"Taking of Pelham 123" Ho hum.
RichA
personality. So menacing...But there is LIGHT at the end of the
tunnel! It is rated R!
calvin
Travolta has a winning personality? I wouldn't have a beer
with him if he was buying.
sirb...@hotmail.com
itll be crap, fucking remakes
Rich
I don't see it being a patch on the original. I much prefer Robert
Shaw and Walter Matthau to John Travolta and Denzel Washington.
Matthau, though he's remembered for "The Odd Couple" mostly was very
good in dramas like "123" and "Charley Varrick" and "The Laughing
Policeman."
trotsky
Why, did he say something bad about James Franco?
jessica_smith_nyc
---
http://www.moviesitearchive.com
bi...@windandwire.com
come up with. It ranks alongside the remake of Charade (The Truth
about Charlie), and Tim Burton's remake/revision of Planet of the
Apes. You simply cannot make a classic film any better when you remake
it, and the remake will always suffer by comparison. And for those who
say The Taking of Pelham 123 (original) is not a classic, you've
either haven't watched it recently (as I did a few weeks ago) or are
too young to appreciate razor sharp dialogue, compelling characters,
tightly scripted plot, fantastic performances, and superb
cinematography, all of which the original version has. All the remake
has is more 'splosions and more quick cuts for the MTV generation,
which if you were raised on movies from the late 80s to the present is
all you ever want, apparently.
Thumper
I watched it a few weeks ago and don't think it's a classic.
By the way. If you haven';t seen the old version and only see the new
one it's new for you. They aren't trying to remake it for any other
reason than to take a good book and make it into a movie that today's
movie going public will pay to see. My wife who has never seen the
original wants to se it because Denzel and John are in it. That's
enough for her.
Thumper
nick
That's enough for me too but I'm not expecting much from a Tony Scott
movie. He's a hack. But it's possible to do an entertaining
remake. Planet of the Apes and The Truth About Charlie were duds but
Assault on Precinct 13 and Dawn of the Dead were alright. It's the
summer blockbuster season anyway. You're not going to the movies to
see a classic. You're going mostly to get out of the heat anyway.
It's like picking up a paperback bestseller to read on the plane or on
the beach. No point getting mad when it's not as good as The Great
Gatsby.
trotsky
I think he might be the single most underrated mainstream director. Ron
Howard is a hack, for example.
calvin
> nick wrote:
> > That's enough for me too but I'm not expecting much from a Tony Scott
> > movie. He's a hack.
>
> I think he might be the single most underrated mainstream director. Ron
> Howard is a hack, for example.
Ron Howard may be a hack now, I don't know, but he
wasn't a hack when he made Apollo 13, and he always
should be respected for that achievement, IMO. The
movie wasn't perfect, but it was nevertheless great.
trotsky
> On Jun 10, 10:19 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> nick wrote:
>>> That's enough for me too but I'm not expecting much from a Tony Scott
>>> movie. He's a hack.
>> I think he might be the single most underrated mainstream director. Ron
>> Howard is a hack, for example.
>
> Ron Howard may be a hack now, I don't know, but he
> wasn't a hack when he made Apollo 13,
Boring. Only worth watching for Gary Sinise. And you can't even say
*that* for "Ransom".
and he always
> should be respected for that achievement, IMO. The
> movie wasn't perfect, but it was nevertheless great.
Different strokes for different strokes.
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > Ron Howard may be a hack now, I don't know, but he
> > wasn't a hack when he made Apollo 13,
>
It was worth watching for the presentation of the Apollo
moon mission. All of the actors were interchangable.
It didn't matter much who played any part, though Ed
Harris was well cast as Gene Kranz. Gary Sinise was
fine but his was a small part (not historically small, but
small in the movie).
Invid Fan
<19b01890-eaf6-4ed8...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
<bi...@windandwire.com> wrote:
> This remake/re-imaging is among the worst ideas Hollywood has ever
> come up with. It ranks alongside the remake of Charade (The Truth
> about Charlie), and Tim Burton's remake/revision of Planet of the
> Apes. You simply cannot make a classic film any better when you remake
> it, and the remake will always suffer by comparison
However, if the "original" is based on some other source then I see
nothing wrong with going back to that and having another go at it. The
fact the new Apes movie wasn't good doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy
someone else having a crack at a version that, like the book, doesn't
take place on Earth.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
trotsky
And I think in the hands of a different director the story would've been
much more dramatic.
Production values were great, though. For a while I was using the
rocket launch for home theater demos.
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 9:09 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> calvin wrote:
> >>> Ron Howard may be a hack now, I don't know, but he
> >>> wasn't a hack when he made Apollo 13,
> >> Boring. Only worth watching for Gary Sinise. ...
>
> > It was worth watching for the presentation of the Apollo
> > moon mission. All of the actors were interchangable.
> > It didn't matter much who played any part, though Ed
> > Harris was well cast as Gene Kranz. Gary Sinise was
> > fine but his was a small part (not historically small, but
> > small in the movie).
>
> And I think in the hands of a different director the story would've been
> much more dramatic.
That may be true, or maybe not, but it was Ron Howard
who was inspired and motivated to do it. What other director
do you think gave a fuck about the incredible Apollo moon
missions? What you said is a huge backhanded compliment
to Howard.
> Production values were great, though. For a while I was using the
> rocket launch for home theater demos.
Good to know. The launch is the part of my laserdisc
that I've re-watched the most in my simulated home theater,
beginning at the point where Mrs. Lovell loses her wedding
ring in the shower drain. That sequence is not merely a
matter of production values; it's a cinema masterpiece.
(I'll be watching/hearing it again this morning, thanks to you.)
Rich
calvin
> He's a master audience "button pusher."
Who? Tony Scott or Ron Howard?
moviePig
Who cares? What moviegoer doesn't like having his "buttons pushed"?..
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
.
calvin
> On Jun 12, 10:59 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 10:32 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > He's a master audience "button pusher."
> > Who? Tony Scott or Ron Howard?
> Who cares? What moviegoer doesn't like having his "buttons pushed"?..
Well, Ron Howard really pushed my buttons with
Apollo 13, but he didn't push trotsky's buttons, so
he gets called a hack.
Since I worked in the space program, including Apollo,
my buttons had been longing to be pushed for decades
before Ron Howard pushed them. No matter what other
movies he makes he will never be a hack to me.
trotsky
> On Jun 12, 9:03 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> calvin wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 9:09 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> calvin wrote:
>>>>> Ron Howard may be a hack now, I don't know, but he
>>>>> wasn't a hack when he made Apollo 13,
>>>> Boring. Only worth watching for Gary Sinise. ...
>>> It was worth watching for the presentation of the Apollo
>>> moon mission. All of the actors were interchangable.
>>> It didn't matter much who played any part, though Ed
>>> Harris was well cast as Gene Kranz. Gary Sinise was
>>> fine but his was a small part (not historically small, but
>>> small in the movie).
>> And I think in the hands of a different director the story would've been
>> much more dramatic.
>
> That may be true, or maybe not, but it was Ron Howard
> who was inspired and motivated to do it. What other director
> do you think gave a fuck about the incredible Apollo moon
> missions? What you said is a huge backhanded compliment
> to Howard.
Sure, if being a purveyor of mediocrity is a compliment, then so be it.
>> Production values were great, though. For a while I was using the
>> rocket launch for home theater demos.
>
> Good to know. The launch is the part of my laserdisc
> that I've re-watched the most in my simulated home theater,
> beginning at the point where Mrs. Lovell loses her wedding
> ring in the shower drain. That sequence is not merely a
> matter of production values; it's a cinema masterpiece.
> (I'll be watching/hearing it again this morning, thanks to you.)
If you say so. "Saving Private Ryan" is probably still the benchmark
for creative sound design. Another highly overrated movie, of course.
trotsky
Okay. And as a troll, you're the master baiter.
trotsky
You worked in the space program and you don't have the presence of mind
to realize how biased your opinion is? Clearly it has nothing to with
Howard's quality as a filmmaker. Just when I thought you couldn't sink
any lower we get this. Hey, would you like to call Obama a nigger for
good measure?
calvin
> > Apollo 13, but he didn't push trotsky's buttons, so
> > he gets called a hack.
>
> > Since I worked in the space program, including Apollo,
> > my buttons had been longing to be pushed for decades
> > before Ron Howard pushed them. No matter what other
> > movies he makes he will never be a hack to me.
>
> You worked in the space program and you don't have the presence of mind
> to realize how biased your opinion is? Clearly it has nothing to with
> Howard's quality as a filmmaker. Just when I thought you couldn't sink
> any lower we get this. Hey, would you like to call Obama a nigger for
> good measure?
Those who never find wrong in you should be paying attention.
sirblob2
varrick thou overlong and tlp thou nutty were good counterpoints to
eastwoods stuff of the time. and pelham was just grand