Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (2009)

This is topic Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (2009) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001559

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 06-14-2009, 06:47 PM:

Fooey! Director Tony Scott seems to have the thought that "if there is some image trickery, use it, regardless of how it fits the movie".
No hand held, but lots of camera pivoting around the subject, thus having the background constantly swooping by.
Very nervous editing, skip-frames to make the vehicles jerk along, extreme closeups all served to detract from the story line.
The lead villian (Travolta) did what he was supposed to, but the character was written as such a crazy he, again, became unbelievable.
It loses suspense, and becomes just another noisy chase picture. Another example of where remaking a good movie is not an improvement.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-14-2009, 09:02 PM:

Saw this with my son at Becky's D/I, Berlinsville, PA on their small screen (#2).

Too many and unnecessary f-bombs slowed the picture down. Okay, we've established he's crazy and that they're New Yorkers already! Get on with it!

It held our attention, however, and had enough action to be fun.

3 stars out of 5.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-16-2009, 02:09 AM:

CINEMA: Regal Colorado Mills 16
AUDITORIUM: 10
PRESENTATION: 35mm film with Dolby Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Hiss from front screen speakers during preshow, but it went away. Nobody cares about the preshow, though. The film presentation itself started out of frame. Frame moved slightly upwards but it was still out of frame since you could see a black bar at the top of the screen and the bottom of the previous frame on top of that on the masking. Had to go out and look for a manager. Finally found one in the Customer Service area which is about as far away as you can get from the auditoriums. Manager did not look up and acknowledge my presence until I started speaking. Got back into the auditorium and the problem was finally corrected. Huge keystoning issues in this auditorium. In fact, the keystoning was absurd. I don't know why so many in the industry find this acceptable but I always hear old tech people in the industry talk about how they love these ancient theaters with the projector pointing down at a huge angle. Those theaters are unacceptable and should be demolished. Anyway, back to the Colorado Mills 16, auditorium #10... the sound in this auditorium has to be some of the worst anywhere in the Denver metro area. Much too shrill. Auditorium #9 sounds much better. I have complained about this auditorium before, but nothing has changed. Also, the left and right speakers seem out of balance. You could really tell any time some music (non-scored) played as it was generally only piped between the left and right channels. Auditorium is advertised as a giant screen for some reason, but it's about the same size as any random multiplex's large auditorium. Maybe the stadium seating just makes everything look smaller. Lights went down before the trailers were over and never came up during the credits. Also, although this wasn't a problem with the movie presentation, the exit doors in the lobby could not be opened until I slammed into them with my body's full force. They weren't locked, they just do not open. This is a huge fire hazard. Maybe OSHA should be notified?

The movie:
Wow, what a turd! The camera could not stay still for even a single second. It was always wooshing and swooping around everyone else who was just sitting around talking. There was no reason for this. Lots of shots had a reduced framerate as well and this really pissed me off. Looked tacky and unprofessional. In all I'd say a bunch of wannabe film students made this. Very unprofessionally shot in just about every respect. The premise of the movie could have been good if lots of things like this were better. John Travolta's character was way too over the top for me. The editing was horrible and by the time the last 15 minutes or so of the movie came around I had no idea what was going on or how certain things came to be. Stupid.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-16-2009, 06:30 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Wow, what a turd! The camera could not stay still for even a single second. It was always wooshing and swooping around everyone else who was just sitting around talking. There was no reason for this. Lots of shots had a reduced framerate as well and this really pissed me off. Looked tacky and unprofessional. In all I'd say a bunch of wannabe film students made this. Very unprofessionally shot in just about every respect. The premise of the movie could have been good if lots of things like this were better. John Travolta's character was way too over the top for me. The editing was horrible and by the time the last 15 minutes or so of the movie came around I had no idea what was going on or how certain things came to be. Stupid.

Now turn that around 180 degrees and you have a review for the original which really is a great fucking picture. I was actually looking forward to this in some insane way. Even though it's Tony Scott...jeez...how could he possibly screw up such good source material? Oh yes, I forgot...he's Tony Scott...no, the other one.

Sigh...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2009, 01:45 PM:

quote: John Wilson
Now turn that around 180 degrees and you have a review for the original which really is a great fucking picture.

Absolutely, it's excellent and was one of the first DVDs I bought. In fact I am disappointed they didn't release a new "special edition" DVD with a bunch of making-of features and vintage interviews.

The original movie can be viewed on hulu.com for anyone interested in checking it out. The think I liked about it was that it seemed totally possible....some nut really could do this. Everything, from the wimpy mayor to the one chase scene, seemed believeable. From what I've heard about this new one, they threw most of the plausibility out the window. (I'm still wanting to see it though.)

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-20-2009, 05:47 PM:

Joe Redifer

quote: Joe Redifer
the exit doors in the lobby could not be opened until I slammed into them with my body's full force.

Well he does weigh about a buck 35 so I am not impressed. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-21-2009, 07:37 PM:

CINEMA: Rave Westroads 14, Omaha, NE
AUDITORIUM: 13
PRESENTATION: Christie DLP Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: LF and C channels were swapped...all the dialogue came from the left front channel, and the center channel played the left front channel music and effects
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

So I'm entering Regency Circle heading to Whole Foods when I spy the Westroads Mall entry sign, which includes the "RAVE Motion Pictures" logo.

WHAT? When did they build a Rave here?

(November 2008, apparently.)

Enter the glass tower and find a big snake line for the ticket window with nobody in it. Still, there's some navigation required. Left...walk...right...walk straight through a bunch of rows to the front...left...left...straight...right...Disco.

The auditorium walk is a similar jumbo. Straight...right...down a long hallway to the satellite snack bar where the hallway splits to the right and left depending on which auditorium you're going to. I'm going right...then to the left again down a small side corridor. This is more convoluted than the Ogden Tinseltown. And oddly enough, has almost the same decor.

THE PLOT: A subway car is hijacked, and they don't want five dollar footlongs. Wackiness ensues.

In the interest of science, I watched the original last week...the existing non-anamorphic widescreen mono DVD release. Thanks for the effort, MGM. Anyway, it was an unusually nice effort for a non-action action movie with a weak ending that essentially made the whole thing a running joke about a cough. WHY would that idiot go home?

The new version largely keeps the base story of the original, but presents it in an entirely different style. There are differences in the main players' backgrounds and their ultimate goals, and the new one has a far better ending.

Overall, I liked both movies equally for different reasons.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2009, 09:29 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
I watched the original last week...the existing non-anamorphic widescreen mono DVD release.

Really? The DVD I have is scope letterboxed and is stereo...well at least I think it is. Now you've got me curious. I bought it a few years ago so maybe it's been discontinued in favor of the stupid version you describe. WTF?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-21-2009, 11:30 PM:

Mike, I can't seem to find the original on Hulu. I looked for it but ended up watching Basic Instinct instead.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-22-2009, 08:11 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Really? The DVD I have is scope letterboxed and is stereo...well at least I think it is. Now you've got me curious. I bought it a few years ago so maybe it's been discontinued in favor of the stupid version you describe. WTF?

It's scoped letterbox, alright, but it's not anamorphic, so it sits in a small rectangular box in the middle of my screen. I assume you're watching it on a standard 4:3 set, so this wouldn't affect you.

As for "mono", it is, and that's actually fine since the original movie was mono. But it's a pretty crappy mono, particularly when the shrilling music plays.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-22-2009, 04:15 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Mike, I can't seem to find the original on Hulu.

Yeah, it appears to be gone. Too bad. There are a ton of "excerpts" on there though - which is pretty stupid. Maybe a DVD reissue is in the works.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-22-2009, 07:18 PM:

Fancast has available.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-22-2009, 08:58 PM:

Try to use complete sentences, please.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-02-2009, 08:49 AM:

COMCAST ON DEMAND has the original in the free movies HD section. I don't think the original is all that awesome. But it was a fun viewing. I saw bits and pieces of the remake. It just looks dull. And Travolta is just silly.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-13-2009, 03:38 PM:

quote:
In the interest of science, I watched the original last week... the existing non-anamorphic widescreen mono release.

MGM through Fox has just released a new DVD with new cover art. That's about all thats new about it. It's the same old transfer from the old MGM release. Fox has been updating some old transfers, but not this old yet.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-13-2009, 07:23 PM:

I have not seen the original, but thought that the remake was basically decent. It was not original at all, but the action scenes were competently done. It works well as disposable entertainment. It is not art (nor does it pretend to be) and will not be remembered in ten years.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-13-2009, 11:11 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
It was not original

I wonder why? [Wink]

Posted by Craig Duncanson (Member # 4956) on 07-28-2009, 05:27 PM:

Well, it opens here tomorrow. Pre-booking not great.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 08-27-2009, 12:29 AM:

Roadtested this one yesterday, I did not quite fall asleep but came close.

This I thought had very thin plot and just dwelled on the wrongs and rights of big crook vs little crook.

I thought Denzel was ok, Hated watching half the movie or what seemed like it in slow motion and the spinning camera actions were very distracting.

sound mix on DTS was quite good.

2 out of 5 from me.

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 09-04-2009, 02:16 AM:

Test screened this morning. Was a bit too flashily done I think but I like John Travolta in almost anything. And I was a bit distracted by the little emulsion cross scratches right down the centre of the print because I was trying to figure how they got there!
Anyway I digress. 6/10 from me.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-04-2009, 04:14 AM:

Saw the original a few weeks ago. Wow. I think. The main bad guy just casually kills himself for no reason.

Bad guy - "Can I give you some money to let me go?"

Walter Matthau - "No."

Bad guy - "OK then. I think I will calmly fry myself on these electric rails. I don't want to put too much effort into this scene as I must save up all of my acting gusto for JAWS."

Walter Matthau - "K. See ya."

Such a gripping confrontation! I bet the audiences in the 70's were on the edge of their non-cupholder, non-reclining seats!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-04-2009, 06:33 PM:

Well that isn't really the climax of the movie though. The climax is earlier, when the train won't stop, and later, when you think Hector E. just might be going to get away with it.

The bad guy killing himself is casually alluded to early in the movie when Hector (the guy with the cold) says, "I'm gonna die today," and Robert Shaw says "That's entirely possible" and just gives him a look, which indicates he really DOESN'T have any cares about life or death.

I like that death scene because you know he's going to bite it, but it's a surprise how and when it happens. I haven't seen the new version, but if they were going to recreate that scene in 2009, I would guess the bad guy would've jumped on a passing subway train (going 60 mph) and then the good guy would pump a handcar as hard as he could and catch up, while riddling the bad guy with machine gun fire.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-04-2009, 06:39 PM:

Ha ha no. It's not that cool. But it involve guns, of course.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-06-2009, 06:53 PM:

quote: Joe
non-reclining seats!

You're forgetting Grigg's pushback seats... standard in all General Cinema and Redstone theatres throughout the 60s and 70s.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-06-2009, 07:12 PM:

I know what you are talking about. Comfortable they weren't!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-14-2009, 10:50 AM:

Century Theatres here in NYC and the suburbs (they were a dominant chain here at the time, mostly big, plush first run theatres with flagships in each of the boroughs, cept maybe Staten Island) all had very comfortable recliner chairs. You pushed against the back and the seat slid forward and the back reclined slightly. Very comfortable. And that was back in the mid-50s.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-17-2009, 12:21 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
You pushed against the back and the seat slid forward and the back reclined slightly. Very comfortable. And that was back in the mid-50s.

My theatre had five rows of those seats. They were quite comfortable. I think they were used when they were installed -- not sure where they came from, but they were definitely at the end of their rope. We replaced them in '83 I think.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2009, 11:31 AM:

Well since the original Pelham is one of my favorite movies, I finally watched the new one on DVD last night, since we didn't play it over the summer.

I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would, but I agree with pretty much everything said in this thread. Language was too over the top, the Travolta character was too unbelieveable, his partners-in-crime had almost nothing to do in the story, etc. The characters in the dispatch office had WAY more personality in the old movie, too.

The most annoying scene was the climactic part at the end where Denzel had John T. at gunpoint and kept yelling "HEY!" at the horde of police officers who were running toward him at top speed, and who kept being shown never getting any closer.

I also was hoping Denzel's wife would get killed by somebody, just because he was in a life threatening situation and all she cared about was her stupid gallon of milk. That scene was considered so good, they even included it in the trailers, but it was probably the stupidest part of the whole movie.

The other most annoying thing was all the beeping and squeaking of every single computer screen anytime a number would display. Why do movie makers insist on doing this? And why does every computer in the universe emit the same annoying beeping sounds?

I did like the Mayor character better in this version. In the old one, he was comic relief but he was really TOO idiotic. In this version, he was the most believeable major character in the whole movie along with Denzel.

Overall, I would say 1.5 out of 5 stars from me. It gets an extra half star for being in scope.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-23-2009, 09:57 AM:

Gosh, it's been a while.

I thought the milk was intended as her way of trying to get him to stay calm and take it one step at a time, and remember his family without too much stress. I thought it was kind of a cute gag. I don't think it was meant to suggest that was all she cared about.

--jhawk

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2009, 01:39 PM:

Well - I've been married for 10 years and I can tell you, if I was in a life threatening situation and had my wife on the phone, the absolute last thing on her mind would be asking me to pick up groceries on the way home. It is just too silly.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-23-2009, 03:05 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
absolute last thing on her mind would be asking me to pick up groceries

Exactly, which is why I think jhawk's interpretation of it makes sense.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-23-2009, 03:15 PM:

I just watched this on Blu-ray. It was better than I expected, did not hate it.