SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 10:44am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 3 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3  (currently 2961 views)
Sandra Elstree.
Posted: October 1st, 2009, 2:18pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


What if the Hokey Pokey, IS what it's all about?

Location
Bowden, Alberta
Posts
3664
Posts Per Day
0.60

Quoted from Niles_Crane
As with a great many remakes (or "re=imaginings"), I am not sure of the actual point of this.

The original, with Matthau and Robert Shaw, was an excellent thriller - remaking it just seems a waste of time, money and talent! Surely the people involved here could have found something a little more original to expend the energies on.

Why is it so few bad films are remade? At least you could understand that - the desire to make a better film than the original, to improve on script or performances or whatever.

I still dread the day when it is announced Michael Bay is to remake "Casablanca"!

(though presumably without Megan Fox as Elsa!)


My view is different than yours on this count of "not wanting to remake something".

The reason is as follows:

We are remaking ourselves each day. We don't sit, satisfied. The minute we do that, we die.

Our goals as human beings is to constantly push past the "logic button" of what "seems reasonable".

It's pushing past the Logic Button that brings us to ever greater heights and to unfathomable expression, love and growth.

Hence,

Remake, create and do it, let's do, it, let's do it, let's do it all again 'cause tonight's gonna be a good night!  

This film was striking for me in every way. The performances were more than just performances. I could see John Travolta reaching down to the depths of his being to portray Ryder.

Sandra



A known mistake is better than an unknown truth.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 15 - 32
Mr. Blonde
Posted: October 1st, 2009, 2:38pm Report to Moderator
Administrator


What good are choices if they're all bad?

Location
Nowhere special.
Posts
3064
Posts Per Day
0.57

Quoted from Sandra Elstree.
I could see John Travolta reaching down to the depths of his being to portray Ryder.

Sandra


Still felt like a rip-off of Gabriel Shear in Swordfish...

As for the movie, I enjoyed the first third. Then, the train derailed (no pun intended). The movie fell apart slowly, then rapidly.

2/5.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 16 - 32
Niles_Crane
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 2:01am Report to Moderator
Guest User



Tarantino, of course, got the idea for the "Reservoir Dogs" character names from the original 123.

I doubt anyone will be inspired to reference the new one in 20 years time!

No offense to Travolta and Washington, but they are no Shaw and Matthau, and as (in essence) this is a very basic thriller, the acting of the central characters is what makes or breaks this film.

Walter Matthau was one of the true greats of Hollywood Cinema. Denzel Washington, er...isn't!

Matthau could have read the telephone book and you'd have paid to hear it. Washington often sounds as if he is reading the telephone book!
Logged
e-mail Reply: 17 - 32
Sandra Elstree.
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 2:17am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


What if the Hokey Pokey, IS what it's all about?

Location
Bowden, Alberta
Posts
3664
Posts Per Day
0.60

Quoted from Niles_Crane


No offense to Travolta and Washington, but they are no Shaw and Matthau, and as (in essence) this is a very basic thriller, the acting of the central characters is what makes or breaks this film.

Walter Matthau was one of the true greats of Hollywood Cinema. Denzel Washington, er...isn't!

Matthau could have read the telephone book and you'd have paid to hear it. Washington often sounds as if he is reading the telephone book!


I'm in conflict over your post.

I also loved Mathau,

But as far as debating ovrer "who's the best"?

I say psha!

It's like saying what's better, a strawberry? Or a blackberry? Or perhaps a grape?

Three people are in a room and each decides on strawberry, blackberry and also grape...

Then you get Jane Small running in and saying how much she loves bananas.

It does not compute.

I'm a terrible judge because I love everything and choosing is hard for me.

I enjoyed this movie completely and I don't get with the cynics, but then I guess I might not be as enlightened as they are.

Sandra



A known mistake is better than an unknown truth.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 18 - 32
Niles_Crane
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 5:55am Report to Moderator
Guest User



Of course everyone has their own opinions and viewpoints - the world would be a poorer place if we all agreed about everything.

You like this version of the film. I prefer the Matthau 123 (and as I stated, didn't see the point of remaking it). It doesn't mean either of us are wrong - it's only a film, and our reactions to it are purely personal.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 19 - 32
Murphy
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 5:39pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I am not really sure it is fair to call this a remake at all. In the opening credits it states it is based on the original novel rather than the earlier adaptation. There have been some cases where filmmakers have adapted a novel that has already been adapted before and managed to do something completely different with it.*


I watched this last night funny enough and it was okay, better than I expected. I thought John Travolta overacted and Denzel Washington balanced it out by underacting (as usual). Tony Soprano was great as the mayor and reminded me that we really need to see more of him in the movies.

Of course it was riddled with cliches and bad writing, but i have seen much, much worse movies that this. The whole Gallon of milk thing was a bit vomit inducing and the finale on the bridge was just f'in ridiculous.

I don't think that a handful of passengers on a train in New York is going to crash the US Stock Market either, traders are far too selfish for that. Unless it affects them or there families then you might see a very small adjustment but no way a sharp drop in prices. It would take something far bigger than one train carriage and a gun. At least a bomb threat would have been better. This was not really a twist, from the beginning it was fairly obvious this was where the movie was going.

But, to be fair. This is a Hollywood popcorn flick and not an intelligent thriller, it did its job very well and had no doubt entertained a lot of people and made some money. It was okay.



* Okay so my current project is an adaptation of a novel that has already been adapted before. The first film was shite and left much of the original novel out, effectively turning an intelligent thriller into a piece of popcorn crap. My point is that when I post this feature it will not be a remake of the first film and I will flame anyone who says it is! haha. In my preparation for this script I have not even watched the first film.

Logged
e-mail Reply: 20 - 32
Dreamscale
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 9:37pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Niles, I am amazed you say Denzel isn't a good actor.  I think he's a great actor, adn easily one of the best big ticket, guarranteed success actors around.

What performances don't you like of his?  Which ones do you like?  I honestly can't think of one that wasn't good to great.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 21 - 32
Sandra Elstree.
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 9:51pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


What if the Hokey Pokey, IS what it's all about?

Location
Bowden, Alberta
Posts
3664
Posts Per Day
0.60

Quoted from Dreamscale
Niles, I am amazed you say Denzel isn't a good actor.  I think he's a great actor, adn easily one of the best big ticket, guarranteed success actors around.

What performances don't you like of his?  Which ones do you like?  I honestly can't think of one that wasn't good to great.


You know what I'm starting to think, Jeff?  And more and more all of the time is that nothing really exists in a concrete form, but it's how we perceive it.

Even if we look at our own lives personally, the way we "thought of something" years ago, might quite certainly be very different today.

From my perspective, I'm a very different person in many ways, from say, when I was 16 years old, and yet I'm the same.

So we always question: "How on earth can they say that?" or "How on earth can they feel that way about what-have-you?"

It really is quite baffling, really. And at the same time, it's so beautiful because it's like a spice. Like trying to get into someone else's mind, trying to feel what they feel.

This is one of the reasons why I feel passionate about the written word. To acknowledge another person's presence and opinion as worthy and completely valid seems to me the most wonderful gift that we've been given.

Sandra



A known mistake is better than an unknown truth.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 22 - 32
Dreamscale
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 10:40pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I hear ya, Sandra.  I am so different that I used to be, but yet, the same, like you say.

But I do want to hear from Niles.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 23 - 32
stevie
Posted: October 3rd, 2009, 11:28pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Down Under
Posts
3441
Posts Per Day
0.61
'Glory' is my second favorite film of all time. Denzel's performance in it is a major part of it's brilliance. He won an Oscar for his portayal.
I read somewhere that he did the whipping scene for real so his reactions would be more, well, realistic.
The rest of the cast are good too. Who could have imagined Matthew Broderick going from Ferris to Colonel Shaw in three years?



Logged
Private Message Reply: 24 - 32
Murphy
Posted: October 4th, 2009, 12:01am Report to Moderator
Guest User



Nothing wrong with old Denzel at all.

I can think of some fine movies where he has done a great job, Training Day for instance was quite simply a brilliant performance. Man on Fire was also a great movie.

He may not the greatest actor alive, and does tend to revert back to the same old mannerisms for many of his roles. But when he is good he is very, very good and not sure why someone would knock him.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 25 - 32
Niles_Crane
Posted: October 4th, 2009, 1:18am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Dreamscale
What performances don't you like of his?  Which ones do you like?  I honestly can't think of one that wasn't good to great.


I find him bland and uninteresting as an actor. I haven't seen all his films - his name tends to put me off for a start - but I can't think of any of his that I have seen that features anything from him that sticks in the mind - I find him to be like a large hole within a movie, a blank spot, around which other actors move!

If I do like a Washington movie (say "Fallen" for which I have a soft spot) it tends to be in spite of him, not because of him.

It should be said that this is not wholly his fault - most modern actors are like this because there is no desire by producers now to have actors (stars anyway) with character or ability to act beyond a limited range. An actor putting on a few pounds of fat suit or growing a moustache is hailed as a method actor today!
Logged
e-mail Reply: 26 - 32
Sandra Elstree.
Posted: October 4th, 2009, 11:47pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


What if the Hokey Pokey, IS what it's all about?

Location
Bowden, Alberta
Posts
3664
Posts Per Day
0.60

Quoted from Niles_Crane
Of course everyone has their own opinions and viewpoints - the world would be a poorer place if we all agreed about everything.

You like this version of the film. I prefer the Matthau 123 (and as I stated, didn't see the point of remaking it). It doesn't mean either of us are wrong - it's only a film, and our reactions to it are purely personal.


I agree. We all see and feel things other people don't. We rely on others to help fulfill our deficiencies.

Sandra



A known mistake is better than an unknown truth.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 27 - 32
Andrew
Posted: October 5th, 2009, 5:38am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32
As Sandra states, it's all about opinion, but I find it baffling that anyone would consider Denzel Washington a mediocre actor. In the same way, it's equally baffling that Tom Cruise is considered average/poor (a nice plug for why I am writing 'Cruiseaholics'!) - yet it's indicative of how some people view actors i.e. you're a cash cow, so you're not an artist. Reminds me of the music snobbery encountered when in the 16-18 year old college years.  When you are a top, top actor, you're a target for unsubstantiated and flimsy - not suggesting this is the case with you, Niles! - "he's just not very good"-type comments.

I think Murphy said it best with the "mannerisms" point. Both Cruise and Washington are guilty of this, and this is credited as poor acting, which I disagree with 'cos it doesn't take them out of character, IMO.

Andrew


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 28 - 32
JonnyBoy
Posted: October 5th, 2009, 7:04am Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
London, England
Posts
994
Posts Per Day
0.18
Of all the films I've seen this year, this one ranks quite close to the bottom. The opening irritated me (just felt, with all the crazy effects, they were trying far too hard), and instantly put my back up. I don't really agree that Travolta's a good villain. I read a review that said that he just comes across as 'playground bully mean, not terrorist mean'; that's exactly how I felt. The script seemed to lurch from trying to be cool and wisecracking to deadly serious (the constant reptitition of 'motherfucker' also grated by the end - learn a new expletive, John!), never quite sure of its tone.

Some moments were also, frankly, a bit silly - a sniper shoots someone because he gets bitten by a rat? Please. Also, are we seriously supposed to believe that none of the hijackers noticed the kid talking to the laptop, or even the laptop itself for that matter, until the very end? I didn't buy that at all. There was a moment where they crammed in that the mayor had an ongoing messy divorce, which felt like a clumsy attempt to flesh out a character that I didn't really feel needed to be involved, actually. What did the mayor actually add to the story?

It felt like Scott was trying go for the Michael Mann theme of two men on either sides of the fence who actually aren't that different to each other. He was clearly trying to suggest that Travolta and Washington's characters were somehow morally, spiritually connected - trouble is, they weren't, and I don't think that really ever got off the ground. The story did unravel a bit at the end, suddenly lurching into a fairly dull chase sequence because it felt like the writers suddenly realised 'oh crap, we need an ending', although I did like the last exchange between the two leads.

So yeah, all in all it felt a bit uneven, a bit unsure of itself, and a bit over-eager. I hear the original is something of a classic; this, quite frankly, isn't.

(P.S. Niles - clearly, you haven't seen Training Day. Once you've watched that, you will never doubt Denzel's acting chops again. As for Cruise...he's just irritatingly inconsistent. He's great in things like Minority Report and Collateral, but he can also be so uninteresting, like in War of the Worlds and MI:II. On his day he's right up there, but he's not an actor like a Daniel Day Lewis or a Johnny Depp, who are pretty much always extraordinary regardless of what's happening around them.)


Guess who's back? Back again?

Revision History (1 edits)
JonnyBoy  -  October 5th, 2009, 7:28am
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 29 - 32
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006