Taking Of Pelham 123/the remake

[George Bellefontaine]

Though Travolta and Washington were good as usual, and the blu-ray picture was great, I just didn't like this as much as the original that starred Walter Matthau as Denzel's character, and Robert Shaw as Travolta's. The plot was the same ( the takeover of a subway for ransom ) but how they get to the end took a somewhat different track. If you never saw the original, you will probably enjoy this as it is quite entertaining and well acted.

[Kal Rubinson]

Not if you live in NYC. The choice of sites was nonsensical. There were several instances in which my wife and I stared at each other and said, either, "You can't get here from there" or "That's not what they say it is." This is a pretty weak movie in terms of drama and the intrusions of impossible events destroyed what little it had. Feh.

[George Bellefontaine]

Not if you live in NYC. The choice of sites was nonsensical. There were several instances in which my wife and I stared at each other and said, either, "You can't get here from there" or "That's not what they say it is." This is a pretty weak movie in terms of drama and the intrusions of impossible events destroyed what little it had. Feh.

Try renting the original, Kal, it may be more realistic for New Yorkers.

[Alaric]

I must confess to having zero interest in a remake of one of my all-time favorite films. Same reason I have no use for Adam Sandler's 'The Longest Yard'. The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3 was a great movie with a fabulous cast. I'll heed George's "If you didn't see the original" warning!
In the 1-2-3 vein , I am looking for the movie 'One Two Three'. James Cagney as a Coca-Cola VP in West Berlin at the height of the Cold War. Possibly the funniest film I have ever seen. "SCHLEMMER!!!".

A Billy Wilder masterpiece.

[Kal Rubinson]

Try renting the original, Kal, it may be more realistic for New Yorkers.

It was. OTOH, I rarely watch a film more than once. There has to be some special reason and even the original doesn't make the cut unless it just pops up on TV and I have nothing else to do.

[Kal Rubinson]

In the 1-2-3 vein , I am looking for the movie 'One Two Three'. James Cagney as a Coca-Cola VP in West Berlin at the height of the Cold War. Possibly the funniest film I have ever seen. "SCHLEMMER!!!".

A Billy Wilder masterpiece.

Amen. Even I watched it twice. Mebbe again soon.

[George Bellefontaine]

I haven't seen that Cagney pic since it was released in the theater. It's a gotta own for me when it comes to blu-ray. Can't beat Wilder.

[George Bellefontaine]

It was. OTOH, I rarely watch a film more than once.

I know what you're saying, Kal, but for me films are like music albums ( cds today ) and if I like them I want to hear/watch them again and again. But now and then I buy a turd and regret it.

[Kal Rubinson]

I know what you're saying, Kal, but for me films are like music albums ( cds today ) and if I like them I want to hear/watch them again and again. But now and then I buy a turd and regret it.

Ah. For me, it is very different. I have never collected films, not on VHS, not on DVD and, now, not on BR. I watch, on average, one film a week and, almost always, it is a rental of a new release. I do, occasionally, get freebies (this week, courtesy of Sony, Godzilla, Angels and Demons and The Ugly Truth) but I watch those no more than once and give them away.

Another reason, aside from less interest in movies than in music, is that both my homes are packed with music CDs/SACDs/BRDs and, if I started amassing another collection, my wife would have to move out. :roll:

[George Bellefontaine]

Another reason, aside from less interest in movies than in music, is that both my homes are packed with music CDs/SACDs/BRDs and, if I started amassing another collection, my wife would have to move out. :roll:

Yes, my collection started with music ( when I was 16, which was 1952 ) so along with the hundreds of 78s, 45s, lps and cds, I started collecting movies when vhs came out and since movies were a greater passion for me than music, I ended up going all out in a big way with a dedicated theater and what not. Why I am more passionate about movies than music is hard to understand, because I studied music and played trumpet for several years in my younger days. Anyway, I have a dedicated room for the theater, including racks for the movies, and I also have another room where I have my computer, my lps, cds and dedicated amp and speakers for two channel music listening. Somehow, my wonderful wife has sort of learned to live with it all, bless her.

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes, my collection started with music ( when I was 16, which was 1952 ) so along with the hundreds of 78s, 45s, lps and cds,

Well, you got a 2 year head start on me. :W

[George Bellefontaine]

Well, you got a 2 year head start on me. :W

Kal, you no doubt have me beat on your music collection because I have purchased very little in the past 20 years, but I obviously got you beat hands down on a movie collection... :lol:

[Gump]

Though Travolta and Washington were good as usual, and the blu-ray picture was great, I just didn't like this as much as the original that starred Walter Matthau as Denzel's character, and Robert Shaw as Travolta's. The plot was the same ( the takeover of a subway for ransom ) but how they get to the end took a somewhat different track. If you never saw the original, you will probably enjoy this as it is quite entertaining and well acted.

Agreed.
I even fell asleep towards the end and had to back it up to see what happened. No magic for me...

[greenhorn]

I thought it was Ok and enjoyed watching it. It was kind of twisted to me, in the sense that I thought some of it was quite funny, John Travolta especially. There were a few moments of drama, some funny stuff, lame subplot. Movie intent was not integrity, just a bunch of stuff slapped together is a semi coherant manner... to make a movie. Watched it, but wouldn't buy it.