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

Mike LoManaco

polkatese wrote: »

oops, brain **** on my part. Ignore that reference to titanic.

shack

Then we will disagree.

Mike LoManaco

I agreed with some of what you said. It's always up to interpretation when it comes to the visual arts.

concealer404

This movie was a total ****.

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

This movie was a total ****.

That's a pretty bold statement, Concealer; have you ever seen the original 1974 version? I did a review of that standard-definition DVD as well. Surprising that you found the remake so bad; what was it in particular?

concealer404

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

That's a pretty bold statement, Concealer; have you ever seen the original 1974 version? I did a review of that standard-definition DVD as well. Surprising that you found the remake so bad; what was it in particular?

I haven't, but i've got it in queue now for my rental service. I'm hoping it's better.

I just wasn't convinced by the acting in this one, and it completely ruined the movie for me. The script had potential, but i couldn't get over Travolta's horrifying performance, and even Denzel wasn't really doing it for me.

John Turturro or whatever his name is just rubs me the wrong way in every movie that he plays, and i'm not really a fan of this film style. Whoever said the comment about the seizures is dead on for my thoughts about this.


It may have been a decent movie, but i was just way too distracted by the things that bothered me. My girlfriend didn't like it much, either.

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

I haven't, but i've got it in queue now for my rental service. I'm hoping it's better.

Well, it's definitely "different" in the way that everything is so polarizing in terms of age and content in the '74 version -- some argue that the remake traded the original's thick suspense and originality for ham-handed acting and thumping hip hop score, and while some of that is indeed true, I think the remake captured the essence of the storyline, but in a modernized fashion.

When you get a chance, take a look at my review of the original so you're prepared going into it for the character comparison studies and the quality of the DVD itself, as it contains a fairly murky non-anamorphic 2.35:1 transfer and a 2.0 mono soundtrack. Then, please tell me what you thought of the original versus the remake when you have watched the '74 version -- I would be interested in hearing your observations.

I just wasn't convinced by the acting in this one, and it completely ruined the movie for me. The script had potential, but i couldn't get over Travolta's horrifying performance, and even Denzel wasn't really doing it for me.

Like I have said so many times, Denzel is becoming like De Niro or Pacino, in that his performances are wooden copies of each other -- his facial gestures, his dialogue delivery...I used to be a big fan of his, loved him in Training Day and Crimson Tide but lately he has gotten annoying in projects like American Gangster. As for Travolta, I think Tony Scott figured his off-the-wall performances in films like The Punisher, Face/Off and Broken Arrow would lend some modern lunacy to the hijacking character, but others have argued that if they would have gone with a more sedate approach, such as Alan Rickman's performance as Hans Greuber in Die Hard it would have been more effective -- but I think this would have pushed it too close to the original performance of Robert Shaw in the 1974 film, which you still have to see. At the end of the day, there was way too much cursing -- to the point of excess -- from Travolta's character and I believe this did in his character.

John Turturro or whatever his name is just rubs me the wrong way in every movie that he plays, and i'm not really a fan of this film style. Whoever said the comment about the seizures is dead on for my thoughts about this.

Not sure what you're referring to with the seizures, but I disagree about Turturro -- I think he's dramatically underrated in Hollywood, and he stood out in Rounders and Brain Donors; but in this film, his character was way too much of a "pushover" when Travolta verbally harassed him all throughout the film, I thought.

It may have been a decent movie, but i was just way too distracted by the things that bothered me. My girlfriend didn't like it much, either.

Interesting. My wife didn't like the original or the remake that much, either; didn't hate it, but she doesn't watch it when I replay it in my HT.

I liked the remake enough to purchase the Blu-ray, and I just consider it check-your-brain-at-the-door fun.

concealer404

I think Travolta could have pulled it off....it wasn't a cursing thing... it was his CHOICE of what he cursed with. You don't mix the word "****" in the same sentence as "Bunghole." It was like he was stuck between 2nd grade and 10th grade in his dialogue. It was utterly infuriating.

He could have had every other word a curse word for all i care, it was just that he did it WRONG.

Demiurge

concealer404 wrote: »

This movie was a total ****.

It wasn't any old ****. This was a fat coiler.

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

I think Travolta could have pulled it off....it wasn't a cursing thing... it was his CHOICE of what he cursed with. You don't mix the word "****" in the same sentence as "Bunghole." It was like he was stuck between 2nd grade and 10th grade in his dialogue. It was utterly infuriating.

He could have had every other word a curse word for all i care, it was just that he did it WRONG.

LOL. Just so you know, though, it wasn't Travolta himself who chose to use those ill-timed words, it was the scriptwriting team.

At any rate, I disagree that it wouldn't have mattered how much his character cursed in this; I feel it was completely and utterly overdone and in excess. To the point that it distracted from the narrative...

Examples?

"I **** love you..."
"G.O. I **** love you too..."
"I hope they don't get **** lost..." (the cop standing by as the money gets brought out)
"GB...you're **** good, man..."
"Get the **** off the radio and notify the mayor, MOTHER ****!"
"Maybe he's not such a **** bag after all..."
"So he calls me into his office and he tells me to get my motha **** **** crunch nuts the **** outta there..."
"...just don't **** it up..." ("Staley" the Transit cop speaking to Washington in the tunnel towards the end)
"**** ME...10 million dollars..."

There are dozens more examples, and I feel this is what warranted the term "excessive."

concealer404

Well.... being a New Yorker myself.... that's how we talk. Just sayin'.

And i'm saying that correct cursing etiquette dictates that the phrase "**** bunghole" is lacking a LOT of panache.

Travolta or not who made that choice, it was wrong.

Maybe i should seek therapy because i'm fixating on that, but it REALLY bugs me.

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

Well.... being a New Yorker myself.... that's how we talk. Just sayin'.

I'm a New Yawka myself, as well. I still don't think it's necessary to accenuate a story about your boss calling you into your office with statement like "So, he tells me to get my motha ***in crunchy f*** nuts the f*** outta there..." or for your girlfriend to have such a potty pie hole that she exclaims -- at almost EVERY juncture -- "I F****** love you!" or "G.O. What the F***'S happening?"

What made you move to Indy?

And i'm saying that correct cursing etiquette dictates that the phrase "**** bunghole" is lacking a LOT of panache.

Okay; I actually didn't mind the structural context of the "He can lick my bunghole, mother f***er...he's like a used car salesman, this a**hole..." Well, actually, the car salesman comment came before the bunghole statement, but...

Travolta or not who made that choice, it was wrong.

I was just pointing out the fact that it wasn't like Travolta stood there and made that decision to blurt that line out -- it was written for him. There are times lines are ad-libbed per the director's allowance, as Martin Scorsese has done on some of his mob films, but that didn't happen here.

Maybe i should seek therapy because i'm fixating on that, but it REALLY bugs me.

Let me know the name of a good therapist when you find one.

megasat16

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

...

You are reported for indecent language usage in the polk forum.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Mike LoManaco

megasat16 wrote: »

You are reported for indecent language usage in the polk forum.

We are discussing quotes from a film, and I was not the only person utilizing this language in the context of the discussion.

From here on in, I suppose me and Concealer will have to use asteriks in the foul language sections.

megasat16

Relax! I don't like to use Report Button as often as you would like. But yeah, use $ or * or # or _ or anything you sees fitting. I am not the reporting kind of guy!

And Edit your previous post while you still can.

Mike LoManaco

megasat16 wrote: »

Relax! I don't like to use Report Button as often as you would like. But yeah, use $ or * or # or _ or anything you sees fitting. I am not the reporting kind of guy!

And Edit your previous post while you still can.

I edited the last post that contained that language; I couldn't edit the previous ones.

MrNightly

deported!

concealer404

Keiko wrote: »

Rereported!


Re:Edit: I'm tellin'

Shut up you effing bunghole or i'll send the other's after you.

hearingimpared

Here we go.

wingnut4772

I can never read your reviews Mike because you give away too much of the movie for me. At least not before I see it anyway...

concealer404

Keiko wrote: »

Who are the other's?

Check your effing bunghole.

concealer404

I love you mike.

megasat16

kuntasensei wrote: »

"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

Speaking Yankees doesn't mean you pass English.

Edit: Oops, I forgot! If you want to pass English, start writing 4 pages long movie reviews and let people proof read your errors and correct your grammar, spellings, structures, word usage; etc.

hearingimpared

My wife and I just watched it. Both of us keeping in mind not to compare it to the original we thought it was very good. I thought Travolta played the greedy psycho very well.

Mike LoManaco

hearingimpared wrote: »

My wife and I just watched it. Both of us keeping in mind not to compare it to the original we thought it was very good. I thought Travolta played the greedy psycho very well.

Thanks for your thoughts, 'impared. Seems a lot of people are just getting around to viewing the remake now; I agree about how Travolta played the psycho thief -- I believe this is why Scott went for him in this role in the first place, as he's done this before in Broken Arrow, The Punisher, Face/Off...

I am going to rewatch this when I get a chance because I just got the Oppo Blu-ray player, and I can re-evaluate its Master Audio soundtrack in true lossless MA.

Thanks again for your thoughts on the film.

hearingimpared

I do have to say that as much as I enjoyed this remake, the original was better. My wife and I both agree on this.

Mike LoManaco

hearingimpared wrote: »

I do have to say that as much as I enjoyed this remake, the original was better. My wife and I both agree on this.

Interesting. This is how it goes for most remakes/originals to most folks.

I too love the original as the simple, dry performances of Shaw offset by the ridiculously "cheesy" 70s New York deliveries by Matthau just work -- what was it about the original you guys enjoyed more?

Mike LoManaco

xcapri79 wrote: »

I think Dennis Hopper would have played psycho Ryder better, but Hopper is perhaps too type cast for that role.

Mike, with all the great Blu-Ray player sales this past black Friday I would have thought you would have a Blu-Ray by now.
Is Public Enemy next on your review list?

Capri,

I have been absolutely buried under a heap of work this past weekend and now into this new week -- I probably won't get around to reviewing a new title until possibly after the new year. I still have to configure my new Oppo player in an optimum fashion too, which I haven't had too much time to play with. But Public Enemies was interestingly enough on my "on deck" list...

As for Dennis Hopper in Pelham, his role in "Speed" would have made him a shadow for this Ryder character more or less; although Travolta had done this before too as we have been discussing -- both have done the psycho ransom demanders.

hearingimpared

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Interesting. This is how it goes for most remakes/originals to most folks.

I too love the original as the simple, dry performances of Shaw offset by the ridiculously "cheesy" 70s New York deliveries by Matthau just work -- what was it about the original you guys enjoyed more?

You hit the nail on the head but there is more. There was more humor in the original, like when Matthau was giving the Japanese the tour of the facility as well as the look on his face at the end of the movie when Martin Balsam sneezed. There is much much more.

Zitro

I just watched the modern version on DVD for the first time last night, and actually enjoyed it a lot, especially Denzel's character. But then again, I am rarely disappointed with Washington's performances. I also liked Travolta's character as he was written, but didn't particularly like Travolta's portrayal of it, if you know what I mean. It just didn't feel that believable to me, if that makes sense.The modern version caught my interest enough to find the original; I wasn't even aware that this was a remake!