It was good. Thrilling, and edge of your seat for the most part. The only reason I'm a little disappointed is this: there was not as much action as I thought. Towards the end there was but for the most part it's just a thriller, and it's tension. Don't get me wrong, it's got a lot of action, but the Ads made it look just absolutely FULL and jam packed of action which it is not.

3/5  

I can't bring myself to see this film, out of respect for the late Walter Matthau.

Oh yeah, and my intense dislike for all of Tony Scott's recent films.

I didn't watch it when I had the choice yesterday. I remembered a review that gene shalit gave. He said it was talk talk and talk some more. I usually trust his reviews.

I saw a re-showing of star trek instead. I wanted to see 'away we go' but it wasn't playing at the theartre where we went. So  for you pelham was good, eh?

We had a special screening at my theatre two nights ago. Some of the people liked it; Some didn't. The guy who ran the screening didn't like it. He said it was good, but some of the dialogue didn't fit. The director/writer couldn't get the right tone for the film. Sometimes it was serious, sometimes funny, sometimes a thriller...

I have no interest in seeing it. I'm so over John Travolta.

I liked it. Travolta's best performance since Face-Off.

~Zack~

Quoted from JamminGirl I So  for you pelham was good, eh?

Yep, it was good. Not great but good enough to give a positive review

I won't say the end, But Zack, did it feel rushed to you as well?

Quoted from Aaron I won't say the end, But Zack, did it feel rushed to you as well?

Not at all. I actually couldn't imagine it ending any better. Some powerful stuff from Travolta. "You're my fucking hero".

~Zack~

I saw both movies. The original was funny while this one tried to combine humor with suspense. I enjoyed both (the modern version a bit more though).  

Yeah that last line was great but...I guess I just expected more from the ending, more of an action packed one to be exact. Ads are so dishonest nowadays.

Saw this yesterday and really enjoyed it.  Based on the less than stellar reviews and box office performance, I wasn't expecting it to be nearly as good as it was.

I've seen the original many times, and as recently as a few months ago.  I'm surprised to say that I think the remake is much better.

SPOILERS     SPOILERS     SPOILERS     SPOILERS     SPOILERS

Really enjoyed the twist here, this time around, regarding the real reason for the crime.  I actually started thinking to myself before it was revealed that it should come into play, and lo and behold, it sure did!  Smart writing there, IMO.  I don't think the criminals planned out their escape very well though.  It would have been so simple...

First of all, don't use their actual names in any transactions (have a friend, family member, etc. do it).  They should have had rooms rented already in the hotel, and simply gone to their rooms after escaping the tunnels, and just hung out for a few days before leaving.  Disguises also should have been employed. Obviously, Ryder shouldn't have given the info he did to Garber...that was downright stupid on his part, and sealed his doom.

I didn't particularly like how things ended.  First of all, I think Ryder should have gotten away, or at least tried to get away.  He gave up way too easy.  I felt let down.

Also, I wish they went for 1 final twist, in which Garber goes home to his wife, turns on his computer, and we see that he used the $35,000 bribe money in a put/call investement (like Ryder did), and had turned it into $1.25 Million, meaning he was in on it the whole time. I think that really would have added to the entire story and would have left us with lots to digest.

Good, solid flick though that was tense and engaging the whole ride.

I agree Jeff about the end, it was like BOOM then it was over

I liked this movie a lot, Travolta and Washington were at their best I think, I always have a hard time thinking of Travolta as a bad guy cuz he seems like the nicest guy in the world when you see him on talk shows and stuff but he still manages to pull it off every time.  I thought Tony Scott did a good directing job, not as kinetic as most of his films, and it was paced well, not too long, not too short. I also like how the John Turturro character wasn't a douche, in almost every hostage flick when the head cop or whatever, like the principle from the breakfast club who was in die hard, comes in he's always a major twat who opposes the hero, it was nice to see the head guy support Washington, that is very rare.  And I really liked the ending, I thought it worked out well, in fact I'm glad it didn't go a different route.  

This was ok.

Denzel and John Travolta made this work. The cinematography was exceptional. The whole thing felt a little uneven, however. When Walter was forced into a confession, it felt like we were heading into a full blown battle of wits, and while the opening scenes suggested this, it kind of lost its way in that respect. It was a ll a bit start-stop throughout and while engaging enough, the script definitely had pacing problems.

Ryder's actions and the stock market complexities woven into his 'hold-up' was a nice touch. Travolta is an excellent bad guy, but conversely, it's actually difficult to dislike him, and this undercuts his actions a tad.

Decent enough, but actors of DW and JT's quality are wasted on this type of film.

Andrew

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!)

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!  ;D

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

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.

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!

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

'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?

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.

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!

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

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

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.)

Quoted from JonnyBoy 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 cr**, we need an ending', although I did like the last exchange between the two leads.

I was going to say 'Collateral' as I read this, which of course you referenced later on. 'Collateral' was where Mann harnessed all of the best parts of his previous work, and this was achored by an incredible performance from Cruise - had a more in vogue actor turned out such a performance, I imagine the plaudits would have been deafening.

'Training Day'? My man! Says it all, a tour de force. I also loved him in 'American Gangster' alongside another terrific actor in Crowe.

Depp? Depp is good, but nowhere near the class of DDL, IMO. I'd take Cruise and Washington over Depp any day.  

Just wanted to state - having reread my previous post - I am not suggesting no solid reasons exist to argue that Washington and Cruise are not good actors; but rather that the reasons generally put forth tend to be "unsubstantiated and flimsy".

Andrew

Quoted from Andrew Depp? Depp is good, but nowhere near the class of DDL, IMO. I'd take Cruise and Washington over Depp any day.

I agree DDL is pretty much in a class of his own. But I personally think Depp is one of the most interesting actors working today. Take Public Enemies, for instance - towards the end, I honestly forgot I was watching Johnny Depp. He disappears into his roles in a way that I don't think I've ever seen Tom Cruise achieve.

Here's a question - if you could write for one of Washington, Cruise or Depp, which one would you be more excited about working with? For me, it would be Depp - I'd be so excited to see what he could do with the character I'd created.

Quoted from JonnyBoy Here's a question - if you could write for one of Washington, Cruise or Depp, which one would you be more excited about working with? For me, it would be Depp - I'd be so excited to see what he could do with the character I'd created.

All 3! Any of those guys performing a character I had created would be a dream. The pick of the bunch, however, would be Cruise - without a moment's thought.

Cruise is oft criticised, and there is probably a sentimental loyalty there somewhere. However, performances like 'Jerry Maguire', 'Collateral', 'Born on the Fourth of July', 'Magnolia', 'The Last Samurai', and I could go on, just inspire me more than the others. That's my thing, I need to be inspired and I am quite emotive in that way. I just think Cruise became perceived as a 'celebrity', and it affected how his talent was viewed, which is part of what I want 'Cruiseaholics' to tackle - the all-consuming power of celebrity, and how it manifests itself in people's lives, dreams and reality.

I'll shut up now, 'cos this is the Pelham thread!

Andrew