THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 (Blu-ray; Columbia/MGM)

Mike LoManaco

Studio: Columbia/MGM (Sony Pictures)
MPAA Rating: R
Disc/Transfer Information: 1080p High Definition; 2.40:1 Widescreen
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (tested at core DTS)
Director: Tony Scott
Starring Cast: Denzel Washington, John Travolta, Luis Guzman


NEW YORK CITY IS ABOUT TO BE TAKEN FOR A RIDE.



LoMANACO'S PLOT ANALYSIS:

I was originally going to simply cut and paste my theatrical review of this title, as it pretty much summarized the entire landscape of Tony Scott's risky remake, but after viewing the Blu-ray this evening once purchasing it on release day, I decided to start from scratch with the analysis. I understand we're living in the age of remakes, but Scott's decision to reimagine the crisp little Walter Matthau crime caper of the '70s was a real head scratcher to some film critics -- I mean, broken down succinctly, did The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three (the original's official title) really need to redone? Of course, the question can be begged, did any motion picture that has been redone and rebooted need to be? Yet, there was something more questionable about the reimagining of Pelham; as I said in the theatrical review, not many people outside of the metropolitan New York area, and who take subways and public transportation every day, would really understand the lure of this story, nor "get" the urgency behind the turbulent events. In other words, most would watch this and say, "okay...some crazy f!@!!@ers hijacked a New York City subway car and demanded money...okay...and they took, what, 10 or so hostages? And the mayor is panicking about this?" Of course, on paper, this scenario doesn't seem "important" enough to warrant a modern-day slam-bang remake. Yet, for all that was stacked against it, Scott's remake of this often-forgotten little caper gem worked. Plus, I said it in the theatrical review, and I'll say it again...is there a cinematic genre that the Scott brothers can't handle? Almost every one of the projects have been successful and entertaining -- from Crimson Tide, Gladiator, American Gangster and Man on Fire all the way up to Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

Filmed in Scott's typical frenzied, camera-shaking style that had many audiences reaching for bottles of aspirin in Man on Fire, the remake of Pelham keeps the basic formula of the first film with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, but makes tweaks for modernization and economic climate. Some of these are effective, while some just didn't satisfy -- the most notable being the differences between the two endings of the films. The remake's ending was completely unsatisfying compared to the original's, which had a very clever technique. But we're jumping ahead here; the original story had a small group of criminals that board a Bronx, New York-based subway train and hijack it to demand ransom. Walter Matthau played the subway operations manager in the first film, while Robert Shaw (Black Sunday, Jaws) was the cold-blooded leader of the hijackers. Scott's remake amps up the characterization here, with his old standby Denzel Washington taking Matthau's place as "Walter Garber" (a nod to Matthau's real first name), a seasoned New York Transit control operator who gets into a battle of wits and psychological standoffs with an over-the-top, rotten-to-the-core criminal played by John Travolta (who takes Shaw's role). Some of the same elements are used here, such as the hijackers donning some disguises as they take over the subway train; in supporting roles are Luis Guzman as one of the hijackers, hired by Travolta's "Ryder" character to drive the train they take (as he was an ex-Transit Authority motorman), and James Gandolfini as New York's mayor, plus John Turturro (Rounders, Brain Donors) as a NYC hostage negotiator. Unfortunately, Pelham was released theatrically around the time of Travolta's real-life son's death, and so his publicity for the title wasn't what you would call up to snuff, nor would we expect it to be. It was a very unfortunate time for the family.

But gone are the days of his polyester bellbottoms and pompadour haircuts as he dances at the 2001 Odyssey as Tony Manero -- Travolta gives an electrifying performance as the goateed, tattooed "Ryder" who seems as demented as he is determined to collect 10 million dollars from the city; at times, his performance dips into overkill, what with his shouting, screaming and off-the-wall banter complete with hysterical cursing and experlatives that really become excessive -- but it's a fun ride to watch. Travolta, Guzman and two other men board the Pelham train and immediately begin making their demands to Washington's Garber character over the radio -- 10 million dollars in one hour, or they begin killing hostages on the train. Making himself known to Garber as simply "Ryder," Travolta begins to get a psychologically linked affection for Garber that's quite disturbing; as Ryder begins to make sure his demands are taken seriously, and he gets more and more verbally abusive to Garber, Garber realizes he may be in over his head as far as negotiating with this lunatic.

Eventually, hostage negotiators are called in, lead by John Turturro, but when Turturro attempts to calm Travolta down and Washington is sent home by his superiors, Travolta loses his cool and shoots a passenger just because Turturro claimed Washington had gone home for the day, and was taken off the case. Travolta demands to talk to no one but Washington's Garber, and he gets called back into train operations just in the nick of time before the next hostage is shot. The two men enter into a psychological game of wits and cunning conversation, where Travolta attempts to juice information from Washington, some of it personal, while Washington tries to get Travolta to open up. Eventually, the mayor (James Gandolfini) is alerted of the situation, and joins the team at train operations. However, it isn't until one of the passengers, a kid named "G.O." (George) has his laptop fall to the floor when the hostages are forced down that his computer signal leads to a broadcast on the news when negotiators and cops can see what's going on in the train. Immediately, Guzman's character is identified as an ex-Transit worker-turned criminal, and some of Travolta's background is discovered as well.

Travolta's Ryder begins to taunt Gandolfini, until the mayor himself picks up the radio and begins speaking with the demented Ryder. Travolta offers him a deal after verbally abusing him as well, in which the mayor can come and take the place of all the hostages -- a seemingly publically positive move as it would save all these lives. When Gandolfini refuses on advice from Turturro and his team, Travolta rejoices in that he wasn't actually going to let him take the hostages' places -- another verbally lashing tirade comes from Travolta's mouth, calling the mayor everything in the book that counts as a "curse word."

Meanwhile, "Ryder"'s identity is eventually unmasked as a Wall Street white collar criminal that even the mayor somehow knew about; a conspiracy is unraveled here involving Travolta's real motives behind the train robbery, having to do with the stock market and gold prices -- somehow, based on what will happen to the market now that this hijacking has caused panic in New York, Ryder and his men will make an absolutely ridiculous amount of money, more than they're even asking for in the ransom. This was the weakest part of the script for Pelham, and something I criticized in the theatrical review -- I mean, the 10 million was enough to ask for; why this confusing subplot involving a stock market caper? It becomes apparent that the 10 million dollar ransom demand is almost a cover of sorts to get the stock market crash money -- but this was unnecessary, in my opinion.

The mayor agrees to the ransom demands, and the Brooklyn Federal Reserve is tapped by the NYPD for delivery to Travolta and his men, who have a subway car full of hostages (early on in the film, they dislocate the passenger car they're in from the remainder of the train, using the smaller car as the hostage vehicle) and whom are counting every second. Some of the film's most hectic sequences take place here, where the NYPD Dodge Charger carrying the bags of cash race up and down Manhattan streets, dodging obstacles and getting into some crashes along the way. One major crash takes place, whereby a giant moving truck of some sort t-bones the cop car, sending it turning over and smashed. As the deadline approaches, the motorcycle cops must rush the bags of cash to the delivery point. Scott keeps the action hectic here with these sequences, but they can indeed be jarring what with the fast-action, split-second kinetic camera shots that amplify the onscreen mayhem, in addition to the tension-heightening announcements on the bottom of the screen relaying the time left to the deadline (a la The Rock).

TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 REVIEW CONTINUED BELOW...

Mike LoManaco

TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 REVIEW CONTINUED...

As he did in the past, Travolta demands Washington bring the ransom money to him so they can meet face to face; through Travolta's random bellowing about Washington being a hero of some kind to him and his disdain for the city and what it's done to both of them, it's finally demanded upon Washington that he drive this subway car they're in (due to Luis Guzman's "incapacity" to do so at this point) to Travolta's getaway point. Being an ex-motorman, Washington complies, but ends up escaping through the tunnels of the subways when Travolta and his men eventually scatter to the escape pathways they planned on retreating to when they planned the caper. Apparently, there is a "secret tunnel" or passageway under the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York which affords this escape for the trio.

There's another element of the plot that I should mention; there seems to be bad blood of some kind between Washington's Garber character and his commanding officer at the train control center, and it involves an alleged bribe that Garber took when he was supposed to be looking at new trains as part of his job. Like Ryder's stock market subplot, this was a bit thick and waxy to get around, but Travolta ends up using it after he Googles Garber's name and learns all about the apparent bribe. Travolta's twisted character even goes so far as to demand Washington admit that he took this bribe, threatening to shoot the kid with the laptop, "G.O.," point-blank in the head if he doesn't. Washington, teary-eyed, complies, but we never know if this is true or not -- he's dead set on assuring Travolta that he didn't take this bribe and his charges aren't warranted, but under the threat of losing a hostage, he simply admits to the bribe.

The film's concluding frames have Washington chasing after Travolta single-handedly after Ryder and his men split up at the Waldorf and go separate ways; do Travolta's men escape with their halves of the loot? Does Washington catch up to Travolta, speeding away in a yellow NYC taxi over one of Manhattan's bridges, the future owner of ridiculous amounts of money based on this market crash? What happens in the final "standoff" between Washington's Garber and Travolta's Ryder on the edge of this bridge? You'll have to watch The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 to find out -- but I will tell you this: If you've ever seen the original, you'll know instantly that the ending of this remake was nowhere near as clever as the first film, which had Matthau's character at the remaining hijacker's apartment, whose sneeze gives him away...

VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?

An interesting effect Columbia/Sony used in the opening shot of the film was by way of the Columbia logo slowly coming out of a small area in the middle of the screen, accompanied by subway train sounds, eventually opening into the 2.40:1 frame -- it was unique, and something we usually see from Universal in the beginning of some of their films. At any rate, the 1080p 2.40:1 widescreen transfer of Pelham comes from Sony on this Blu-ray as what I would call an average effort; there's some yellow push to the image, and black levels are stable, but there's a slightly thick layer of fine film grain in certain shots and some interior sequences within the train command center come off looking a bit soft.

But, that's not to say the disc didn't have positive moments -- outdoor New York City shots, some of which accompany Gandolfini's mayoral performance, looked bright, detailed and stellar. The street pavement, the yellows of the New York taxis...all of this was rendered in a satisfying fashion. It just wasn't quite real demo material.

AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?

Even more surprising was the disappointment I felt towards the soundtrack's Master Audio mix -- expecting a typical Dolby TrueHD track, I was surprised to discover there was a 5.1 Master Audio mix onboard. While I still don't have Master Audio support with my gear, I was again forced to sample the extracted core DTS stream -- not usually too shabby anyway. But something just didn't satisfy here; from the very opening, the audio had a bit of a "hushed" quality to it, which required additional master volume hikes -- surprising for a modern actioneer like this. I didn't detect many deep wallops of LFE, and amazingly, the trailers on the disc, in Dolby Digital, shook my walls with rumbling bass in waves tremendously more vicious than the audio for the film itself.

Another issue was with the surround information -- it seemed as though it took nearly to the halfway mark of the film for the rear soundstage to come to life. Once there, action sequences including gunshot pings and subway trains racing into the rear channels made themselves known. Still, this wasn't the experience I braced for when I slipped the disc into my player; even the overall output volume of the track was on the weak side.

SUMMARY:

A fun hour and forty minutes, and a nice updating of the Walter Matthau original -- done typical Tony Scott style. Aside from the two unnecessary elements I mentioned -- the stock market crash and Washington's character's bribe dilemma -- this was a check-your-brain-at-the-door thriller that belongs more on the "done right" side of the remakes master list.

Furthermore, Travolta's performance in this as the cold-blooded, over-the-top "Ryder" is entertainment in itself...while campy and hammy in many areas (bordering on overdone), his performance really carries this film, if not the excessive bad language and references to wishing Washington's character was his "****" in prison -- that was disturbing.

MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Definitely recommended -- at the very least, give this a rental, but I purchased it for my shelf. I can recommend a buy if you like the assembly of these actors, the director or especially if you are a fan of the original. The differences in style and execution -- as well as the similarities -- make for an interesting comparison, trust me. Be warned, however, that there is excessive horrendous language in this, which I feel was grossly overdone by Scott and crew, and you'll find yourself counting how many times Travolta bellows "Mother F****er!" into the train radio...along with many other creative phrases he comes up with...I mention this merely to forewarn before you sit down to watch this with your kids that may be in your home theater.

danz1906

Great review, I will rent the Blu-Ray this weekend.........Thanks!

kuntasensei

Travolta was completely unbelievable in this, almost to the point of caricature. If they had chosen someone who could lace the character with menacing charm (think Alan Rickman in Die Hard), it would have been a much stronger movie and would have made for a better match with Denzel's character. Still, this was better than I thought it would be (largely thanks to the way Tony Scott handles it), but hell... I'd watch Denzel read the phone book.

Jstas

I wasn't impressed with this at all. It wasn't bad but it was quite forgettable. I wouldn't recommend it as a first choice. Maybe if the movie you really wanted to see was out at Blockbuster, this would be an adequate alternative.

But honestly, forget this movie and splurge a bit for a showing of "Law Abiding Citizen". Same flair and thrill but much better execution! I think "Law Abiding Citizen" is what Pelham was trying to be and missed the mark on.

bigaudiofanatic

A lot of reading there but good review. I enjoyed the movie very good acting and story line. Of cores being my age I never saw the original. I might have to pic that one up and compare.

kuntasensei

Mike, what do you mean when you say there is some yellow push? I didn't really notice this. The only time I thought skin tones looked off were in the subway scenes, but that's because of the greenish tint Scott went with for those scenes. Is there a specific example you could give?

Mike LoManaco

danz1906 wrote: »

Great review, I will rent the Blu-Ray this weekend.........Thanks!

Hey Dan,

Thanks so much for reading and for your kind remarks! If you didn't see this in theaters, indeed give it a rental -- but I think you'll end up buying it!

Thanks again, good friend!

Mike LoManaco

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

A lot of reading there but good review. I enjoyed the movie very good acting and story line. Of cores being my age I never saw the original. I might have to pic that one up and compare.

Thank you, 'Fanatic! When you get a chance, give the original a spin -- it is very interesting how Scott used the blueprint from that one to create modernized spinoffs of Washington and Travolta's characters.

Thanks for reading, and let us know if you rent the original and what you thought of it compared to this remake.

bigaudiofanatic

Will do!

Mike LoManaco

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Mike LoManaco

xcapri79 wrote: »

Another interesting and well written review Mike.
I am also interested in the original and will try to get both.
My question is whether the Bluray version is worth buying or is the DVD version good enough?
Your video and audio impressions tend to make me think that the DVD version upscaled may be just fine.

Hey, Capri!

Thanks so much for your comments, bro; they're appreciated. As for your questions, it's a tough call; I didn't get a chance to view the DVD version, as I buy everything new on Blu-ray no matter what it "tends" to look like to folks who have seen it before I (the countless pre-reviews that come out on titles, etc.) -- I didn't mean to come across as saying the visuals were necessarily BAD on this Blu-ray, but simply just average by definition. I'm sure the DVD would look decent, too, being a new release -- but there's always compression artifacts and noise on DVDs, especially upscaled on good equipment. I would go for the Blu-ray if your budget allows, as the PQ isn't HORRIBLE by any means.

Hope this helps!

Mike LoManaco

xcapri79 wrote: »

Thanks, I'm just looking at getting it on Amazon right now.
I'm looking forward to your review of "My Sister's Keeper".
Some on this forum might not appreciate it, but that video needs to be sold along with a box of Kleenex.

I didn't have My Sister's Keeper in my "on deck" pile, but I'll keep it in mind...as for "Pelham," are you looking into getting it on Blu? On release day (Tuesday) Amazon had it for the same price as Best Buy did, which was a sale for $20. I ended up getting it at Best Buy, but I'm not sure if Amazon still has it for $20 -- either way, I think 20 bucks is a good deal for a brand-new Blu-ray. Most of the time they're visciously overpriced.

I also wanted to add some minor thoughts regarding changing viewpoints on the "Pelham" BD transfer...in my initial audio analysis, I had mentioned that it took about half the film to pass in order for the rear soundstage to come to life. Rewatching it critically again last night, there are moments of surround activity that come way before that halfway mark -- bullets hitting the surround channels and other ambient cues are present. Still, even though the sound design may have been a creative choice, this Master Audio track, even at its core DTS extraction, didn't really stand out to me. I found myself riding the master volume control of my system higher than I normally do, especially for Master Audio-encoded titles for action genre flicks, just to get a satisfying presence level. For example, the Blu-rays of Live Free or Die Hard (Fox) and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Universal) and even The Incredible Hulk (Universal) all contain absolutely wall-rattling lossless MA tracks that simply beat the pants off of Sony's release of Pelham.

As I said, this may have been a sound design choice done purposefully -- the audio just didn't wow me.

bigaudiofanatic

So last night I watched the original pelham 123 after seeing the remake in theaters a few months ago. I have to say both movies seem to have a good fight. The original one seem to be more calm and not much action, I did see the differences from the remake to the original some or the main characters were different not in the sense that they where different people but that John Travolta seems to show more emotion to his part. Also some things varied as far as who was communicating with the hijackers and so on. It might just be that I am a younger person but I choose the remake over the original, even with some things being different.

leroyjr1

Good movie..

gelinas

I watched some of this movie at my parents house this past weekend--on DVD.
I found it entertaining but, admitetaly I fell asleep half way thru, thats not say that it was boring I just had been working hard all day. I decided to keep it on my netflix and look forward to when I can view the blu-ray on my system. I have yet to see a movie with Denzel in it that I found to be totally lousy.

Mike LoManaco

Thanks for your opinions on the two films, 'Fanatic.

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

So last night I watched the original pelham 123 after seeing the remake in theaters a few months ago. I have to say both movies seem to have a good fight.

By "fight" do you mean they both have appealing substance to them?

The original one seem to be more calm and not much action, I did see the differences from the remake to the original some or the main characters were different not in the sense that they where different people but that John Travolta seems to show more emotion to his part.

LOL. Well, by "calm" you are describing the typical "70s crime melodrama" feel that many of the films from this era exhibited; the original film had a pace not unlike the "Barney Miller" TV show of that time, which was akin to the period's "NYPD Blue" but with some comedy. Travola's "Ryder" character is the counterpart to Robert Shaw's role in the original, and Shaw played the part spot-on with his dry, United Kingdom-esque approach. It was simply what was called for back then for the role.

Interestingly, Denzel Washington's "Garber" character was the same used in the original by Walter Matthau's character, but Tony Scott simply took Matthau's real first name and attached the character's last name to come up with "Walter Garber." The same kind of "thing" can be seen in the remake for House on Haunted Hill where director William Malone used Geoffrey Rush's "Stephen Price" character's name from a borrowed Vincent Price who played the role in the original.

Also some things varied as far as who was communicating with the hijackers and so on. It might just be that I am a younger person but I choose the remake over the original, even with some things being different.

Being that you indicate you are younger above, I can understand the feelings you have for the differences; however, the remake wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, and I feel it's right up there with the original in terms of re-imagining a story's elements.

Mike LoManaco

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Good movie..

+1, Leroy.

Mike LoManaco

gelinas wrote: »

I watched some of this movie at my parents house this past weekend--on DVD.
I found it entertaining but, admitetaly I fell asleep half way thru, thats not say that it was boring I just had been working hard all day. I decided to keep it on my netflix and look forward to when I can view the blu-ray on my system. I have yet to see a movie with Denzel in it that I found to be totally lousy.

Yes, please report back when you've had a chance to sit through it all, 'Gel.

I'll say this about Denzel, though, I used to be a big fan of his, but lately and after awhile, his performances seem to become mimics of one another; in other words, he begins to take on the same facial gestures, dialogue delivery and body language in each and every film, and many times, it's not appropriate. For example, his "Frank Lucas" performance in American Gangster simply wasn't authentic, if you know anything about the real Frank Lucas from Harlem. All Denzel was doing was playing a "Denzel version" of Frank Lucas for Scott's approval -- Scott likes to use him in his films, so sometimes it doesn't seem to matter if he "fits" or not, he just goes with him. Lucas didn't act like Denzel acted in American Gangster in real life, as I've seen a handful of true documentaries on him, and Cuba Gooding Jr. was the absolute worst casting for "Nicky Barnes" but that's a different subject.

But if you watch many of his films, you'll see where Denzel begins to act the same way between each role...the way he takes a drink of something in a role, his facial gestures when he replies in dialogue...I didn't see much of this in "Pelham," but they were there from time to time.

Ron-P

I like Travolta but Washington will keep me from ever seeing this. Should have cast someone different for his role.

polkatese

I like the movie. One thing that I noticed by watching the style of Tony Scott vs. Michael Bay: Their unique shooting style of their movies are pretty consistent across. Comparing this movie with Enemy of the State (Gene Hackman et. al.) which is very similar, and then you have Michael Bay: Transformers, or Titanic, with its "helicopter camera-angle" shooting style.

just an observation...

reeltrouble1

it was trashy, rather unimaginative, unrealistic and I would not buy it if you gave me the money. the 2.95 I paid for the rental is about right for this one.

RT1

danz1906

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Good movie..

Agreed!

shack

Re-makes of very good movies generally suck. The original was a very good movie...and this one didn't hold a candle to the it. Had I never seen the original, this one may have been acceptable...EXCEPT...for the fact that it had Washington and Travolta in it. I'm tired of Denzel and can't stand Travolta.

Mike LoManaco

Ron-P wrote: »

I like Travolta but Washington will keep me from ever seeing this. Should have cast someone different for his role.

I think I can agree with you here, Ron; but as I said, Washington is a Tony Scott "stand in" actor -- he uses him because they have a good working relationship with each other, much like Scorsese and De Niro/Pesci.

Mike LoManaco

polkatese wrote: »

I like the movie. One thing that I noticed by watching the style of Tony Scott vs. Michael Bay: Their unique shooting style of their movies are pretty consistent across. Comparing this movie with Enemy of the State (Gene Hackman et. al.) which is very similar, and then you have Michael Bay: Transformers, or Titanic, with its "helicopter camera-angle" shooting style.

just an observation...

I understand what you're saying in the beginning of your statement above regarding Michael Bay and Tony Scott (although I don't know where the comparison is really coming from) and their "unique" shooting styles -- they both seemed to have graduated from the "shaky camera school" of film (so I suppose that's where your comparison came in) but as I indicated in the review, Pelham was shot in the same kinetic, bullet-fast style that Scott's Man on Fire was, and it has been known to give many critics and theatergoers headaches, quite literally as I understand.

The mentioned Enemy of the State was filmed in that same hectic fashion -- but some of Scott's other films like Crimson Tide weren't so "over the top" in this execution.

I don't understand your reference to Titanic though with regard to Scott or Bay, because that film was made by James Cameron.

Mike LoManaco

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

it was trashy, rather unimaginative, unrealistic and I would not buy it if you gave me the money. the 2.95 I paid for the rental is about right for this one.

RT1

Hmmm. Interesting, 'Reel. You seem to be the first that I've come across that didn't care for the film; but your opinion is definitely respected.

What do you think made it "trashy"...the language excess? If that's what you meant, it was indeed overdone and unnecessary...each character must have said "Motha F***a" a half dozen times, to say nothing of how many times Travolta says it in his lines. This was totally unnecessary and it's what made my wife not care for the film, either (well, so that's two people now come to think of it that didn't like it!).

I could have maybe dealt with Travolta's constant cursing because his character was just off-the-wall, bordering on psycho -- but when "George"'s (the kid with the laptop on the train) girlfriend says to him through the computer "Geo, I f***ing love you so much..." and he says the same back, it became completely overkill. :rolleyes:

Mike LoManaco

shack wrote: »

Re-makes of very good movies generally suck. The original was a very good movie...and this one didn't hold a candle to the it. Had I never seen the original, this one may have been acceptable...EXCEPT...for the fact that it had Washington and Travolta in it. I'm tired of Denzel and can't stand Travolta.

I would normally agree with you wholeheartedly about remakes of good films often "sucking" -- because they often do -- but there have been times that remakes simply modernize a film to the point that they're "better"; take the Dawn of the Dead films, for example...the original is considered a classic by every stretch of the imaginiation in every single film circle of the world, yet Zack Snyder's remake was absolutely awesome in my opinion and really upped the excitement factor from the original in a way most remakes cannot do. In fact, many consider the remake of Dawn of the Dead one of the best horror films ever made -- I agree to a point.

Now, most of the time remakes fall flat on their faces and simply make an original concept cheesy, silly and completely inaccurate -- Platinum Dunes' and MGM's Amityville Horror is a perfect example of this. The remake of the James Brolin/Margot Kidder shocker from the '70s was completely and utterly garbage ridden nonsense with events depicted that NEVER happened to the Lutz family in real life. I pride myself on being an expert on the Amityville case, growing up minutes from the real house and doing multiple papers on it in college, and the remake was complete nonsense.

Still, some remakes have worked -- in my opinion, good remakes have come in the form of Man on Fire, House on Haunted Hill, The Haunting, The Fog, Poseidon and now Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. What didn't work? The aforementioned Amityville Horror and Halloween, House of Wax, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hitcher plus dozens of so others that I just cannot recall right now.

With regard to the original Pelham, I haven't seen it in years and I am trying to get my hands on a copy of the standard DVD, as it has not been released in high definition nor is there a "remastered" DVD version oddly enough, but from what I remember it was a great little crime gem that encapsulated New York City of that era -- I wouldn't quite say that the remake "doesn't hold a candle to it" but that's merely my opinion. The original is indeed a taut, kinetic thriller in its own right with an outstanding performance by Robert Shaw.

shack

Washinton and Travolta are no Mattheu and Shaw...for starters. The supporting cast of the original was better and was better developed. 2009 traded suspense for action and substance for show. 2009 fell short in every aspect IMO...execpt for CGI...and that was simply not enough because of what it had to live up to.

polkatese

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

I don't understand your reference to Titanic though with regard to Scott or Bay, because that film was made by James Cameron.

oops, brain **** on my part. ignore that reference to Titanic.

Mike LoManaco

shack wrote: »

Washinton and Travolta are no Mattheu and Shaw...for starters.

I suppose I can agree with you there, although I thought they worked for the modern-day remake; I also agree that Washington is getting a bit long in the tooth to watch lately...the decision to cast him as Barack Obama in an ultimate upcoming film is absolutely ridiculous IMO.

The supporting cast of the original was better and was better developed.

You mean like Jerry Stiller and such? Well, I thought Guzman fit the "idiotic ex-motorman" role nicely as he was laughable, but Turturro's acting was wasted in his performance of a "pushover" hostage negotiator.

2009 traded suspense for action and substance for show. 2009 fell short in every aspect IMO...execpt for CGI...and that was simply not enough because of what it had to live up to.

I didn't really see much use of CGI in this film, and much of the shooting was on location in real subway cars in New York City, using the real stations. Often, remakes do substitute suspense and substance for show -- I totally agree there and it often has horrendous, "catering-to-the-teenage-and-twenty-something-morons-who text-in-the-theater" elements, but in this case, Scott and his producers called this more of a "reimagining" of the original film rather than a "remake" or "retelling" and I think it worked in that regard.