Washington, in particular, gives a typically magnetic performance as the everyman Garber, whose own history is hardly whiter-than-white. Ryder seems instantly drawn to the unpretentious Garber, using him as anmakeshift father-confessor, as the two form a blurred moral yin and yang.
Is there a better actor working in mainstream cinema today? However, while Travolta throws himself into the portrayal of the unhinged Ryder with all the usual gusto he reserves for his villainess turns, the attempts to turn Ryder into a charismatic gentleman thief do fall flat — he is a cold blooded murderer, after all.
If anything, Travolta is the weakest link here. Both add dignified weight and believability to the supporting cast, as is to be expected, but their roles do seem a little tacked-on there is no Camonetti character in the original, for example.
How long is The Taking of Pelham ? Does Netflix have Pelham ? Does Garber die in Pelham ? Where can I see The Taking of Pelham ? Who wrote The Taking of Pelham ? Who directed Taking of Pelham ? Did Denzel take the bribe in Pelham ? Koepp's drafts were meant to be "essentially familiar" to those who read the novel, preserving the "great hero vs. Brian Helgeland, the only one receiving credit for the screenplay, took the script in a different direction, making the remake more like the film than the novel and, as Helgeland put it, making it about "two guys who weren't necessarily all that different from each other.
The new version sharpens that focus until it's almost exclusively a duel between disgraced MTA dispatcher Walter Garber and manic gunman Ryder. In the book and original film, Ryder is "cold-blooded and calculating", but in the film he is a "loose cannon willing to kill innocents, not out of necessity, but out of spite.
In the film, the main character is named Zachary Garber and is a lieutenant in the Transit Authority police; in the film, the main character is named Walter Garber and works as a subway train dispatcher. Ryder does not use the "Mr. Blue" nickname as the original film does; it is implied that Ryder is a nickname. After Garber delivers the money, the hijackers start up the train, having found a way to circumvent the dead man feature. They get off the train at the Roosevelt spur, a derelict tunnel built under the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel.
The train continues forward, picking up speed until the passengers become alarmed and the authorities at the MTV conclude that no one is driving the train anymore. Toggle navigation Menu. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. It would be quite inaccurate to say that I loved the new Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 ; it's a bit of a stretch to even say that I liked it. But I did find it to be frequently entertaining and enjoyable in the way that sound and fury can be entertaining of a summer's afternoon, and this fact makes me very angry.
For I have absolutely no use at all for the film's director, Tony Scott, and if there was a movie I was hellbent on finding faults with, this would be it. There are, certainly, faults a-plenty, but God damn me if I didn't think, on balance, that the movie was good more often than it was bad.
At any rate, I've done my duty be revealing the baggage I carried into the theater, and now you can adjust your reception of my opinion as is appropriate. Remade, fairly loosely, from the minor classic original and the novel by Morton Freedgood as "Jon Godey" in both cases, the "1 2 3" of the title is spelled out, and that doesn't seem like a particularly important change though it's an awfully specific one , the film tells the story of two men and what happens to them over the course of about two hours one day in New York City.
There's Garber Denzel Washington , a former administrator with the MTA who's been bumped down to train dispatcher due to an infraction whose details remain a mystery for a decent enough chunk of the film that I'm going to consider it a spoiler; there's also a crazy-eyed man with buzzed hair and a semi-Fu Manchu mustache that I took to calling the Amazing Face Mullet in my head while I was watching, who calls himself Ryder John Travolta when pressed to call himself anything at all.
The two men's pas de deux unfolds very nearly in real time, pretty much until the last scene. That's a fairly simple version of the somewhat twisty plot and not to give anything away, but the way it was modernised, tapping into our fears of terrorism and the stock market gone amok, is way more elegant that needs to be - but the credited Brian Helgeland and the uncredited David Koepp are both of them fine writers , but I find it hard to believe that narrative machinations are the big draw for anyone with this film.
Its actual reasons for being are two: watching Washington and Travolta ping-pong off of each other despite spending most of the film on opposite ends of a walkie-talkie, and watching Tony Scott go absolutely bugfuck with style.
I shall address the second of these points first. Scott's career neatly divides into two phases: his early movies that are very splashy and stylised; and his later movies that are so stylised that it's like watching Scott's mind's eye having an orgasm.
0コメント