Soulstation1 Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Looks intersting Did not see the original movie Edited June 11, 2009 by Soulstation1 Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 The original is really good so I'm not sure I want to see the new one. Quote
Dan Gould Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 The original is really good so I'm not sure I want to see the new one. The new one was sold as a remake because in the current environment the studio was more open to spending money that way than on a new film. More marketable. But aside from the set-up - subway car full of people held for ransom - its a totally new film and should stand or fall based on its own merits. I was very young when the original was in theaters but I remember seeing it on TV later and really liking it. Its been on Comcast's free movies lately but I keep missing the chance to revisit it. I'll admit I'm more inclined to see the original again than to give this one a chance. I read that Denzel Washington ate everything in sight and then kept buying smaller and smaller sweaters to "fit" into his role. Jeff, you need to correct the title of the thread, it took me a second to realize what it was after reading your butchering of the spelling - PELHAM 123. Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) When I first heard of the new film, we got the old one from Netflix and really enjoyed it (again). Robert Shaw was a terrific bad guy. Edited June 12, 2009 by Chuck Nessa Quote
ejp626 Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 When I first heard of the new film, we got the old one from Netflix and really it (again). Robert Shaw was a terrific bad guy. Saw it once at Manhattan's Film Forum. Enjoyed it. Should probably Netflix it soon -- before the database gets all screwed up and sends the wrong one when you want the original. Not too interested in the remake, but if reviews are good, I might, might rent it one day. Quote
Soulstation1 Posted June 11, 2009 Author Report Posted June 11, 2009 FWIW Site I looked at for the spelling butchered the spelling and I spelled it the way they did Quote
thedwork Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 i saw the trailer a while back and it made me wince. it looked embarrassingly awful. but sometimes trailers can give a wrong impression. and of course Denzel is certainly the man. haven't seen 'the original.' i'll have to go youtube the trailer now and refresh my memory... Quote
thedwork Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 i saw the trailer a while back and it made me wince. it looked embarrassingly awful. but sometimes trailers can give a wrong impression. and of course Denzel is certainly the man. haven't seen 'the original.' i'll have to go youtube the trailer now and refresh my memory... yeah. just watched the trailer again. certainly an ace cast: denzel, torturro, gandolfino, guzman, etc... but the trailer makes me think that the film will consist of relatively predictable cliche after cliche after cliche... and tony scott's track record as a director isn't giving me any more faith. pretty much an excercise in mediocrity if you ask me. we'll see. could still be a bit of fun i guess Quote
Soulstation1 Posted June 11, 2009 Author Report Posted June 11, 2009 Denzel is one of the smoothest MFer out there IMO Quote
sal Posted June 11, 2009 Report Posted June 11, 2009 Is this another Tony Scott movie? The guy hasn't made a good movie since Revenge IMO. Quote
jlhoots Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 I'm going to watch the original version. Quote
BruceH Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 Looks intersting Did not see the original movie See the original, by all means. Quote
relyles Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 The movie received a very favorable review in today's New York Times. Quote
ejp626 Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 The movie received a very favorable review in today's New York Times. Like most things, there are young reviewers and old fart reviewers, and I side with the old farts on most things. Here's Ebert's review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/906109994 There’s not much wrong with Tony Scott’s “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3,” except that there’s not much really right about it. ... In fact, the whole film is less juicy {than the original}. The 1974 version took place in a realistic, well-worn New York City. This version occupies a denatured action-movie landscape, with no time for local color and a transit system control room that humbles Mission Control. If you like video games, you'll probably like the new movie. If you like cities and film as film, you will prefer the original. Slate perhaps had a review where they talked about how Tony Scott has never taken the subway in his life, and it shows. There is one semi-clever twist from the original, but otherwise it just seems a completely pointless remake from a guy who doesn't understand or care about cities. Frankly, they might as well have shot it on the new LA rail system, and then at least you would have had more above-ground shots of trying to get the train up to Speed-like speeds. Quote
Dan Gould Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 Ebert is a fool, for the simple fact that the MTA cooperated to about the greatest extent possible in the making of the film. The control room that rivals Mission Control IS THE REAL ONE! Then compare Ebert's statement This version occupies a denatured action-movie landscape, with no time for local color and a transit system control room that humbles Mission Control. With the Times reviewer: Played by James Gandolfini with a demeanor more fussy than thuggish, this fictional successor to Mr. Giuliani presides over an identifiably post-Rudy, post-9/11 metropolis, a shiny, busy place ruled by money and ambition and shadowed less by fear of crime than by anxious memories of terrorism and perhaps by an intimation of leaner times ahead. No local color, huh? I also find it laughable that it would be claimed that the director never took the subway in his life and it shows - the film was shot in the damn subway, including a shuttered subway stop in Brooklyn, iirc. Maybe Ebert and the Slate reviewer don't know that subway, and New York in general, is a whole lot cleaner than it was in 1974? I have no dog in this hunt and will most assuredly watch the original long before this one (if I ever see it at all - over-acting Travolta is way down on my list of movie house thrills) but I find these criticisms to be ridiculous. Quote
ejp626 Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 I also find it laughable that it would be claimed that the director never took the subway in his life and it shows - the film was shot in the damn subway, including a shuttered subway stop in Brooklyn, iirc. In an interview, Mr. Scott said he'd never taken the subway except maybe once or twice when he was so drunk he didn't know what he was doing. An exaggeration, perhaps. However, shooting the subway for a film, mostly in one station and then CGI'ing most of the rest, is not the same as riding the subway and having any understanding of what that feels like and entails. The city is cleaner for better and worse, but that still doesn't mean the film needs to treat the city as no more than a video game background. I certainly have no intention of watching this version. Quote
relyles Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 I saw the original when I was a kid, but don't remember much about it. I will see the remake - not because I have any significant interest in the movie itself, but simply because my mother like many women is a huge Denzel Washington fan and we have a routing of seeing every Denzel movie together while in the studios. We have been doing this for at least fifteen years of Denzel movies so far. Interesting, regardless of whether the movie is a dud, my mother always seems to think Denzel's performance is terrific. What can I say, it is an opportunity for me to drive to NY and spend some time with my mother. Quote
relyles Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 If you like video games, you'll probably like the new movie. If you like cities and film as film, you will prefer the original. What if you don't like video games, but don't know what "cities and film as film" means? Is it possible to like both? Quote
BruceH Posted June 12, 2009 Report Posted June 12, 2009 The original is really good so I'm not sure I want to see the new one. The new one was sold as a remake because in the current environment the studio was more open to spending money that way than on a new film. More marketable. This is nothing new. The big Hollywood studios have found remakes to be a "safer" investment for at least the last 25 years. Quote
Soulstation1 Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Posted June 17, 2009 Anyone see the new version of the movie? Quote
SGUD missile Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 The original is really good so I'm not sure I want to see the new one. The original was great Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw - and NOTHING can touch David Shires original score!!!! .... atonal big band R&B :tup :tup Quote
thedwork Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 i saw the trailer a while back and it made me wince. it looked embarrassingly awful. but sometimes trailers can give a wrong impression. and of course Denzel is certainly the man. haven't seen 'the original.' i'll have to go youtube the trailer now and refresh my memory... yeah. just watched the trailer again. certainly an ace cast: denzel, torturro, gandolfino, guzman, etc... but the trailer makes me think that the film will consist of relatively predictable cliche after cliche after cliche... and tony scott's track record as a director isn't giving me any more faith. pretty much an excercise in mediocrity if you ask me. we'll see. could still be a bit of fun i guess Anyone see the new version of the movie? well... i just saw it. definitely completely avoidable. but for a freak like me who eats movies for breakfast and loves movies as much as i love music, it was worth seeing. a movie has to be a real offensive piece of shit for me to walk out. and this certainly was fun enough for me not to have been upset that i paid the price of the ticket. i knew what i was getting into. action, cliche, action, cliche, action, wisecrack, action, wisecrack, nyc cliche wisecrack, etc etc etc... i've really disliked much of travolta's stuff as of late (Broken Arrow, Swordfish, blech), but i thought he did a good enough job here. it was a johnny one note role but he was fine. as a matter of fact, all the roles were johnny one notes. but the actors involved are all so good that it held my attention. and it was fun for me to see Gandolfini working w/ Torturro after knowing they did Torturro's last film together (Romance And Cigarrettes!!!). what a complete 180 from that work. for me, the only complaint would be that Luiz Guzman, one of my favorire "character actors," was woefully under-utilized. and i could do without the over-the-top MTV Tony Scott crap - but that's him. oh well... bottom line, if you're totally jonesing to see a movie and you've seen everything else that's playing, this may still be worth it for ya'. as long as you know you're not seeing the next Hurlyburly. Quote
BruceH Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 The original is really good so I'm not sure I want to see the new one. The original was great Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw - and NOTHING can touch David Shires original score!!!! .... atonal big band R&B :tup :tup The score is like the original film itself----utterly shameless, and yet carries off a rough-and-ready authenticity and finally a kind of genius. Quote
fasstrack Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 The original is really good so I'm not sure I want to see the new one.I hear you. Remakes blow. And who could stand in for Walter Matthau's nose coming back in the door before the rest of him after the bad guy sneezes? Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.