list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Taking_of_Pelham_1_2_3/350092/default.aspx Title: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
Year: 2009
Director: Tony Scott
Plot: A New York City subway dispatcher draws on his extensive knowledge of the subway system in order to outsmart a dangerous criminal mastermind who's hijacked a subway train in this remake of the 1974 thriller inspired by John Godey's bestselling book. Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) was drifting through his daily routine when he received word that a heavily armed gang of four has hijacked a subway train and are holding all of the passengers hostage. Led by cunning master thief Ryder (John Travolta), the gunmen will begin executing everyone aboard should the authorities fail in delivering a sizable ransom in the space of just one hour. With the tension in the tunnels rising, Walter races to save the hostages before the shootings start. But through it all, there's one part of Ryder's plan that Walter can't quite comprehend: Even if the thieves do succeed in getting their money, how could they possibly get out of the tunnels undetected? ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 4
SpoutRating: 1
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:00:29 GMTThe Taking of Pelham 1 2 32009Tony ScottA New York City subway dispatcher draws on his extensive knowledge of the subway system in order to outsmart a dangerous criminal mastermind who's hijacked a subway train in this remake of the 1974 thriller inspired by <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___309858/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Godey</a>'s bestselling book. Walter Garber (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____74843/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Denzel Washington</a>) was drifting through his daily routine when he received word that a heavily armed gang of four has hijacked a subway train and are holding all of the passengers hostage. Led by cunning master thief Ryder (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____71670/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Travolta</a>), the gunmen will begin executing everyone aboard should the authorities fail in delivering a sizable ransom in the space of just one hour. With the tension in the tunnels rising, Walter races to save the hostages before the shootings start. But through it all, there's one part of Ryder's plan that Walter can't quite comprehend: Even if the thieves do succeed in getting their money, how could they possibly get out of the tunnels undetected? ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide1Slightly Tagged (1-5)341http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s350092.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Taking_of_Pelham_1_2_3/350092/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/kevynknox/archive/2009/6/30/42869.aspx Post By: KevynKnox
Post To: KevynKnox Blog
Post Date: 6/30/2009 12:11:23 AM
Body: I suppose the criticism of comparison is inevitable when talking about a remake. Cheap criticism perhaps, but almost obligatory by expectation. Unfortunately, what is also inevitable (or is it obligatory?) is the much much more oft than not failed comparison when all is said and done. In fact I cannot think of a single remake that is superior to the original. (note: after a bit of quickie research on IMDb, I can give props to both Cronenberg's The Fly and Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven) So, cheap criticism or not, one must do what one must do. That said, Tony Scott's loud, garish, slap-dash retread of Joseph Sargent's subtle and darkly comic original 1974 thriller is inevitably left holding the proverbial hat of mis-comparison. In otherwords, where Sargent's film is a taut, engaging, even acerbic look at the socio-political tensions that ran high in the decaying city that was New York in the mid-seventies (this was made less than a year before President Ford's infamous telling of New York to drop dead) Scott's blaring, and quite unnecessary remake is a frantic, post 9/11 mish-mash of editing that looks as if it were put through a blender before being put in front of an audience. But then, this is just Tony Scott being Tony Scott. Watching any Tony Scott film is a thing one does only after the very necessary preemptive taking of ibuprofen. His editing style, which can easily be compared to a raging meth head gibbon crashing a helicopter over and over and over again, is a style choice that works in certain films. It works, to some level or another in films such as True Romance, Man on Fire and the rather overlooked Domino. It should probably work here to, considering the level of tension involved in the story of a hijacked subway train, but it just doesn't. No matter how many frenetic swish-swashes back and forth Mr. Scott attempts (and he attempts a fucking hell of a lot of them!) it just never works. It's not the acting (really!) that pulls us asunder. Well perhaps it is in part, but it's not really all their fault. Denzel Washington as the beleaguered transit dispatcher who gets sucked into the hijacking is given such a mild-mannered role that his ability far overshadows what he is meant to be. In essence, he is overqualified. As for John Travolta as the hyper head hijacker, he goes so far over the top that one would ostensibly need a telescope to see his shit-ass smile. Of course Travolta going so far over the top may very well be nothing more than a reaction to Scott's hectic ape-shit editing style and ultra loud bang bangs. If he didn't chew up the scenery we would never even notice him. The only performance that manages to escape Scott's self-inflicting firing squad is James Gandolfini as hizzoner da mayor. The cinematic love child of Giuliani and Bloomberg, Gandolfini's mayor is the highlight of an otherwise unhighlighted film. If Travolta is the overbearing papa bear and Denzel the underwhelming mama bear with nothing fun to do, then Gandolfini is just right. Too bad the rest of Scott's blunderbuss of a motion picture is mere junk in the trunk. More mediocrity than mayhem. Add to all this (except the lone light of Gandolfini - let's leave him off the hook!) a final twenty minutes that is so unbelievably ridiculous that it may never sit right in my head, no matter how long it percolates. I've seen worse but that ain't sayin' much. I guess, in the end, what it all comes down to is that most basic of critical jobs. Do I recommend this film? I suppose it should be obvious by now what my oh so humble opinion is, so I will not dignify such a question with a reply, other than the secret guilt of a cheap thrill now and then throughout this silly little diddle of a film. I do, on the other hand, recommend going out and renting the original and watching that instead. Enjoy.
]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:11:23 GMTKevynKnoxKevynKnox Blog6/30/2009 12:11:23 AMI suppose the criticism of comparison is inevitable when talking about a remake. Cheap criticism perhaps, but almost obligatory by expectation. Unfortunately, what is also inevitable (or is it obligatory?) is the much much more oft than not failed comparison when all is said and done. In fact I cannot think of a single remake that is superior to the original. (note: after a bit of quickie research on IMDb, I can give props to both Cronenberg's The Fly and Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven) So, cheap criticism or not, one must do what one must do. That said, Tony Scott's loud, garish, slap-dash retread of Joseph Sargent's subtle and darkly comic original 1974 thriller is inevitably left holding the proverbial hat of mis-comparison. In otherwords, where Sargent's film is a taut, engaging, even acerbic look at the socio-political tensions that ran high in the decaying city that was New York in the mid-seventies (this was made less than a year before President Ford's infamous telling of New York to drop dead) Scott's blaring, and quite unnecessary remake is a frantic, post 9/11 mish-mash of editing that looks as if it were put through a blender before being put in front of an audience. But then, this is just Tony Scott being Tony Scott. Watching any Tony Scott film is a thing one does only after the very necessary preemptive taking of ibuprofen. His editing style, which can easily be compared to a raging meth head gibbon crashing a helicopter over and over and over again, is a style choice that works in certain films. It works, to some level or another in films such as True Romance, Man on Fire and the rather overlooked Domino. It should probably work here to, considering the level of tension involved in the story of a hijacked subway train, but it just doesn't. No matter how many frenetic swish-swashes back and forth Mr. Scott attempts (and he attempts a fucking hell of a lot of them!) it just never works. It's not the acting (really!) that pulls us asunder. Well perhaps it is in part, but it's not really all their fault. Denzel Washington as the beleaguered transit dispatcher who gets sucked into the hijacking is given such a mild-mannered role that his ability far overshadows what he is meant to be. In essence, he is overqualified. As for John Travolta as the hyper head hijacker, he goes so far over the top that one would ostensibly need a telescope to see his shit-ass smile. Of course Travolta going so far over the top may very well be nothing more than a reaction to Scott's hectic ape-shit editing style and ultra loud bang bangs. If he didn't chew up the scenery we would never even notice him. The only performance that manages to escape Scott's self-inflicting firing squad is James Gandolfini as hizzoner da mayor. The cinematic love child of Giuliani and Bloomberg, Gandolfini's mayor is the highlight of an otherwise unhighlighted film. If Travolta is the overbearing papa bear and Denzel the underwhelming mama bear with nothing fun to do, then Gandolfini is just right. Too bad the rest of Scott's blunderbuss of a motion picture is mere junk in the trunk. More mediocrity than mayhem. Add to all this (except the lone light of Gandolfini - let's leave him off the hook!) a final twenty minutes that is so unbelievably ridiculous that it may never sit right in my head, no matter how long it percolates. I've seen worse but that ain't sayin' much. I guess, in the end, what it all comes down to is that most basic of critical jobs. Do I recommend this film? I suppose it should be obvious by now what my oh so humble opinion is, so I will not dignify such a question with a reply, other than the secret guilt of a cheap thrill now and then throughout this silly little diddle of a film. I do, on the other hand, recommend going out and renting the original and watching that instead. Enjoy. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/12/30/38958.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 12/30/2008 3:01:36 PM
Body: Oh, 2008 … where has the time all gone to? It seems like just yesterday that we were cringing at the faux Golden Globes, learning about Sweding, and seriously debating Juno’s chance at winning Best Picture. What fools we were! Perhaps we ought to head into the last year of The Aughts with a better game plan. With that in mind, I’ve devised a list of films that I’m excited to see (for the first time or not) and talk about in the coming 12 months. Later in the week, we’ll take a look at some movies we saw at festivals in 2008 which now have a release date in 2009, and also films which have no release date, but which we expect to see show up on the festival circuit in the coming months. But we’re going to get the macro out of the way first: after the jump, you’ll find three Big, Stupid Hollywood Movies which I’m assuming will be awful, but possibly in an interesting way. Do share the titles you have your own eyes on in the comments. The Taking of Pelham 123 — The IMDb boards are full of debate over the ethical specifics of this Tony Scott-directed, Denzel Washington-starring remake of the 70s classic. A sample: “Pulp Fiction (edit: I mean Resevoir Dogs) had the “Color names” (mr brown, mr blue etc.), a direct reference to the original Pelham. What if the new Pelham also has the color names?” worries  FelixVanNorten. “I bet people are going to be all mad over it saying it is lame that they stole it from Resevoir Dogs.” Yes, probably! File this one under Probable Trainwrecks We Won’t Be Able to Ignore. Julie and Julia — Julie Powell’s blog-to-book account of a year spent cooking her way through Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume 1 is notable amongst first-person food memoirs, in that it avoids the easy crutches of eating-as-pathway to spirituality and/or metaphor for sex. What it makes no effort to avoid, are the cliches of The New Chick Lit/Flick. Julie is a smart-mouthed working New Yorker who drowns most frustrations in girl talk and cocktails –– and on that score, it’s (almost refreshingly) square, in that at the end of the day, Julie is essentially a harried but not unhappy, completely realistic contemporary housewife. All of which is taking the long road to say that the book doesn’t exactly cry out for cinematic adaptation. There’s just no real drama; when it looks like Julie’s not going to be able to cook all the recipes … she just cooks faster. When she gets into fights with her husband … they make up. What fresh contrivances will director Nora Ephron cook up to tug at the heartstrings of the lonely lady audience? I must find out! The Box — I didn’t hate Southland Tales –– which, it seems, has become an increasingly controversial position. The Box is Richard Kelly’s tail-between-the-legs, “I swear, I can make a film that doesn’t bleed money and taint the reputations of all involved!” follow-up. In the Causes For Alarm column: it’s been bumped down the release schedule at least twice, and it stars Cameron Diaz, who has somehow become the go-to star for PG-13 Movies That Make A Lot Of Money That No Adult Will Admit To Having Paid To See. In the But Maybe It’s Not So Bad column: I didn’t hate Southland Tales! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:01:36 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog12/30/2008 3:01:36 PMOh, 2008 … where has the time all gone to? It seems like just yesterday that we were cringing at the faux Golden Globes, learning about Sweding, and seriously debating Juno’s chance at winning Best Picture. What fools we were! Perhaps we ought to head into the last year of The Aughts with a better game plan. With that in mind, I’ve devised a list of films that I’m excited to see (for the first time or not) and talk about in the coming 12 months. Later in the week, we’ll take a look at some movies we saw at festivals in 2008 which now have a release date in 2009, and also films which have no release date, but which we expect to see show up on the festival circuit in the coming months. But we’re going to get the macro out of the way first: after the jump, you’ll find three Big, Stupid Hollywood Movies which I’m assuming will be awful, but possibly in an interesting way. Do share the titles you have your own eyes on in the comments. The Taking of Pelham 123 — The IMDb boards are full of debate over the ethical specifics of this Tony Scott-directed, Denzel Washington-starring remake of the 70s classic. A sample: “Pulp Fiction (edit: I mean Resevoir Dogs) had the “Color names” (mr brown, mr blue etc.), a direct reference to the original Pelham. What if the new Pelham also has the color names?” worries  FelixVanNorten. “I bet people are going to be all mad over it saying it is lame that they stole it from Resevoir Dogs.” Yes, probably! File this one under Probable Trainwrecks We Won’t Be Able to Ignore. Julie and Julia — Julie Powell’s blog-to-book account of a year spent cooking her way through Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume 1 is notable amongst first-person food memoirs, in that it avoids the easy crutches of eating-as-pathway to spirituality and/or metaphor for sex. What it makes no effort to avoid, are the cliches of The New Chick Lit/Flick. Julie is a smart-mouthed working New Yorker who drowns most frustrations in girl talk and cocktails –– and on that score, it’s (almost refreshingly) square, in that at the end of the day, Julie is essentially a harried but not unhappy, completely realistic contemporary housewife. All of which is taking the long road to say that the book doesn’t exactly cry out for cinematic adaptation. There’s just no real drama; when it looks like Julie’s not going to be able to cook all the recipes … she just cooks faster. When she gets into fights with her husband … they make up. What fresh contrivances will director Nora Ephron cook up to tug at the heartstrings of the lonely lady audience? I must find out! The Box — I didn’t hate Southland Tales –– which, it seems, has become an increasingly controversial position. The Box is Richard Kelly’s tail-between-the-legs, “I swear, I can make a film that doesn’t bleed money and taint the reputations of all involved!” follow-up. In the Causes For Alarm column: it’s been bumped down the release schedule at least twice, and it stars Cameron Diaz, who has somehow become the go-to star for PG-13 Movies That Make A Lot Of Money That No Adult Will Admit To Having Paid To See. In the But Maybe It’s Not So Bad column: I didn’t hate Southland Tales! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/30/38957.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/30/2008 3:01:23 PM
Body: Oh, 2008 … where has the time all gone to? It seems like just yesterday that we were cringing at the faux Golden Globes, learning about Sweding, and seriously debating Juno’s chance at winning Best Picture. What fools we were! Perhaps we ought to head into the last year of The Aughts with a better game plan. With that in mind, I’ve devised a list of films that I’m excited to see (for the first time or not) and talk about in the coming 12 months. Later in the week, we’ll take a look at some movies we saw at festivals in 2008 which now have a release date in 2009, and also films which have no release date, but which we expect to see show up on the festival circuit in the coming months. But we’re going to get the macro out of the way first: after the jump, you’ll find three Big, Stupid Hollywood Movies which I’m assuming will be awful, but possibly in an interesting way. Do share the titles you have your own eyes on in the comments. The Taking of Pelham 123 — The IMDb boards are full of debate over the ethical specifics of this Tony Scott-directed, Denzel Washington-starring remake of the 70s classic. A sample: “Pulp Fiction (edit: I mean Resevoir Dogs) had the “Color names” (mr brown, mr blue etc.), a direct reference to the original Pelham. What if the new Pelham also has the color names?” worries  FelixVanNorten. “I bet people are going to be all mad over it saying it is lame that they stole it from Resevoir Dogs.” Yes, probably! File this one under Probable Trainwrecks We Won’t Be Able to Ignore. Julie and Julia — Julie Powell’s blog-to-book account of a year spent cooking her way through Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume 1 is notable amongst first-person food memoirs, in that it avoids the easy crutches of eating-as-pathway to spirituality and/or metaphor for sex. What it makes no effort to avoid, are the cliches of The New Chick Lit/Flick. Julie is a smart-mouthed working New Yorker who drowns most frustrations in girl talk and cocktails –– and on that score, it’s (almost refreshingly) square, in that at the end of the day, Julie is essentially a harried but not unhappy, completely realistic contemporary housewife. All of which is taking the long road to say that the book doesn’t exactly cry out for cinematic adaptation. There’s just no real drama; when it looks like Julie’s not going to be able to cook all the recipes … she just cooks faster. When she gets into fights with her husband … they make up. What fresh contrivances will director Nora Ephron cook up to tug at the heartstrings of the lonely lady audience? I must find out! The Box — I didn’t hate Southland Tales –– which, it seems, has become an increasingly controversial position. The Box is Richard Kelly’s tail-between-the-legs, “I swear, I can make a film that doesn’t bleed money and taint the reputations of all involved!” follow-up. In the Causes For Alarm column: it’s been bumped down the release schedule at least twice, and it stars Cameron Diaz, who has somehow become the go-to star for PG-13 Movies That Make A Lot Of Money That No Adult Will Admit To Having Paid To See. In the But Maybe It’s Not So Bad column: I didn’t hate Southland Tales! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:01:23 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/30/2008 3:01:23 PMOh, 2008 … where has the time all gone to? It seems like just yesterday that we were cringing at the faux Golden Globes, learning about Sweding, and seriously debating Juno’s chance at winning Best Picture. What fools we were! Perhaps we ought to head into the last year of The Aughts with a better game plan. With that in mind, I’ve devised a list of films that I’m excited to see (for the first time or not) and talk about in the coming 12 months. Later in the week, we’ll take a look at some movies we saw at festivals in 2008 which now have a release date in 2009, and also films which have no release date, but which we expect to see show up on the festival circuit in the coming months. But we’re going to get the macro out of the way first: after the jump, you’ll find three Big, Stupid Hollywood Movies which I’m assuming will be awful, but possibly in an interesting way. Do share the titles you have your own eyes on in the comments. The Taking of Pelham 123 — The IMDb boards are full of debate over the ethical specifics of this Tony Scott-directed, Denzel Washington-starring remake of the 70s classic. A sample: “Pulp Fiction (edit: I mean Resevoir Dogs) had the “Color names” (mr brown, mr blue etc.), a direct reference to the original Pelham. What if the new Pelham also has the color names?” worries  FelixVanNorten. “I bet people are going to be all mad over it saying it is lame that they stole it from Resevoir Dogs.” Yes, probably! File this one under Probable Trainwrecks We Won’t Be Able to Ignore. Julie and Julia — Julie Powell’s blog-to-book account of a year spent cooking her way through Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume 1 is notable amongst first-person food memoirs, in that it avoids the easy crutches of eating-as-pathway to spirituality and/or metaphor for sex. What it makes no effort to avoid, are the cliches of The New Chick Lit/Flick. Julie is a smart-mouthed working New Yorker who drowns most frustrations in girl talk and cocktails –– and on that score, it’s (almost refreshingly) square, in that at the end of the day, Julie is essentially a harried but not unhappy, completely realistic contemporary housewife. All of which is taking the long road to say that the book doesn’t exactly cry out for cinematic adaptation. There’s just no real drama; when it looks like Julie’s not going to be able to cook all the recipes … she just cooks faster. When she gets into fights with her husband … they make up. What fresh contrivances will director Nora Ephron cook up to tug at the heartstrings of the lonely lady audience? I must find out! The Box — I didn’t hate Southland Tales –– which, it seems, has become an increasingly controversial position. The Box is Richard Kelly’s tail-between-the-legs, “I swear, I can make a film that doesn’t bleed money and taint the reputations of all involved!” follow-up. In the Causes For Alarm column: it’s been bumped down the release schedule at least twice, and it stars Cameron Diaz, who has somehow become the go-to star for PG-13 Movies That Make A Lot Of Money That No Adult Will Admit To Having Paid To See. In the But Maybe It’s Not So Bad column: I didn’t hate Southland Tales! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criminal/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriminal
Number of films tagged: 3388

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 56

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT33882756Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hostage/MemberTagFilms.aspxhostage
Number of films tagged: 673

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 49

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:12 GMT6731949Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/subway/MemberTagFilms.aspxsubway
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 18

]]>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:31:18 GMT751318Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ransom/MemberTagFilms.aspxransom
Number of films tagged: 255

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 13

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT255913Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mayor/MemberTagFilms.aspxmayor
Number of films tagged: 249

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:06:21 GMT24967Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cursing/MemberTagFilms.aspxcursing
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:33:59 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dispatcher/MemberTagFilms.aspxdispatcher
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:02:35 GMT511Tag