Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (2009) (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (2009)
Richard P. May
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jan 2006


 - posted 06-14-2009 06:47 PM      Profile for Richard P. May   Email Richard P. May   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fooey! Director Tony Scott seems to have the thought that "if there is some image trickery, use it, regardless of how it fits the movie".
No hand held, but lots of camera pivoting around the subject, thus having the background constantly swooping by.
Very nervous editing, skip-frames to make the vehicles jerk along, extreme closeups all served to detract from the story line.
The lead villian (Travolta) did what he was supposed to, but the character was written as such a crazy he, again, became unbelievable.
It loses suspense, and becomes just another noisy chase picture. Another example of where remaking a good movie is not an improvement.

 |  IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 06-14-2009 09:02 PM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Saw this with my son at Becky's D/I, Berlinsville, PA on their small screen (#2).

Too many and unnecessary f-bombs slowed the picture down. Okay, we've established he's crazy and that they're New Yorkers already! Get on with it!

It held our attention, however, and had enough action to be fun.

3 stars out of 5.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 06-16-2009 02:09 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
CINEMA: Regal Colorado Mills 16
AUDITORIUM: 10
PRESENTATION: 35mm film with Dolby Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Hiss from front screen speakers during preshow, but it went away. Nobody cares about the preshow, though. The film presentation itself started out of frame. Frame moved slightly upwards but it was still out of frame since you could see a black bar at the top of the screen and the bottom of the previous frame on top of that on the masking. Had to go out and look for a manager. Finally found one in the Customer Service area which is about as far away as you can get from the auditoriums. Manager did not look up and acknowledge my presence until I started speaking. Got back into the auditorium and the problem was finally corrected. Huge keystoning issues in this auditorium. In fact, the keystoning was absurd. I don't know why so many in the industry find this acceptable but I always hear old tech people in the industry talk about how they love these ancient theaters with the projector pointing down at a huge angle. Those theaters are unacceptable and should be demolished. Anyway, back to the Colorado Mills 16, auditorium #10... the sound in this auditorium has to be some of the worst anywhere in the Denver metro area. Much too shrill. Auditorium #9 sounds much better. I have complained about this auditorium before, but nothing has changed. Also, the left and right speakers seem out of balance. You could really tell any time some music (non-scored) played as it was generally only piped between the left and right channels. Auditorium is advertised as a giant screen for some reason, but it's about the same size as any random multiplex's large auditorium. Maybe the stadium seating just makes everything look smaller. Lights went down before the trailers were over and never came up during the credits. Also, although this wasn't a problem with the movie presentation, the exit doors in the lobby could not be opened until I slammed into them with my body's full force. They weren't locked, they just do not open. This is a huge fire hazard. Maybe OSHA should be notified?

The movie:
Wow, what a turd! The camera could not stay still for even a single second. It was always wooshing and swooping around everyone else who was just sitting around talking. There was no reason for this. Lots of shots had a reduced framerate as well and this really pissed me off. Looked tacky and unprofessional. In all I'd say a bunch of wannabe film students made this. Very unprofessionally shot in just about every respect. The premise of the movie could have been good if lots of things like this were better. John Travolta's character was way too over the top for me. The editing was horrible and by the time the last 15 minutes or so of the movie came around I had no idea what was going on or how certain things came to be. Stupid.

 |  IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 06-16-2009 06:30 PM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Joe Redifer
Wow, what a turd! The camera could not stay still for even a single second. It was always wooshing and swooping around everyone else who was just sitting around talking. There was no reason for this. Lots of shots had a reduced framerate as well and this really pissed me off. Looked tacky and unprofessional. In all I'd say a bunch of wannabe film students made this. Very unprofessionally shot in just about every respect. The premise of the movie could have been good if lots of things like this were better. John Travolta's character was way too over the top for me. The editing was horrible and by the time the last 15 minutes or so of the movie came around I had no idea what was going on or how certain things came to be. Stupid.
Now turn that around 180 degrees and you have a review for the original which really is a great fucking picture. I was actually looking forward to this in some insane way. Even though it's Tony Scott...jeez...how could he possibly screw up such good source material? Oh yes, I forgot...he's Tony Scott...no, the other one.

Sigh...

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-17-2009 01:45 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: John Wilson
Now turn that around 180 degrees and you have a review for the original which really is a great fucking picture.
Absolutely, it's excellent and was one of the first DVDs I bought. In fact I am disappointed they didn't release a new "special edition" DVD with a bunch of making-of features and vintage interviews.

The original movie can be viewed on hulu.com for anyone interested in checking it out. The think I liked about it was that it seemed totally possible....some nut really could do this. Everything, from the wimpy mayor to the one chase scene, seemed believeable. From what I've heard about this new one, they threw most of the plausibility out the window. (I'm still wanting to see it though.)

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-20-2009 05:47 PM      Profile for Ian Price   Email Ian Price   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Joe Redifer
quote: Joe Redifer
the exit doors in the lobby could not be opened until I slammed into them with my body's full force.
Well he does weigh about a buck 35 so I am not impressed. [Roll Eyes]

 |  IP: Logged

Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004


 - posted 06-21-2009 07:37 PM      Profile for Sam Graham   Author's Homepage   Email Sam Graham   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
CINEMA: Rave Westroads 14, Omaha, NE
AUDITORIUM: 13
PRESENTATION: Christie DLP Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: LF and C channels were swapped...all the dialogue came from the left front channel, and the center channel played the left front channel music and effects
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

So I'm entering Regency Circle heading to Whole Foods when I spy the Westroads Mall entry sign, which includes the "RAVE Motion Pictures" logo.

WHAT? When did they build a Rave here?

(November 2008, apparently.)

Enter the glass tower and find a big snake line for the ticket window with nobody in it. Still, there's some navigation required. Left...walk...right...walk straight through a bunch of rows to the front...left...left...straight...right...Disco.

The auditorium walk is a similar jumbo. Straight...right...down a long hallway to the satellite snack bar where the hallway splits to the right and left depending on which auditorium you're going to. I'm going right...then to the left again down a small side corridor. This is more convoluted than the Ogden Tinseltown. And oddly enough, has almost the same decor.

THE PLOT: A subway car is hijacked, and they don't want five dollar footlongs. Wackiness ensues.

In the interest of science, I watched the original last week...the existing non-anamorphic widescreen mono DVD release. Thanks for the effort, MGM. Anyway, it was an unusually nice effort for a non-action action movie with a weak ending that essentially made the whole thing a running joke about a cough. WHY would that idiot go home?

The new version largely keeps the base story of the original, but presents it in an entirely different style. There are differences in the main players' backgrounds and their ultimate goals, and the new one has a far better ending.

Overall, I liked both movies equally for different reasons.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-21-2009 09:29 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Sam Graham
I watched the original last week...the existing non-anamorphic widescreen mono DVD release.
Really? The DVD I have is scope letterboxed and is stereo...well at least I think it is. Now you've got me curious. I bought it a few years ago so maybe it's been discontinued in favor of the stupid version you describe. WTF?

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 06-21-2009 11:30 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mike, I can't seem to find the original on Hulu. I looked for it but ended up watching Basic Instinct instead.

 |  IP: Logged

Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004


 - posted 06-22-2009 08:11 AM      Profile for Sam Graham   Author's Homepage   Email Sam Graham   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Really? The DVD I have is scope letterboxed and is stereo...well at least I think it is. Now you've got me curious. I bought it a few years ago so maybe it's been discontinued in favor of the stupid version you describe. WTF?
It's scoped letterbox, alright, but it's not anamorphic, so it sits in a small rectangular box in the middle of my screen. I assume you're watching it on a standard 4:3 set, so this wouldn't affect you.

As for "mono", it is, and that's actually fine since the original movie was mono. But it's a pretty crappy mono, particularly when the shrilling music plays.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-22-2009 04:15 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Joe Redifer
Mike, I can't seem to find the original on Hulu.
Yeah, it appears to be gone. Too bad. There are a ton of "excerpts" on there though - which is pretty stupid. Maybe a DVD reissue is in the works.

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 06-22-2009 07:18 PM      Profile for Bill Gabel   Email Bill Gabel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fancast has available.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 06-22-2009 08:58 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Try to use complete sentences, please.

 |  IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 07-02-2009 08:49 AM      Profile for Pravin Ratnam   Email Pravin Ratnam   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
COMCAST ON DEMAND has the original in the free movies HD section. I don't think the original is all that awesome. But it was a fun viewing. I saw bits and pieces of the remake. It just looks dull. And Travolta is just silly.

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 07-13-2009 03:38 PM      Profile for Bill Gabel   Email Bill Gabel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In the interest of science, I watched the original last week... the existing non-anamorphic widescreen mono release.
MGM through Fox has just released a new DVD with new cover art. That's about all thats new about it. It's the same old transfer from the old MGM release. Fox has been updating some old transfers, but not this old yet.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.