Saved By The Rails

email this story
read comments (10)
post a comment

In today's N.Y. Times A.O. Scott makes a good point about The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, which is that the "stubborn, earthbound fact of the subways serves as an anchor" for director Tony Scott. "The gritty physicality of subway cars and tunnels balances the director's signature flights into G.P.S. and Google Earth-inspired bird's-eye moviemaking, constraining his indulgences much as it limits the options of both the criminals and the civic authorities in the movie.

Another good quote: Costars Denzel Washington and John Travolta "interact mostly via squawk box, cellphone and radio. But even at a distance from each other, they conduct a tag-team master class in old-style movie star technique, barreling through every cliché and nugget of corn the script has to offer with verve and conviction. Even when you don't really believe them, they're always a lot of fun to watch."

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 "is neither too raw nor too nostalgic," adds Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum. "And in the hands of director Tony Scott, it's relevant but not too distressing, something that doesn't shy away from jolting violence but is also, you know, fun. It's an open-hydrant whoooosh of an action thriller."

$65 Million Dollar Man<< previous | next >>"Gesundheit"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 12, 2009 at 8:02 AM

comment #1

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Still, most of the reviews have been "Meh" (Ebert:"There's not much wrong with Tony Scott's The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, except that there's not much really right about it."), and it's got a 58 on Metacritic at the moment. I'll catch it on Starz next April.

Posted by MikeSchaeferSF at June 12, 2009 8:25 AM

comment #2

actionman says ...

Wow! Shocker! Most critics are complaining about Tony's style and they didn't like his movie! Didn't see this one coming!

Critics schmitics...

Posted by actionman at June 12, 2009 9:01 AM

comment #3

rr3333 says ...

If they kept it truer to the original, Larry David could've played Walter Matthau's Garber.

Posted by rr3333 at June 12, 2009 10:24 AM

comment #4

heybub1 says ...

I just got back from the first showing of the day at an AMC theater in W. Nyack, NY. It was 3/4 full w/ mostly senior citizens and the chatter once the movie was over was they loved it. So sometimes old, white critics don't have their finger on the pulse of their own demographic.

Posted by heybub1 at June 12, 2009 10:24 AM

comment #5

kneelbeforezod says ...

I've noticed a trend of people putting films down by saying they will not watch it in theaters. 'MEH, I'll catch it on a plane", 'meh, I'll rent it in a year".... Except it's kind of a non-put down, because they aren't saying they won't watch it, instead just informing us WHEN they'll watch it, like anyone cares.

And some people seem to say it about almost everything, like a film must be a timeless masterpiece for them to honor it with their presence in the cinema. What's the problem? Don't you like seeing films on the big screen?

I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make here. Something about people sounding a little pompous, like the filmmakers give a shit WHEN you watch something.

Posted by kneelbeforezod at June 12, 2009 10:27 AM

comment #6

NightWriter says ...

Kneel:

I understand your overal point about time-shifting (as it were) but Hollywood's pecking order still assigns status on the basis of North American box office receipts, as the majority of films perform similarly in the DVD sales market as they do on-screen. And this is even more so with summer blockbusters because the hits return huge profits that offset the loses from other films on a studio's annual slate.

Bottom line: The directors and the so-called suits DO care that you're not enthused enough to head out to the multiplex. Strong DVD sales might get a director another gig (and save a suit's job) but it'll take a lot longer to secure a deal than if he/she had a big opening weekend.

Posted by NightWriter at June 12, 2009 10:47 AM

comment #7

kneelbeforezod says ...

NightWriter: yes, very true, good point.

Posted by kneelbeforezod at June 12, 2009 11:58 AM

comment #8

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I know what you're saying, kneel. I know a guy at work that says that FOR EVERY DAMN MOVIE ANYONE HAS EVER ASKED HIM ABOUT.

Some people just aren't theater-goers, I s'pose.

Kind of an interesting point about T. Scott and the claustrophobic setting kind of limiting his jarring, ADD-addled (actionman would probably call it "kinetic" or "visceral") style.

I remember last time he worked in cramped quarters (with Denzel, no less), the result was Crimson Tide. Outside of an anomaly like True Romance -- great script, anyone could make it work -- that's about as good as a Tony Scott film gets for me.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at June 12, 2009 12:34 PM

comment #9