Category: Theatrical Review

In a post-apocalyptic setting, the future for any sort of life rests in the hands of 9 little burlap bag-covered robotic creatures…

That’s all I’m going to say about a synopsis to the new animated movie 9 from director Shane Acker and producers Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov (I expect most reading this know who Tim Burton is, but for those who don’t know Timur Bekmambetov, he directed the movies Nightwatch and Daywatch and most recently directed Wanted) a very imaginative dark fable that was originally a short film and is now adapted to a feature, though a very short feature weighing in at about 80 minutes. For a video gamer, you might almost think of this as a Fallout 3 fairy tale.

It’s a really stunning looking film, with a terrific art style and given “life” with state of the art computer animation, that’s the really obvious side of things. It’s story though, asks you to bring something to the table on this, and I never think that’s a bad thing for a movie to do at all. I’ve been reading some of the comments for this on IMDB, and reading lots of complaints of plot holes, lack of character development and just not having everything explained to you, and I don’t know, but I just didn’t see that at all and didn’t feel the need to even question these things at it’s end. I thought there was enough there that you could fill in your own blanks as to what happened, the characters of the little robots are indeed somewhat two-dimensional, but there’s a good reason for this (and yet I thought they were still way more human than what you’d see in a Transformers or G.I. Joe), and I actually gave a damn about the little guys…

Sometimes I have to wonder that if 2001: A Space Odyssey came out today would it even stand a chance with that kind of mentality…

But still, I thought this was very good with very nice visuals, a lot of great ideas, and a very good vocal cast including Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau and Jennifer Connelly, all giving life to the little hopes for the future. It’s certainly nothing like what you’re used to seeing from most of today’s computer animated films and I give Shane Acker credit for not telling you absolutely every little detail to how this world came to be… it adds to the fable/fairy tale quality of the film and if you don’t mind filling in the blanks on your own a bit (and it doesn’t really take that much to do it).

I really enjoyed the hell out of it, and would just love to see more animated movies taking chances in these type of directions. For those that are parents looking to take their children to this, well 9 may not be the movie for them as it is very dark and disturbing in it’s own way, though at the theatre that I saw this at, there were some children there, and as I the credits rolled, from what I could hear in the background, they really enjoyed themselves… I know I did too…

In the near future, the biggest things around the world are two video games with a big twist: One is called Society (think of The Sims or Sony’s Life) and the other is Slayers (which is of course any combat game you can think of), the catch is that these games use real people as the avatars for the players playing the game- Slayers using sentenced prisoners and Society using those just in need of a paycheck. Slayers has a further catch though, with the avatar who can survive 30 games getting the chance to go free. Both are the creation of uber-genius Ken Castle, and now right as the star avatar of Slayers, Kable, is near his 30th victory, a terrorist group called Humanz is on the verge of exposing Ken Castle’s terrifying secret for the future…

That’s the premise of Gamer the new movie from the team Neveldine/Taylor (Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor) who previously gave us the [i]Crank[/i] movies. I didn’t much care for the first Crank movie (and thus didn’t see the second), but I think Gamer is a hell of a lot better, with lots of violent action, some very good science fiction ideas and a lot of biting satire. Last year, there was a movie, Death Race (which was a lot of fun) that was a re-make of the Roger Corman/Paul Bartel film Death Race 2000 and while it was fun, Gamer actually comes a lot closer to the satire that the original had going for it, while still keeping the thrills of the film.

Neveldine/Taylor’s visual and editing style makes Tony Scott look like a tired old man… I was put off by it in Crank but really think it works well for Gamer. And while there are holes one could see in some aspects of the storyline, I won’t necessarily think that they’re anything to different than what was seen recently in District 9, in other words, there’s enough there that you could write your own explanation if you want, though that’s not necessarily the purpose of the film. Even though at it’s core, it’s a high-adrenaline action film, there’s still some ideas at work here, and as a video-gamer my own self, lots of stuff to chew on. Neveldine/Taylor also wrote the script, and on the gaming end, I think they get a lot of it right, even if they are dealing in extremes.

The cast is pretty decent, headed up by Gerard Butler as Kable, they all handle this pretty earnestly, with the more satirical elements being handled by Kyra Sedgewick as a TV “reporter,” Michael C. Hall as Ken Castle, the creator of the games, and the young actors playing the various gamers controlling the avatars. Hall, who’s best known for the TV series Dexter really looks like he’s having a lot of fun here, playing Castle as, at least to me, like what you’d get if you crossed game developer Cliff Bleszinski with media mogul Ted Turner.

And technically, it really is a good-looking film, and it’s spastic editing style serves the purpose towards the satire of the film. It is extremely violent though, and if that thing turns you off, then you’re forewarned.

I had a real good time with it though, It’s action is very good, there’s some good ideas at work here (though not as entirely fleshed out as they could be) and what I thought lots of good media and gaming satire that’s seems right on the money, and for that, Gamer gets a big recommendation here…

In Jurassic Park, when commenting on the fantasy that has come to life, Dr. Ian Malcolm at one point says to John Hammond the immortal words, “Life finds a way.”

For the Final Destination movies, the philosophy has always been the opposite: Death finds a way. Starting with the first film, which is a very fun genuine horror film, a group of teenagers are spared their lives from horrible accidents that wipe out a good many people because one of them gets a vision that that horrible accident is about to happen. Now in it’s fourth iteration, simply titled The Final Destination the formula remains the same…

… but this time it’s in 3D!!

And that’s the rub, there’s really nothing that’s very different for this film from the others, other than the fact that if your theatre is equipped, this time the grisly events can be witnessed in 3D, and it’s pretty good 3D at that. Now I like this series, though I’ll certainly grant you that the first one is the best one, but I’ve always had fun with it, and the fun to be had with these is watching the intricate Rube Goldberg-esque ways in which… Death finds a way. These are B-movies to be sure and they don’t try to be anything else other than short mindless diversionary thrill rides. David R. Ellis is the director here and he’s previously helmed the second film in the series as well as Snakes On A Plane, and he’s sticking to the formula… and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as that’s what you’re expecting. If you’re expecting more than that, well you probably shouldn’t even be interested in the first place.

Oh, I could talk about the characters, but there’s really no point, they are all 2-dimensional and they all serve their purpose for this movie, but if you like these movies, they’re probably not the reason that you’re going to see the movie anyway. If that is what you’re looking for, then look elsewhere, this one’s not for you.

I had fun with this, and the fun comes with sitting next to my friend who I saw this with and making our own little MST3K-like comments along the way, while being treated to some decent 3D effects. It’s by no means the greatest movie in the world, but still a fun diversion if you’re so inclined to enjoy something that’s a fun diversion more than anything else. If you’re looking for more than that, then this ain’t for you, but then you’re probably not reading this anyway…

1941. Once upon a time… in Nazi-occupied France (these words open the movie), an S.S. Colonel nicknamed the Jew Hunter, Hans Landa continues his duties, and now it’s in the hands of American Lt. Aldo “The Apache” Raine and his hand-picked group of Jewish-American soldiers known as “The Basterds” to spread fear through the Third Reich by viciously killing Nazis.

That’s all I’m going to say about the plot summary to Quentin Tarantino’s long-awaited new movie, Inglourious Basterds, though there is much, much more to this. If you know Tarantino films, then you know there’s a certain over-the-top pulp sensibility to all of his previous works, and Inglourious Basterds is no exception to it, perfectly fitting in with the same sensibilities of his more contemporary pieces. While I don’t think this is as effective as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction it’s still a mighty entertaining film. Now of course, there is a previous movie called Inglorious Bastards, and the only things this shares with this is it’s bastardized title and it’s rollicking sensibility… don’t come into this expecting to see an accurate World War II adventure, but do expect something with Tarantino’s hallmarks, tight characterization, well-crafted dialogue, and a great attention to detail in building his own mythology… you’ll get that in spades.

I have only two things that I would’ve liked to have seen in this movie… one would’ve been an additional chapter chronicling a little more of The Basterds exploits, though their inception and mission is laid out well, the movie does make a jump from 1941 to 1944 and maybe another scene would’ve been good to see, as The Basterds aren’t as prevalent in this as the title might have you think, and an additional scene would’ve added more to that. The other thing I think I would’ve done would’ve been to take out an additional “insurance policy” of sorts with this, in the fact that the film isn’t any sort of real reflection of the events of World War II. What I would’ve done at the start might’ve been to sort of stick it in the face of some of the more historical movies that go to pains to tell you that they’re based on true events, and thus I would’ve started this with a card that says the following- “What you are about to see is not true, and is in fact a work of… pulp fiction.” Yeah, it would be self-referential, but it would certainly be an upfront obvious counter to some of the criticisms that this is receiving in that Tarantino does re-write history. For the Tarantino fan, there’s enough there to cover that in throughout the movie, but for the uninitiated, this would’ve been your counter.

Still, for the fans, there’s much fun to be had… Tarantino, of course is always referential to other movies, and with Inglourious Basterds there’s a lot here as well, from the opening chapter which heavily references Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A time In The West, to it’s second chapter which references Robert Aldrich’s The Dirty Dozen to discussions later on of Leni Reifenstahl’s films. He also continues his terrific work with music for the film, though instead of using pop classics, here he uses a lot of score music from other movies and it’s all real effective. And of course there’s some stuff that’s just pure Grindhouse, like referring to a later recruit to The Basterds, Hugo Stiglitz, with his own Jack Hill-esque title card that basically tells you this incidental character would be cool enough to carry his own movie.

On top of that, this is just extremely well cast… of course the big deal is that uber-star Brad Pitt leads this ensemble, and make no mistake, it’s very much an ensemble piece, and Pitt is great as Aldo Raine… but the real meat of this is carried out with characters who aren’t part of The Basterds and who aren’t really well known to most viewers (myself for instance), actress Melanie Laurent who plays an escaped Jew named Shosanna Dreyfus now living in france under the name of theatre owner Emmanuelle Mimieux, Daniel Bruhl as German war hero Fredrick Zoller and most effectively Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa, who personally I think is good enough here to get an Oscar nomination, but that’s me. With The Basterds though, viewers will recognize The Office’s B.J. Novak, and Tarantino’s fellow director Eli Roth. Veteran character actor Til Schweiger plays the above-mentioned Hugo Stiglitz and it’s probably his coolest moments ever on film. And doing voiceover, you’ve got Samuel L. Jackson and a brief scene using Harvey Keitel.

Like I said above, I think this is highly entertaining, and though not necessarily in the same league as some of Tarantino’s previous films, that’s no insult as I tend to think even Tarantino’s lesser works are way more fun than a lot of movies already out there. Inglourious Basterds was the third movie I was most looking forward to this year (the other two being Watchmen and Star Trek) and it’s just a hell of a good time at the theatre and one of those movies that I’m going to enjoy again and again once it’s released for home. Highly, highly recommended…

Aliens have publicly landed on Earth and they’ve been with us for the last 20 years…They’ve mysteriously “landed” in Johannesburg, South Africa (their ship remains afloat above the city) and they’ve proven not to be a threat and more destitute than anything else. The aliens are evacuated from their ship and put into a refugee camp outside of Johannesburg called District 9 where life is hard for them and about to get harder. Over time, the aliens, derisively called Prawns by humans have become a major annoyance to the people of the city, and now it’s in the hands of a Haliburton-type of corporation to move them from the city to a location some 200 kilometers away, where they’ll be less of a concern to the people of Johannesburg. This corporation, called MNU who has more plans than just the displacement of the aliens, puts this task into the hands of a rising bureaucrat named Wikus Van De Merve who’s life is about to take the turn for the worse…

And that’s the basic premise to District 9 the new movie from director Neill Blomkamp and producer Peter Jackson and it’s one incredible ride from start to finish.

Now parts of this premise are certainly nothing new in movies, with the basic idea being one that was handled years ago in Alien Nation, but District 9 ups it’s ante considerably by placing it in a location that’s just as alien to American viewers in South Africa, and griming it up dramatically. It’s story is told in both a mock documentary style and straight-up narrative that blend together pretty well as the events unfold and it doesn’t really let loose for a moment.

There’s a lot of back story established though there are some holes, but I don’t necessarily think those holes are there for lack of an effort, but more for getting the main thrust of this story moving forward. Or maybe Blomkamp is trusting his audience to sort of fill in the holes themselves (these holes being the language barrier between human and alien and aspects of a lack of involvement from other nations of the world here- but with a 20 year past of being on Earth, there are certainly ways to fill those holes in yourself). Regardless, they don’t hurt how this moves, and discussion of these things makes for great talk after the experience is done, and believe me, there’s room for this property to move in all sorts of ways beyond what’s here…

It’s really incredibly well made and well-paced. Jackson’s visual effects team WETA has gone the extra mile here and there’s no seams showing, the visual effects of District 9 are so far, for me, the best I’ve seen in movies this year, and one can only hope this will be remembered come Oscar time… and for maybe more than just the effects…

… what I’m speaking of in particular is the performance of actor Sharlto Copley as Wikus Van De Merve which is just loaded with all sorts of nuance. He starts this thing as almost a Steve Carell-type of movie character (sort of thinking of The Office’s Michael Scott as a serious character) who just grows in leaps and bounds as events happen to him and unfold for him along the way. He’s not a typical movie “good guy” (nothing in the movie is typical really at all) and there’s shades of grey here at the start that don’t necessarily put you in a rooting mood for him. But it unfolds pretty naturally and we’re with Wikus as this goes and by it’s end, you can’t help but really feel for the poor guy. Big kudos to Blomkamp and Jackson for not using any name actors here, as it obviously adds further to the realism of the piece.

As I said at the top, this is just one hell of a ride, and the whole thing will spur a lot of discussion afterwards, particularly with genre fans. They’ve certainly left this open for a sequel, and I have to say I hope this does well enough for this to happen. It’s R-rated and it certainly earns that R in it’s graphic violence, so fair warning for those that might be a little squeamish out there. It borrows from a lot of other movies, but puts it together in a way that’s fresher than anything else out there. This one made a great impression on me, and is certainly right up there with The Hurt Locker as one of the best things I’ve seen this year. Don’t wait for video on this one, catch it in the theatres… highly, highly recommended.

A devastating new weapon has fallen into the clutches of a sinister terror force and now it’s up to an elite multi-national fighting force to save us all.

That’s the basic plot of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, the next film designed to get the fans of The Transformers and the latest film from director Stephen Sommers.

I have to say that when I was younger (but older than the G.I. Joe fan base) and this form of G.I. Joe toy came out, I just wasn’t interested at the time. I thought the cartoons were big toy commercials and the comics were the ass-end of Marvel Comics (except when artist Michael Golden was involved here and there, and then I wanted to at least see the book). But I have to say, when I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought it looked like it could be a fun ride (which I’ve found out is certainly counter to fans of this stuff, with a lot of the comments really hating the trailer and especially the mechanized suits involved with it- I don’t get that, but there you go) and so I was at least interested in seeing the movie…

And I’ve always liked Stephen Sommers’ movies– oh sure, they’re not the greatest things ever committed to film, but just some fun brainless and harmless stuff that was a good diversion for a couple of hours. In the end, that’s what I thought of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra though also I was fairly indifferent to it as well. It was a pretty ride with lots of big-ass stuff being thrown at you on the screen, but with little or no emotional investment, at least for me. But let me say, if I was 10 years old and seeing this for the first time, I’d probably love it to death.

Now the thing is, I thought anyway, for fans of this stuff though, they’d probably just eat it up. I mean, they loved Transformers so they should probably love this as well, but then admittedly, I’m about as far removed from that fanbase as can be, so hell, I don’t know for sure. I mean it was always, at least from what I know, this particular group of good guy toys against this particular group of bad guy toys in a never-ending cycle, and near as I can tell, the movie delivers that…

My own biggest criticisms is that I thought the effects for the most part were pretty obvious looking (but near as I can tell that’s a directorial choice, and it doesn’t really hurt the movie) and that the lead character on the G.I. Joe side, Duke, played by Channing Tatum, is pretty much stiff as a board. There’s never any real risk of danger to anyone here in a way that made me give a damn, but then I don’t know if that was exactly the purpose of it, I don’t think it was. I’ve seen one review where at the end of it, he said to go see The Hurt Locker instead, and I just sort of think that’s a wrong direction to go in when writing a review of this movie, trying to compare it to something that’s super-real, when this is obviously an adolescent fantasy that’s trying to stay true to it’s roots (or at least near as I can tell).

Sommers has a big and pretty cast for this movie, the above-mentioned Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller (who it;s kid of nice to see in something as opposed to reading incessant gossip stuff on her), Dennis Quaid, Ray Park, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, Christopher Eccleston, Marlon Wayans, Rachel Nichols amongst others. and Sommers even manages to get “his guys” in some of the parts, like Brendan Fraser, Arnold Vosloo and in particular Kevin J. O’Connor. Nobody’s going to win an Oscar for this and really I don’t think anyone really cares, they all fill their parts well at least physically (and I happen to think Sienna Miller looks way better as a brunette in glasses than she does a blonde) and I guess they’re doing just what Sommers wants them to do. There was one point where I was watching this and thinking of the motivations of one of the characters, the Baroness, and applying to her some stuff that Martin Scorsese has said about simplistic character motivations just bugging him, and then I just had to laugh because I was going there for this movie, which of course was just ridiculous (much like the above comment from the reviewer who said you’re better off seeing The Hurt Locker instead).

As I said, if I was 10 years old, I’d probably think this was the coolest thing in the world. I tend to think that if I was a fan of G.I. Joe in the day, I’d probably eat it up as well. For me, it was a fun visual diversion for a couple of hours, though in the end I still didn’t care one way or the other when it came to a human element in the film, but then I hardly think that matters here…

It’s 2004 and the setting is Baghdad as we’re being introduced to an elite Bomb Squad of Bravo Company as they’re getting ready to do what they do best, take out any bombs. Unfortunately, tragic results ensue, and the two men left, Sanborn and Eldridge, with only 38 days left in their rotation, get a new squad leader, Staff Sergeant Will James…

The only problem is James really comes alive with the action that he faces, and goes the extra distance to get his job done, much to the dissatisfaction of the men underneath him.

The Hurt Locker just became the best movie of the year for me of those that I’ve seen thus far. It’s also the return to the big screen by director Kathryn Bigelow, who hasn’t had a full length feature in theatres since K-19: The Widowmaker and who previously helmed such movies as Strange Days, Point Break and the vampire classic, Near Dark, and it’s just a stunning return to form. Delivering over two hours of tension right from the get-go, yet still being a full and satisfying character piece, and a great showcase for it’s lead actor Jeremy Renner.

There’s no Hollywood politics in this piece, or any Hollywood military cliches with any of the characters, and that’s extremely welcome. Bigelow isn’t afraid to let a scene go on for as long as it needs to to get the right atmosphere and tension, and the way this all unfolds is just like a good book, with little bits to tease and inform at first and fuller character bits coming along the way, until it’s final resolution.

Jeremy Renner has been one of these guys who’s been out there for a long time (I guess most recently seen in the TV series The Unusuals) doing good solid work more as a supporting guy more than anything else. The Hurt Locker is a big breakthrough for him and honestly, I hope he gets remembered for this when Oscar nominations roll about, he’s just that good in delivering this character that has way more to himself than just what his surface actions show. He’s backed up with fine work by both Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty as Sanborn and Eldridge, and though they are the support here, neither actor or character gets shortchanged. Also in the cast are small roles by some bigger names, Guy Pearce, David Morse, Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly are all in here doing good “bit” work that does nothing to take away from Renner, Mackie and Geraghty.

I know this one has been out there for awhile now, but only recently has it come to a theatre near enough to me that made me want to go see it. It may not be in a lot of areas out there, but if it is, I’d urge anyone to seek this out. It’s solidly engaging for it’s entire time, a great return to the big screen from director Kathryn Bigelow and a star-making turn from actor Jeremy Renner. Like I said at the top, already for me, the best movie of the year and of course this is highly, highly recommended.

As we start, we find that young Brüno is a flamboyantly gay 19 and the top of the fashionista world in his native Austria- he’s the tops one moment and the next his world has come tumbling down. Now at his lowest, Brüno, decides to come to America with his sole goal: to become a big, famous star…

So’s the basic premise to Brüno the newest movie from star Sacha Baron Cohen, following up his fantastic success with his last move Borat with another in the same vein- partially scripted with some manufactured events and some totally real but combining to give you a comedic experience really unlike anything else out there right now. The temptation is there to say “if you liked Borat, you’ll probably like Brüno just as much,” but if our audience was any indication, that may not be true… oh for me, I laughed harder than I have at any other movie I’ve seen this year and at the same time I was just as appalled at some of the things that I saw on screen (in particular, two scenes, one involving former Presidential candidate Ron Paul and another with various “stage parents” that was really horrifying). Borat did a lot of shocking things, but with Brüno, Cohen and director Larry Charles push the envelope even further, if you can imagine that.

Now, obviously, this plays a lot with it’s character being gay and pushing that in some situations, and there’s where my one criticism lies- it’s mostly doing that with the expense of mid and southern USA in mind, definitely adding to a stereotype of those regions perceived perceptions of homosexuals. And while that perception may be true to an extent, I’d figure that given the extreme situations here that Brüno’s creating, even the most “enlightened” heterosexual, East or West Coaster might react in the same ways- it’s just more of a guaranteed laugh going the way that they’re going.

But still, I was mightily entertained, and much like with Borat I’m at the end of this just wondering how the hell they did everything that goes on here (which is something that I certainly cannot say with most of today’s conventionally scripted comedies) and just what steps are taken for Cohen’s safety in these situations. After seeing Borat, I thought that Cohen was one of the bravest performers out there, and Brüno just reinforces that.

There’s also the possibility that a little of this can go a long way (especially with some reviews that I’ve read), but I think this is paced just right and at a lean 88 minute running time, certainly packs a lot in.

But still… this may not be for everybody. Brüno goes for quite a bit of shock and for quite a bit of discomfort, even more than Borat, and understandably, that just may not be everyone’s cup of tea. I’m not exactly the biggest fan of a lot of contemporary comedies, a lot of people have told me to see The Hangover for instance, and from what I’ve seen of the trailer, I think I’ve already seen the movie (it may very well be good, I’m really just not interested in seeing it and they haven’t sold me on it being a “must view” experience with their trailer- and I can say the same thing for Judd Apatow movies, Jack Black, Will Ferrell and so on)- but with Sacha Baron Cohen’s work, I can’t say that, his work is fearless, and there’s always something there that’s just unlike anything else out there. I laughed, I cringed, and I certainly had a good time talking about this afterwards and that’s enough for me to give this one big recommendation…

1933, four years into The Great Depression and the time of bank robbers like Alvin Karpus, Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger- and also the time when FBI head J. Edgar Hoover charges agent Melvin Purvis with the task to bring John Dillinger to justice…

… and there you have the premise to Public Enemies detailing the cat-and-mouse pursuit of John Dillinger and the newest movie from director Michael Mann. I have to say, when I first saw the trailers to this, I was real excited for the film with visions of Mann’s crime epics like Heat and the TV series Crime Story in my head, though the reality after seeing Public Enemies is more along the lines of Mann’s tepid re-make of his own Miami Vice into a film…

Sorry to say that, but this was disappointing to say the least and and way too padded out, so much so that it’s more sleep-inducing than exciting, though to be fair, there’s a few good set pieces along the way. But good set pieces just do not make a good overall movie, and what this lacks is character (which Heat had in droves) and a fun/excitement factor that would just keep you glued to the screen. I was left at the end wishing this had been more Brian DePalma’s The Untouchables more than anything else.

In Heat, there’s a lot there that basically illustrates why our protagonists are the way they are and while this didn’t have to go to the same depths that Heat does, what’s here leaves you with protagonists that are very one and two dimensional. Dillinger is given the greater emphasis and a lot of that is basically pointing you to a direction of “Well, he wasn’t really that bad a guy” at the end. Now that would be fine I think if the same consideration had been given to the other side- the law- especially because there is an equal amount of time given to both, but here Purvis and his crew are given very little other than just the acts of finding Dillinger (though some members of Purvis’ squad are shown in a blood-thirsty capacity, that’s be fine if there was more to it, but here it’s more to enforce sympathy with John Dillinger more than anything else).

I can’t fault the actors with this, Johnny Depp is Dillinger and Christian Bale is Purvis and both do decent jobs with the material that’s given. The standout to me was actually Billy Cruddup in some brief scenes playing J. Edgar Hoover. The least here is Marion Cotillard who really just didn’t leave anything lasting for me in the end.

The fault here is clearly Mann’s who wants to underplay this so much that it loses any sort of sense of fun or excitement that this should have about it. On top of that, at least to me, there’s a lot of times where it’s hard to figure out just where you’re at in the film- location-wise anyway and how all of it coordinates together. I’ve read online of a lot of technical inaccuracies to what really happened and honestly, that doesn’t really matter a lot to me in the end for something like this, as long as what you have in the end turns out to be fairly exciting.

Public Enemies doesn’t do that though, and instead, there were more times where I had to fight off sleep more than anything else. Reviews are all over the map on this, so some out there may very well like this and think it’s the greatest thing to ever hit, but for myself… I think I’ll sit back tonight and pop in DePalma’s The Untouchables again…

In brief, four armed men hijack a New York City subway car and hold the passengers of said car hostage, wanting a ransom demand met within an hour’s time frame, with the Transit Authority and the NYPD doing their best to save everyone.

That’s the basic plot of any version of The Taking of Pelham 123 adapted from the novel by John Godey (and no I’ve never read the novel- though in this case, if one day I ever get the chance I certainly will). First given theatrical life in 1974 by director Joseph Sargent and starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, it’s since appeared in a more forgettable TV movie and now re-made again for theatrical release by director Tony Scott and starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta.

Now generally speaking, I really don’t mind the practice of re-makes, if something fresh can be made from an existing property and I’m interested in said property, then I’m more than willing to give the filmmakers a chance with it. This is one instance though when I’ve had my own trepidation about this, because the 1974 version of Pelham 123 is right up there as a movie that’s really special to me and knowing what Tony Scott does with his films- bringing in a higher-pitched energy that sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t, well for myself, there was reason for concern. The thing that I like about the original, is that it is of the moment and very matter-of-fact in what it does. On top of that, the New York “feel” is extremely authentic to the timeframe the original is shot in, Matthau, Shaw and all of the other characters have a lived-in quality to them that doesn’t really require any sort of expansion, and everything unfolds in a highly logical way. Plus it’s got this tremendous score from David Shire that’s used very effectively and not at all overdone. And “overdone” was the thing that I was most concerned about with Tony Scott’s version of the film.

I still have a huge preference for the original, but I have to say, for bringing this property to the forefront with a modern audience in mind, I think Scott and scripter Brian Helgeland have done a pretty decent job and fortunately they’ve avoided some of the traps that I thought they’d play up- this being Scott’s overdone style and a modern convention of doing something a little more wise-assed with some of the passengers held hostage (basically making sure that one of the passengers would have to be like Alan Ruck in Speed).

Other than the basic plot though and the lead character’s last name- everything here is different from the original- the character name in common is Garber, that was Walter Matthau in the original (Zachary Garber), who was playing a Transit Authority cop, in this Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber (undoubtedly a tip of the hat to Matthau) and he’s no cop, but a transit authority employee currently acting in a dispatching capacity. The biggest difference here is that I suspect Scott and Helgeland have seen messageboards and seen that a common complaint that comes up is “Where’s the character development?” and so they decided to add a lot more weight to the basic character’s of Garber and the antagonist Ryder, played by John Travolta, than what’s shown in the original film- basically going for a more personal connection to these characters than what Sargent did in the original, which was make the situation one that was more black and white, and what Scott and Helgeland have opted for is something with a lot more shades of grey.

Fortunately, it works here, though my one caveat is the fact that the connection between Ryder and Scott is made pretty high-opera personal by it’s end and that’s something that I don’t think needed to be done, but at least here it’s more a moot point than what it might be with other movies.

The other thing that I have to give Scott credit for is holding back quite a bit on his style- oh sure, things are still highly kinetic, but not necessarily in the way Domino was, but still not as held back as Crimson Tide (my own personal favorite of Tony Scott’s movies). It’s not at all a distraction to this movie, so my hat’s off for that.

Of the cast, well I think Denzel Washington is solid as a rock, and I give him kudos for choosing a role like this that isn’t necessarily as proactive as others that he’s done. John Travolta does a real nice job as Ryder, and coming off of the death of his son when making this, I think he manages something here that’s pretty interesting, if quite a bit more over-the-top than what Robert Shaw did in the original. The original film also plays a lot more with the other three gunmen, and that’s something that’s not really dealt with here, but again this is going for something a little different than the original, so I won’t hold that against this. Filling out the cast is John Tuturro as an NYPD negotiator and James Gandofini as the Mayor of New York, Gandolfini is solid as expected and it’s really nice to see Tuturro play a part where he’s not a douchebag. Tuturro’s character also adds to what Garber has to do here, basically splintering off the function of what Matthau’s character did with the original.

I saw this with three other friends, two of which have seen the original film and one which hadn’t but plans to. My friend who hadn’t seen the original really had a good time with this, and I suspect that others who haven’t seen the original will probably have a pretty decent time with it as well. I’ve seen the original, and as I stated at the top, certainly had my fears going into this, but I don’t think the remake does anything to tarnish the original by any means, and other than the basic plot, it’s a pretty different movie. With that said, the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 is a pretty taut thriller and I do recommend seeing it. But also, if you haven’t seen the 1974 original and like to watch 70s films, then by all means if you have the chance, catch that as well…