Am I Over 13? Ho Boy, I'll Say I Am!
Added 2/5/2010
Dear Mister Denzel Washington,
Oy, was this a lousy movie!
Take this piece of advice from me, Yasha J. Banana, the oldest living Amazon movie review maven. ... the next time you make a movie that's this bad, before it starts filming "nem di gelt" -- get the money and run!
I had such high hopes for you, Denzel. Okay, so you're not Jewish, but you're a fine fellow nevertheless. I mean, what are you doing in this mishugah of a movie? *I'll* tell you what you're doing: for just about the entire movie you're sitting on your tokhes talking on a phone to that nut-boy, John Revolting.
You sit, you talk, you get tense and you spritz. Then you stand up, you spritz some more (this time I imagine between your legs), and then you sit down again. ... And this is a movie? ... For this they pay you millions???
Do something, Denzel! Ride a horse, rob a bank, fly through the air. Do something!!!
If I want to see a movie about a guy sitting talking on a phone and spritzing, I'll turn off the air conditioning, sit in front of a mirror and call my accountant.
Also, Denzel, listen to me, you're no spring chicken anymore, let's face it, so I'm wondering if in this movie with all the sitting you do does your prostate get, you know, a little congested, a little bogey?
Mind you, who am I to be so personal but as far as excitement and suspense is concerned, at 96 years of age these are the facts of life that interest me. Terrorism, who cares? Hostages, it's none of my business. Ransom money, who has time for such nonsense? Not for me. Not my cup of tea. John Revolting wants New York City to him pay billions of dollars to let the hostages go -- nem the gelt -- get the money, wrap it up nice in a brown paper bag and send it to him with a note that says he should live and be happy. ... Just get the hell out of that chair, Denzel!
Turn on a regular Richard Simmons DVD and move around a little, boychick. Because pretty soon, believe me, you keep doing movies where you're sitting all the time, they'll need to give you one of those rings to sit on. You laugh, but I'm telling you a realistic fact. Otherwise guess what, in the middle of a scene they'll have to yell "Cut!" so you can go make a tinkle. (Or worse.)
Also, personally, tell me, just between you and me, what do you see in this John Revolting? He's an actor is he? He looks like the guy in my building who delivers pizzas.
Between you and John Revolting all you two do is sit around and talk on the phone the entire movie. Listen, the next script you get from your agent, ask just one question: "Are there any chairs in this flicker?" If there are and you have to sit in one, forget it, send back the script.
Did you ever see Errol Flynn sitting down? Never! I mean, other than when he was trying to seduce Lassie.
You sit down long enough your tokhes will get as big as my second wife's tokhes. Which just before she died was about half the size of Wyoming.
Okay, I know, I realize that towards the end of the movie you did (finally!) get up from your chair and like a crazy-nut you went running and flying and tumbling and spritzing all over New York City. But for most of the movie you moved as much as my fourth wife did on our wedding night. (Or was that my first wife? Who can remember? All I know if that after we left the honeymoon suite they renamed our waterbed "The Dead Sea.")
So okay, you'll read this letter and then what? -- you'll do what you damn well please anyway. You young whippersnapper, you never listen. Who takes advice from me, Yasha J. Banana? I told Jolson back in '27, "Don't open your mouth, Al, the talkies are just a fad." But did he listen? And look at the dreck that followed. The last good movie I saw, Buster Keaton had a building fall on him. It should only have happened to my second wife's brother-in-law. He should have slipped out of an airplane and *then* a building should have fallen on him.
Anyway so listen, Denzel, I wish you all the luck in the world. Whatever you do, you should be a big hit. Win an Oscar, shtup a starlet, buy a condominium; and if it's cold wear a hat.
Your pal,
Yash
P.S. If in your next movie there's maybe a part for a 96-year-old Jew, where I shouldn't be required to run and jump and tumble and spritz, where maybe I'd just have to sit down, pick up a phone and call, I'm in the book.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The Taking of Pelham 123
Added 12/15/2009
This is a very good movie and story line. However the new release is better...
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Too Much Farce
Added 12/12/2009
"The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" (1974), the original version, deals with a group of four homicidal cutthroats who have hijacked a subway train and taken hostages. They face as adversaries, the good guys, who are like a bunch of slapstick comics. Today we are more aware of the dangers of terrorism. Before the tragedy of Nine-Eleven New Yorkers were perceived as wisecrackers in the face of serious situations, a cliché that has now been abandoned.
The criminal element is serious enough but the transit authorities, the ones on the other side of the law are played partly for laughs, and are farcical. The latest movie remake (2009) is very serious and intense, probing psychological motivations of the gang boss. This older version has some very hammy performances. The believability is in question at the movie's beginning when the chunky, blustery transit supervisor goes storming down the subway tunnel.
With the casting (really miscasting) of Walter Mathau as the lead transit cop/negotiator, you're bound to get yuks, way too much broad humor. Matthau's assistant is Ben Stiller, so beware. The mayor is a clueless clown.
Watch for small performances by Broadway regular actor Tony Roberts and James Broderick, Matthew's dad. The gang boss, Robert Shaw, uses the expertise of former motorman Martin Balsam.
I think movie makers have learned to establish one mood and tone for thrillers and don't switch back and forth between the serious life or death drama and creaky, inappropriate burlesque.
The conflict between Walter Mathau and the transit supervisor seems forced and nonsensical. The supervisor is unbelievably dense in the face of a hostage situation. It's just conflict for the sake of conflict.
Even this movie has some very exciting sequences, and, of course, an exciting and fascinating premise. The time-element suspense (one hour to go) is handled well. The race to deliver the million dollar ransom is a real grabber. All in all, though, the 2009 version is a better movie, sharply focused and unified in tone.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
5 stars for the movie, 2 for the DVD
Added 11/18/2009
Great little movie. Poor DVD.
The story: New York subway car Pelham 123 is hijacked by four identically dressed and armed men lead by Mr. Blue (Robert Shaw). They hold seventeen hostages on the car and demand one million dollars within an hour or they will begin executing hostages. Lt. Garber (Walter Matthau) is the transit cop on duty who must handle the situation.
Though the idea of hijacking a subway is unique, it's still a rather basic hook. The excellence lies in the execution. The story takes all kinds of interesting little turns. The movie drops you in right as the hijacking begins. No background about the planning or characters yet. As the movie progresses we are still only given hints and short glimpses into the characters' backgrounds. Why would anyone hijack a subway? It's underground, with limited exits. If these hijackers are so smart, how do they plan on getting away? This is the great mystery that we ponder with Garber.
The characters are full of subtly textured details. Mr. Blue has a British accent and mentions a military background. Mr. Green (Martin Balsam) is conflicted and uncomfortable about the whole affair, and I wondered what his recruitment looked like. Mr. Grey appears to be a misanthropic loose cannon, and when Mr. Blue confesses (early on in the caper, I might add) to Mr. Green that he distrusts Grey, I was led again to wonder at the recruitment process, especially given Mr. Blue's penchant for strict planning and control. Mr. Brown (Earl Hindman) is mostly a mystery, but he has a stutter and possibly a professional history with Mr. Green.
On the other side of the law we have Lt. Garber, who is introduced to us giving four Japanese visitors a boring tour of central transit control. Matthau plays Garber in his good old subdued Matthau way. I believed he genuinely cared about the situation and the passengers' lives, but he keeps his emotions pretty low-key (save for one scene where he finally explodes at an irate transit controller played by Dick O'Neill). I thought it was a good performance which played to Matthau's strengths and fit both his character and the tone of the movie. Two humorous scenes really highlighted the core of his character for me, but describing them would spoil a lot. They occur towards the end and involve Matthau's interactions with two of the hijackers separately.
The large and colorful supporting cast is also quite fun. I won't name them all, but some highlights include a younger Jerry Stiller as Lt. Rico Patrone and Doris Roberts as the mayor's wife.
The direction (by Joseph Sargent) and pacing are very well done, and it was refreshing to see such a story told without the sort of pounding musical cues, forced emotional conflicts and obvious story/character details that I'm expecting from the Tony Scott remake. The direction lets the viewer decide their reaction to the characters and story rather than being obviously manipulative. Movies are all about manipulation, of course, but Sargent keeps his choices subtle. The script allows some natural humor, but doesn't shy away from a few bits of dark violence that enforce the movie's intention to be a serious crime flick rather than light-hearted caper. Mr. Blue's last scene is particularly memorable and shocking.
While I'm sure I'm the millionth person to discover this, I noticed that Tarantino took some inspiration from Pelham for Reservoir Dogs. In both films, the villains are codenamed for colors and all dress identically for the crime. I loved the costumes worn by the hijackers in Pelham. Each wears a drab coat, a mustache, glasses, and a hat. Combined with the nasty looking machine guns, the ensemble makes for quite a memorable image. (Speaking of the guns, they were S&W M76s, the same kind that Ledger carried as The Joker in The Dark Knight. Just a note for the gun nerds like me out there.)
I heartily recommend a rental. This DVD is, unfortunately, non-anamorphic, so if you have a widescreen TV, be prepared for either a tiny picture or some fiddling and a slightly stretched picture. I had hoped that, with the release of the remake, we'd see a Blu-Ray release of the original like we did with The Day the Earth Stood Still. I'd even accept a new anamorphic DVD! Sadly, it looks like MGM has decided to continue punishing us with this cruddy old DVD for a great and little-seen movie.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
not anamorphic
Added 11/16/2009
Although the package is dated 2009, the disc appears to be a recycling of an out-of-date widescreen edition. If you ever wondered what anamorphic means, this is an excellent negative example. Being non-anamorphic, the widescreen image is compressed into a full-screen box. If you have a zoom function, and a projector, you can scale it up to a decent size, but with compensatory loss of definition. It seems shameful to print up a new package label without the small upgrade that would make this a decent DVD, but these old MGM films are now in the hands of Fox, so what do expect.
2 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Am I Over 13? Ho Boy, I'll Say I Am!
Added 2/5/2010
Dear Mister Denzel Washington,
Oy, was this a lousy movie!
Take this piece of advice from me, Yasha J. Banana, the oldest living Amazon movie review maven. ... the next time you make a movie that's this bad, before it starts filming "nem di gelt" -- get the money and run!
I had such high hopes for you, Denzel. Okay, so you're not Jewish, but you're a fine fellow nevertheless. I mean, what are you doing in this mishugah of a movie? *I'll* tell you what you're doing: for just about the entire movie you're sitting on your tokhes talking on a phone to that nut-boy, John Revolting.
You sit, you talk, you get tense and you spritz. Then you stand up, you spritz some more (this time I imagine between your legs), and then you sit down again. ... And this is a movie? ... For this they pay you millions???
Do something, Denzel! Ride a horse, rob a bank, fly through the air. Do something!!!
If I want to see a movie about a guy sitting talking on a phone and spritzing, I'll turn off the air conditioning, sit in front of a mirror and call my accountant.
Also, Denzel, listen to me, you're no spring chicken anymore, let's face it, so I'm wondering if in this movie with all the sitting you do does your prostate get, you know, a little congested, a little bogey?
Mind you, who am I to be so personal but as far as excitement and suspense is concerned, at 96 years of age these are the facts of life that interest me. Terrorism, who cares? Hostages, it's none of my business. Ransom money, who has time for such nonsense? Not for me. Not my cup of tea. John Revolting wants New York City to him pay billions of dollars to let the hostages go -- nem the gelt -- get the money, wrap it up nice in a brown paper bag and send it to him with a note that says he should live and be happy. ... Just get the hell out of that chair, Denzel!
Turn on a regular Richard Simmons DVD and move around a little, boychick. Because pretty soon, believe me, you keep doing movies where you're sitting all the time, they'll need to give you one of those rings to sit on. You laugh, but I'm telling you a realistic fact. Otherwise guess what, in the middle of a scene they'll have to yell "Cut!" so you can go make a tinkle. (Or worse.)
Also, personally, tell me, just between you and me, what do you see in this John Revolting? He's an actor is he? He looks like the guy in my building who delivers pizzas.
Between you and John Revolting all you two do is sit around and talk on the phone the entire movie. Listen, the next script you get from your agent, ask just one question: "Are there any chairs in this flicker?" If there are and you have to sit in one, forget it, send back the script.
Did you ever see Errol Flynn sitting down? Never! I mean, other than when he was trying to seduce Lassie.
You sit down long enough your tokhes will get as big as my second wife's tokhes. Which just before she died was about half the size of Wyoming.
Okay, I know, I realize that towards the end of the movie you did (finally!) get up from your chair and like a crazy-nut you went running and flying and tumbling and spritzing all over New York City. But for most of the movie you moved as much as my fourth wife did on our wedding night. (Or was that my first wife? Who can remember? All I know if that after we left the honeymoon suite they renamed our waterbed "The Dead Sea.")
So okay, you'll read this letter and then what? -- you'll do what you damn well please anyway. You young whippersnapper, you never listen. Who takes advice from me, Yasha J. Banana? I told Jolson back in '27, "Don't open your mouth, Al, the talkies are just a fad." But did he listen? And look at the dreck that followed. The last good movie I saw, Buster Keaton had a building fall on him. It should only have happened to my second wife's brother-in-law. He should have slipped out of an airplane and *then* a building should have fallen on him.
Anyway so listen, Denzel, I wish you all the luck in the world. Whatever you do, you should be a big hit. Win an Oscar, shtup a starlet, buy a condominium; and if it's cold wear a hat.
Your pal,
Yash
P.S. If in your next movie there's maybe a part for a 96-year-old Jew, where I shouldn't be required to run and jump and tumble and spritz, where maybe I'd just have to sit down, pick up a phone and call, I'm in the book.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The Taking of Pelham 123
Added 12/15/2009
This is a very good movie and story line. However the new release is better...
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Too Much Farce
Added 12/12/2009
"The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" (1974), the original version, deals with a group of four homicidal cutthroats who have hijacked a subway train and taken hostages. They face as adversaries, the good guys, who are like a bunch of slapstick comics. Today we are more aware of the dangers of terrorism. Before the tragedy of Nine-Eleven New Yorkers were perceived as wisecrackers in the face of serious situations, a cliché that has now been abandoned.
The criminal element is serious enough but the transit authorities, the ones on the other side of the law are played partly for laughs, and are farcical. The latest movie remake (2009) is very serious and intense, probing psychological motivations of the gang boss. This older version has some very hammy performances. The believability is in question at the movie's beginning when the chunky, blustery transit supervisor goes storming down the subway tunnel.
With the casting (really miscasting) of Walter Mathau as the lead transit cop/negotiator, you're bound to get yuks, way too much broad humor. Matthau's assistant is Ben Stiller, so beware. The mayor is a clueless clown.
Watch for small performances by Broadway regular actor Tony Roberts and James Broderick, Matthew's dad. The gang boss, Robert Shaw, uses the expertise of former motorman Martin Balsam.
I think movie makers have learned to establish one mood and tone for thrillers and don't switch back and forth between the serious life or death drama and creaky, inappropriate burlesque.
The conflict between Walter Mathau and the transit supervisor seems forced and nonsensical. The supervisor is unbelievably dense in the face of a hostage situation. It's just conflict for the sake of conflict.
Even this movie has some very exciting sequences, and, of course, an exciting and fascinating premise. The time-element suspense (one hour to go) is handled well. The race to deliver the million dollar ransom is a real grabber. All in all, though, the 2009 version is a better movie, sharply focused and unified in tone.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
