"THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123" (2009) Review

[seldonp38]

Comments

[turk_diddler]

For me it's a mostly a work a day film, if I catch it on TV late at night it'll pass the half an hour until bedtime, but I would struggle to understand why anyone would seek it out. Except that is to enjoy the scenery chewing from Travolta, completely unrestrained and badly chasing the ballsy characteristics of a role 20 years younger than he was at the time. I remember a reviewer at the time saying f you want to watch Travolta shouting obscenities into a radio mic for 90 minutes this is your film, and that's its main value

[seldonp38]

Although I believe the 1974 movie was better, I was too impressed by Washington's performance in one particular scene to dismiss him in that manner, because he didn't convey Matthau's "cool factor" from the earlier film.

[deborahkla]

Definitely inferior to the 1974 version with Robert Shaw, An unnecessary remake.

[seldonp38]

For me, there is no such thing as a "unnecessary" remake. Just a remake. And not all remakes are inferior to the original films.

[deborahkla]

No, not all remakes are inferior, but many, many of them are. The Psycho remake, for example, which is a shot-by-shot recreation of the original film, was vastly inferior and unnecessary. And I speak as a film historian who has had a biography of a film director published.

[seldonp38]

And many of them, ironically, are not inferior to the original. Some are actually superior. I also believe that just because a remake might be inferior, does not mean it is unnecessary. It's just a bad remake. Just as there are remakes that are equally good or better. This version of the 1974 movie might not be as good as the original 1973 movie, but I don't believe it's a terrible film or an unnecessary one.