Hehehe. I have such a dorky sense of humor...
Anyhoo, we recently watched the 2009 remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, the original of which is one I have enjoyed for years. So, here are thoughts on both versions of The Taking of Pelham 123.
Plot: Well, the new one is a remake, so the same plot for both. A group of heavily armed thugs take over a NYC subway car and hold it and its passengers hostage, demanding ransom from the City of NY.
Zach liked the newer version better than the older one, but then he's not as big on classic movies as I am. The newer one had points I liked and that I didn't, so I'm copping out and saying I like them both in different ways.
We'll start with the acting. Garber (the transit authority "good guy") was played as a totally different character by Walter Matthau and Denzel Washington in the two versions, because (let's face it) they are about as different as you can get. For being an "everyman" type character, Garber varies a lot between the two movies based on how different Matthau and Denzel physically are. I liked them both, though. Matthau's version was disgruntled and tired, just a guy on the job, not any superstar or big shot. Washington's was a little more jaded, a big shot was accused of bribery, and that was why he was working the desk. Still tired and every-man, just not as frumpy, I guess. Solid acting though. Really, the high point of the casting. And let's face it - Denzel is good at most things he's done, just by opening his mouth. Like Travolta's character said, "he sounds sexy." He's one of those voices you could just give the phone book to, and it would be a good listen.
Which brings me to the villains (Travolta playing the lead in the remake). Travolta was over the top. Just didn't like him. He had some good lines, but overall, was just too much for me. Robert Shaw played a much colder, more composed villain. Shaw just struck me as more believable as a personality who could engineer such a heist, as well as recruit 3 other guys to go along with him. I just have a hard time seeing Travolta's character as one that would inspire enough confidence to have people follow him in what seems a pretty crazy plot. "Rob something underground with limited escape routes? Sounds like a great idea! (insert sarcasm) Nutcase... (muttered under breath)" seems more like the response that Travolta would elicit.
As for supporting cast, I actually really like James Gandolfini as the mayor in the new version. Pretty funny, in a dry sort of way. Well, if not laugh-out-loud funny, he was a lighter character without being out of place. Make sense? I didn't like how the rest of the robbers were underused in the remake. In the original, you actually got to recognize all 4 robbers as individual characters. Here, Luis Guzman is waaay underused (he's a good supporting actor, and can do much more than what he was given in this movie), and the other two robbers I don't think said but two lines each, just walked around holding machine guns and looked threatening.
Which brings me to the next point, how the characters were 'developed.' There was the bribery subplot that I mentioned above involving Garber, which I just felt was unnecessary. Zach didn't mind it, and it did lead to one of the few scenes with actual tension in the movie, but at the same time, it just didn't fit well for me as character development. Garber was a good character being just a guy at his job who got dragged into all this nonsense. He didn't need to have this back story to make him more rounded. There are lots of guys who have no major identifiers on their CV, just guys who show up and do their job and maybe get promoted, maybe not. That's life. I dunno... the whole subplot just didn't mesh well with me.
Oh, and the girlfriend in the newer version bothered me too. She was talking online to her boyfriend (one of the hostages) and they were able to keep communicating secretly despite the armed men. There was one scene, though, where she was asking her boyfriend if he loved her, in response to her having told him that she loves him. I wanted to slap her. I mean, c'mon, he's lying on the floor of the subway train, with men with big guns walking around in the background. Does he really look like he can talk at that point?? And for that matter, how do the cops find out that the girl has the Internet connection to the train, but the robbers (who are watching all sorts of news while on the train) do not?
Another thing I didn't like about the remake was how the action sequence became over-the-top as all modern movies are. A car crash sends a taxi flying through the air? Really?
Overall:
Original: 4.5 of 5. Overall, enjoyed the cast better here, though there are no stand-out superstars. More cat-and-mouse, less straight-out action. Yes, it's on my shelf already.
Remake: 3.5 of 5. Entertaining, but with it's irritations. Don't look for plausibility, just accept it as a summer blockbuster type adventure movie and enjoy it as such. If you're looking for suspense, though, look to the original. Don't know if I'd get it for my shelf, honestly - not that I disliked it, but that if I'm watching the story, I'd rather watch the original telling.
Anyhoo, we recently watched the 2009 remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, the original of which is one I have enjoyed for years. So, here are thoughts on both versions of The Taking of Pelham 123.
Plot: Well, the new one is a remake, so the same plot for both. A group of heavily armed thugs take over a NYC subway car and hold it and its passengers hostage, demanding ransom from the City of NY.
Zach liked the newer version better than the older one, but then he's not as big on classic movies as I am. The newer one had points I liked and that I didn't, so I'm copping out and saying I like them both in different ways.
We'll start with the acting. Garber (the transit authority "good guy") was played as a totally different character by Walter Matthau and Denzel Washington in the two versions, because (let's face it) they are about as different as you can get. For being an "everyman" type character, Garber varies a lot between the two movies based on how different Matthau and Denzel physically are. I liked them both, though. Matthau's version was disgruntled and tired, just a guy on the job, not any superstar or big shot. Washington's was a little more jaded, a big shot was accused of bribery, and that was why he was working the desk. Still tired and every-man, just not as frumpy, I guess. Solid acting though. Really, the high point of the casting. And let's face it - Denzel is good at most things he's done, just by opening his mouth. Like Travolta's character said, "he sounds sexy." He's one of those voices you could just give the phone book to, and it would be a good listen.
Which brings me to the villains (Travolta playing the lead in the remake). Travolta was over the top. Just didn't like him. He had some good lines, but overall, was just too much for me. Robert Shaw played a much colder, more composed villain. Shaw just struck me as more believable as a personality who could engineer such a heist, as well as recruit 3 other guys to go along with him. I just have a hard time seeing Travolta's character as one that would inspire enough confidence to have people follow him in what seems a pretty crazy plot. "Rob something underground with limited escape routes? Sounds like a great idea! (insert sarcasm) Nutcase... (muttered under breath)" seems more like the response that Travolta would elicit.
As for supporting cast, I actually really like James Gandolfini as the mayor in the new version. Pretty funny, in a dry sort of way. Well, if not laugh-out-loud funny, he was a lighter character without being out of place. Make sense? I didn't like how the rest of the robbers were underused in the remake. In the original, you actually got to recognize all 4 robbers as individual characters. Here, Luis Guzman is waaay underused (he's a good supporting actor, and can do much more than what he was given in this movie), and the other two robbers I don't think said but two lines each, just walked around holding machine guns and looked threatening.
Which brings me to the next point, how the characters were 'developed.' There was the bribery subplot that I mentioned above involving Garber, which I just felt was unnecessary. Zach didn't mind it, and it did lead to one of the few scenes with actual tension in the movie, but at the same time, it just didn't fit well for me as character development. Garber was a good character being just a guy at his job who got dragged into all this nonsense. He didn't need to have this back story to make him more rounded. There are lots of guys who have no major identifiers on their CV, just guys who show up and do their job and maybe get promoted, maybe not. That's life. I dunno... the whole subplot just didn't mesh well with me.
Oh, and the girlfriend in the newer version bothered me too. She was talking online to her boyfriend (one of the hostages) and they were able to keep communicating secretly despite the armed men. There was one scene, though, where she was asking her boyfriend if he loved her, in response to her having told him that she loves him. I wanted to slap her. I mean, c'mon, he's lying on the floor of the subway train, with men with big guns walking around in the background. Does he really look like he can talk at that point?? And for that matter, how do the cops find out that the girl has the Internet connection to the train, but the robbers (who are watching all sorts of news while on the train) do not?
Another thing I didn't like about the remake was how the action sequence became over-the-top as all modern movies are. A car crash sends a taxi flying through the air? Really?
Overall:
Original: 4.5 of 5. Overall, enjoyed the cast better here, though there are no stand-out superstars. More cat-and-mouse, less straight-out action. Yes, it's on my shelf already.
Remake: 3.5 of 5. Entertaining, but with it's irritations. Don't look for plausibility, just accept it as a summer blockbuster type adventure movie and enjoy it as such. If you're looking for suspense, though, look to the original. Don't know if I'd get it for my shelf, honestly - not that I disliked it, but that if I'm watching the story, I'd rather watch the original telling.
No comments:
Post a Comment