxi is incredible. Just the opening sequence alone, featuring "Belle" on a high speed, stunt-filled messenger bike ride through New York City makes the film worth a few points. The camera work and staging are stunning. There are all kinds of unique, subtle touches in the scene, like the shot of traffic where only the cabs are in color at first.
It seems that a lot of people don't like the film just because it's a remake of Gerard Pires' 1998 French film of the same name, or just because it's a Hollywood film, or just because they've changed the gender or dispositions of the characters, or because they're misunderstanding the idea of comedy and expecting realism. None of those facts make this an inherently bad film. The idea is that you're rating/reviewing a film, as an artwork, not making a political statement or rating cultural facts that have nothing to do with what's on the screen.
I disagree that fiction is necessarily making claims about how the actual world happens to be. Especially comedy cannot be just realistic and still be funny. To be comedy, something has to be absurd, exaggerated, made ironic, and so on. In general, I'm not looking for realism in films, even though Taxi has some very interesting and funny jabs at the real New York City. There are people like Belle and Washburn here, even if less comically exaggerated. There are cabbies who drive like Belle--I had the misfortune of riding home from the Newark airport with one who was going 100 mph (160 kph) while weaving in and out of traffic, often straddling two lanes. I've seen a number of people use Washburn's method of parallel parking (that's one of the reasons I pay for a garage instead).
A lot of people here live in converted warehouses, industrial spaces, and so on, often "illegally". Apartments are so expensive that this is often the only alternative. So it's not only funny and in character that Belle sleeps right next to her car, which she would rather work on in the middle of the night before she attends to her boyfriend, it's not that far removed from reality. If you did happen to be looking for realism, the film has plenty.
But Taxi is fiction, after all, and often cartoonish fiction at that. That's to be expected in much comedy. The opening bicycle ride isn't only amazing technically, it's funny _because_ it's supposed to be Queen Latifah on that bike! Jimmy Fallon's character was hilarious to me. He's a Clouseau-like bumbling nincompoop, but with a different kind of self-awareness that he's trying to veil with that special New York City "street tough" veneer. It perfectly skewers the public face that most people put on in the city. Latifah and Fallon complement each other in many ways. It was a pairing that I would have never thought of, but it is brilliant. There are a large number of scenes that will stand out in my mind for a long time.
And as good as Fallon and Latifah are, Ann Margaret, as Washburn's mother, nearly steals the scene every time she appears. She's a lovable drunk with an amicable, libertine outlook. Her apartment is a delight of tacky 1970s fashion, which brings up another exemplary technical aspect of the film--the production design.
But Taxi is also an exciting action/crime/thriller. The car chases often come close to those of another fantastic, unjustly underrated film--The Fast and The Furious (2001). The stunt driving is amazing. While the crime plot certainly isn't the focus of Taxi, it's more than just a throwaway device to propel our protagonists through their character development.
I'm not arguing that everyone should come away from Taxi believing that it's a 10 as I do. Tastes differ, and these characters, or these actors, in these kinds of situations with these personalities, as well as this kind of pacing, fancy camera work, etc., could be not quite to your taste. But the extremely low scores from some only show that those reviewers aren't taking their assumed role as film critics seriously (this is even true of some professionals--just read Roger Ebert's review of this film), and if they're not giving that much respect to the artform they're engaging with, it's difficult to see why anyone should give much respect or consideration to their views. To say that a film like Taxi is anywhere near the technical incompetence of a film like Back Woods (2001) or The Black (not Blair) Witch Project (2001), which is implied when you rate the film a 1 or 2, is beyond reproach.