?The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3? (2009) is a re-make of ?The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three? (1974).
I've seen both, and I, together with all the media reviews I've read, say it's a re-make. Reviews written or presented by professionals who get paid to do what they do by the way.
In fact I only know of you and Tony Scott who say it's NOT a re-make.
I know why Tony Scott is saying it's not a re-make and I've explained above why good old Tone doesn't want it referred to as a re-make (because it leads to comparisons with a much, much better film).
Pelham 123
Re: Pelham 123
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Ah yes. "Remade for a modern audience" - or even "MADE for a modern audience".
That usually means a wobblycam / CGI orgy full of "beautiful" 20-somethings who look like they've been recruited from a modelling agency rather than on the basis of any thespian talent.
Others Musts include a token 'ethnic minority' character and a "spunky" female lead with an IQ of about 250 (to make the blokes look like a bunch of dopey twats).
In most cases, Spunky Female Lead will also have a grating, whiney accent, and the words "fuck" and "shit" must be used profusely by all cast members.
If it's an 'action' move, there'll also be plenty of stop-go, speed-up slow-down sequences, with people running up walls and doing back-flips.
Either that, or it'll all be in semi-darkness and filmed in Shakeyvision "to make the viewer feel like he's in the thick of the action" (translation: "because it's cheaper, and is an excuse for lazy movie-making").
It's all arsewipe. Nobody seems to make decent films any more.
- Eric
>>
Ah yes. "Remade for a modern audience" - or even "MADE for a modern audience".
That usually means a wobblycam / CGI orgy full of "beautiful" 20-somethings who look like they've been recruited from a modelling agency rather than on the basis of any thespian talent.
Others Musts include a token 'ethnic minority' character and a "spunky" female lead with an IQ of about 250 (to make the blokes look like a bunch of dopey twats).
In most cases, Spunky Female Lead will also have a grating, whiney accent, and the words "fuck" and "shit" must be used profusely by all cast members.
If it's an 'action' move, there'll also be plenty of stop-go, speed-up slow-down sequences, with people running up walls and doing back-flips.
Either that, or it'll all be in semi-darkness and filmed in Shakeyvision "to make the viewer feel like he's in the thick of the action" (translation: "because it's cheaper, and is an excuse for lazy movie-making").
It's all arsewipe. Nobody seems to make decent films any more.
- Eric
Re: Pelham 123
Well, I was thinking more of...
Philip French of the Observer
Anthony Quinn in the Independent
Mark Adams in the Mirror
Mark Komode on the BBC web site........
James Mottram at the Channel 4 website...........
Alistair Harkness at the Scotsman...............
I could go on and on (and often do).
Just do a Google search and you can find dozens and dozens of reviews that refer to Tony Scot's version as a remake of the 1974 film.
I've seen the 1974 original and the 2009 pile of pants.
In my opinion, which I share with many others, the 2009 Tony Scott pile of poo is a very, very poor re-make of the 1974 original.
In your opinion it's not. An opinion you share with good old Tone.
Your opinion and Tony's opinion is as valid as mine and the reviewers I've read.
Nothing you've said so far has presented a convincing argument for me to change my opinion though.
Philip French of the Observer
Anthony Quinn in the Independent
Mark Adams in the Mirror
Mark Komode on the BBC web site........
James Mottram at the Channel 4 website...........
Alistair Harkness at the Scotsman...............
I could go on and on (and often do).
Just do a Google search and you can find dozens and dozens of reviews that refer to Tony Scot's version as a remake of the 1974 film.
I've seen the 1974 original and the 2009 pile of pants.
In my opinion, which I share with many others, the 2009 Tony Scott pile of poo is a very, very poor re-make of the 1974 original.
In your opinion it's not. An opinion you share with good old Tone.
Your opinion and Tony's opinion is as valid as mine and the reviewers I've read.
Nothing you've said so far has presented a convincing argument for me to change my opinion though.