The Taking Of Pelham 123 (Dreadful Remake)

[wellpip]

Well I just returned from a trip overseas and had the chance to watch the latest sorry re-make from Hollywood. Starring Mr revolting Travolta and I will now do anything for the money, Denzel Washington in "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3”. It has plenty to offer if you are into gratuitous violence, bad acting and poorly written scripts. I think the editor was on speed. It certainly is a dead cert for the title of the best comedy of 2009. The only thing missing was Keanu Reeves, or was he in it? LOL.. I was so bored with it that if an elephant had walked over the tracks I would not have considered for a second why an elephant?

They will probably nominate Travolta and Washington for an Oscar no doubt..

Will quality movies ever return I ask you, or are we doomed to suffer all this crap until Hollywood scuttles itself?

[Carl V]

Unfortunately, Hollywood re-makes very rarely match up to the original versions, although I have to admit I can't remember much about the original 'Taking of Pelham 123'. Today's Hollywood blockbusters all seem to involve fast, flashy editing and a cameraman who's incapable of keeping a camera steady. I guess studio bosses aren't bothered about bad acting and lousy scripts just so long as they rake in the dollars.

[Mark O]

'Gratutious' Violence?..........I am surprised



I've been looking forward to this 'serious' remake as i'm a fan of the 70's original but if there's a load of blood and gore it'll put me right orf!

[batman]

name='Carl V'] I have to admit I can't remember much about the original 'Taking of Pelham 123'.

The original has an intelligent and subtle script and two exceptional leading performances. These, along with some quality direction, turn the original into an above average thriller.



Tony Scott is not the most subtle of directors and his name on the credits rang alarm bells with me.



I shall give this one a miss.

[pelam123]

I wish they'd stop ruining the memory of a great film and lets face it, Travolta and Washington for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau???



On the subject of 70's remakes, I'm surprised that no one has yet thought of remaking Soylent Green. This was a film way ahead of its time in subject matter (which has now arrived with a vengence) and is surely ripe for an update.

[Marky B]

name='wellpip']Well I just returned from a trip overseas and had the chance to watch the latest sorry re-make from Hollywood. Starring Mr revolting Travolta and I will now do anything for the money, Denzel Washington in "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3”. It has plenty to offer if you are into gratuitous violence, bad acting and poorly written scripts. I think the editor was on speed. It certainly is a dead cert for the title of the best comedy of 2009. The only thing missing was Keanu Reeves, or was he in it? LOL.. I was so bored with it that if an elephant had walked over the tracks I would not have considered for a second why an elephant?

They will probably nominate Travolta and Washington for an Oscar no doubt..

Will quality movies ever return I ask you, or are we doomed to suffer all this crap until Hollywood scuttles itself?

Does it have the dry humour of the original?

Black cop inside dark tunnel:"Will you tell them I am down here. I don't exactly stick out."

Ta Ta

Marky B

[wellpip]

I forgot to include this pic..

[thatllbetheday]

name='pelam123']I wish they'd stop ruining the memory of a great film and lets face it, Travolta and Washington for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau???



On the subject of 70's remakes, I'm surprised that no one has yet thought of remaking Soylent Green. This was a film way ahead of its time in subject matter (which has now arrived with a vengence) and is surely ripe for an update.

Why? When the original was made, it seemed like science fiction. Now - who knows? We need a film that has the same shock value of the ending.

[christoph404]

I try to avoid remakes as much as possible, they generally do their utmost to tarnish the quality and reputation of the original by being poorly executed and just plain naff, but it doesn't wash with me. I actually intensely dislike Tony Scott's style of film making ( Ridley I like, Tony...no) ,his visual style , fast cuts and dizzying camera pyrotechnics are just too flashy and self conscious and become very irritating after about 90 seconds into the film. That kind of filming might be appropriate for a 90 second TV commercial but for a whole feature length film?... no thanks, and why Tony Scott hasn't yet realised that a TV commercial and feature film normally require different visual approaches is beyond me. Another to avoid I think and as for Travolta, well he certainly has got some mileage from his overrated appearance in Pulp Fiction, let's face it, he's not really a serious actor and is frankly laughable when he tries to do menacing, comedy sounds like the right description for this movie.

[m35541]

To me remakes must have something fresh to add - not just cos someone has run out of original ideas.



The two worst remakes I think have seen (relatively) recently were Get Carter and Psycho.

[eric7885]

At times,remakes are good. This time,it was not. This remake is nothing but a violent piece of garbage. John Travolta and Denzel Washington must need the money. Don't waste your time going to the cinema to view this film.