Comments on: ‘The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3′ – It’s not the ’70s anymore

By: Bec

Bec — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:42:08 +0000

Was thinking about seeing this but will definantly give it a miss, sadly these days I need to google movies before going to see them to find out if they have a lot of that ’shaky cam’ in them. I am sick of wasting money on movies I am forced to walk out of half way through due to nausea. Maybe weak on my behalf but I know Im not alone.

By: ModernusRidiculo

ModernusRidiculo — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:29:04 +0000

My 17 yr old just saw the remake of Pelham 123, one of my childhood favorites, last weekend. Tonight I asked him to watch the Matthau version with me. He says that the new version is, in his words, “absolutely lame” compared to the Matthau/Shaw version.

By: KXB

KXB — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:16:41 +0000

That may be a factor in why The Hangover is doing such strong business, given the look of two of the three leads…

By: opus

opus — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:42:09 +0000

What spoils some movies is they don’t use “ordinary” looking actors. Walter Matthau’s look was part of what made him believable in films.
Today rather than using actor’s like Matthau they attempt to ugly up a good looking actor instead. A fat suit, no makeup or maybe just a pair of glasses.
It sounds stupid but not using an ordinary looking person for a part takes me out of the movie.

By: cftoto

cftoto — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:10 +0000

It’s not bad, Linda, although the ending is rather weak. But it’s certainly not a must-see.

By: Linda

Linda — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:21:07 +0000

Sounds like I can wait to see this one in DVD. Thanks for the review.

By: dimitrios

dimitrios — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:57:14 +0000

I blame Saving Private Ryan, the first time i remember being subjected to the shaky cam. Unfotunately it didn’t bother me in Saving Private Ryan and if the past few years is an indicator it didn’t bother every single action movie director in the world. I seem to recall that Speilberg was given quite a bit of praise for his inovative camera work in the movie. It made you feel like you were there were a few of the reviews I read that describe this new and inventive camera technique. Now using shaky cam in an action scene is like a money shot in a porno, you can’t have a scene without either.

Unfortunately I don’t see this changing any time soon. It is part of the recipe for making an action movie these days. Just like Micheal Bey can’t make a movie without blowing up every set he has built for that movie, Hollywood can’t do action without the shaky cam. Now one of those two is fun to watch and the other gives me motion sickness.

By: cftoto

cftoto — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:31:28 +0000

Good heads up on the TV remake, Charles.

And yeah, I don’t know who exactly is to blame, but why don’t directors try to keep the camera still for at least a few seconds?

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:28:38 +0000

Two words: Shaky-camera, and I lose the desire to see a movie.

If I go to see a movie with action in it, I want to SEE the action. Action in a movie is a visual treat. I think it is a way for directors to compensate on skimpy stunt budgets.

I blame Michael Bay.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:23:44 +0000

Strictly speaking, 3.0. There was a forgettable TV movie remake.