This really doesn't belong in the "bad movies" forum, but it doesn't belong in "good movies" either. If we had an "okay movies" category, it would belong there. The reason I chose to post it as a bad movie is because I can't recommend it.
On the "good" side:
* The movie doesn't waste much time . . . the hijacking of the subway train starts right at the beginning of the movie.
* Denzel Washington and John Turturro provide good acting performances. Travolta does too, but in a very over-the-top, "Nicolas Cage" sort of way. James Gandolfini is also pretty good in a small role as the Mayor.
* The dialogue is sharp and suspenseful for most of the movie.
On the "bad" side:
* The movie degenerates from a decent suspense thriller into a dumb action movie.
* There are way too many coincidences leading up to the climax.
* Even though the acting is pretty good, the characters have very little (what's the word I'm looking for here?) . . . "charm"? "magnetism'? "presence"? . . . I just didn't connect with them . . . I found it difficult to really care about whether the good guys or the bad guys would end up victorious.
* The final scene in the movie is REALLY stupid . . . and makes the NYC Police Department look like the Keystone Kops. I could hear people in the audience whispering and snickering a bit.
If you want to see this movie, see the original Walter Matthau / Robert Shaw version instead. It's more fun and more memorable. I give the 2009 version about 2 stars out of 4.
I love the original, and was actually rather upset when I found out they remade it, especially with Washington and Travolta.
I'll probably see it when it his DVD. Mostly because I like Tony Scott, who has a knack for making good bad movies. Still, Travolta for Shaw? That's like getting processed beef jerky when you expect steak.
Quote from: Mofo Rising on June 14, 2009, 12:27:04 PM
I'll probably see it when it his DVD. Mostly because I like Tony Scott, who has a knack for making good bad movies. Still, Travolta for Shaw? That's like getting processed beef jerky when you expect steak.
I can support the last adjective for Tony Scott movies but not the first. His movies make me want to hurt myself in a very emo kid fashion.
Karma for the Travolta comment!!! :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:
I read a bit about Travolta's character... Suffice to say, he is a WAY different character Shaw's was.
No one could play a tired cynical civil servant like Walter Matthau. No one. Plus the original had a small role for Jerry Stiller. As a matter of fact, I think most of those roles in the original went to "New York" actors, except for Robert Shaw of course.
The film got good reviews in both the alternate weekly and the local daily, but what they fail to understand, probably because they are too young to understand, the original was a perfectly acceptable film adaptation of the book by John Godey. Thus, what we need is something new. We don't need another retread of something that has already been done and done acceptablely.
They actually had the original on The CW the other day. Boy , everybody in that movie has a mouth on them. You can't imagine someone in this day and age smart mouthing a guy holding hostages.
I've always loved Walter Matthau. He makes a great sad sack, world weary character. Another favorite of mine with Matthau is The Laughing Policeman.
Quote from: Trekgeezer on June 18, 2009, 09:39:05 AM
I've always loved Walter Matthau. He makes a great sad sack, world weary character. Another favorite of mine with Matthau is The Laughing Policeman.
:thumbup: I agree. THE LAUGHING POLICEMAN is one a very good, but mostly forgotten 1970s big-city crime movie. I bought the DVD as soon as it was released and it holds a place of honor among my 70s cop movies.