Check out the brand new HBO show from the producers of  the hit series Entourage, Mark Wahlberg, called How to Make It in America. The plot is somewhat similar to Entourage with a group of young guys searching for success in the big city, although this series begins before the fame and glory and takes place in the New York art scene. The show stars Bryan Greenberg, Victor Rasuk, Shannyn Sossamon, Eddie Kaye Thomas, Lake Bell, Luis Guzman and James Ransone and Kid Cudi. 

Check out the trailer…

via Sidewalk Hustle

I hope this is good, because I hadn’t been feeling HBO’s Sunday lineup since Curb Your Enthusiasm and Entourage’s seasons ended.

Bryceness – Mr. Not-So-Nice Guy

Taking of Pelham 123, The (2009)
★★ / ★★★★

Tony Scott directed this thriller about a criminal (John Travolta) with a mysterious reason for taking a train full hostages. Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) thought it was just another day in regular train traffic, but once he got a call from the mastermind of the hostage situation, he had to think quickly and act swiftly to get to the right authorities and bargain for the lives of the hostages. For a hostage movie, “The Taking of Pelham 123″ should have been more exciting. For me, only the first hour of the picture really worked because Travolta and Washington’s characters constantly tried to measure each other up; they were both smart characters and each had their own flaws and far from innocent past. The mindgames they played with each other was more interesting than the last forty-five minutes’ car crashes, quick cuts aided by random blasting of music and gunfires. In fact, the last forty-five minutes was drenched in typicality, it was hard for me to sit through because I knew where it was heading. That excitement and spark that it had in the first half were completely elimated and I somewhat lost interest. I thought the supporting actors (who are usually great in other films) such as James Gandolfini (as the mayor), John Turturro (as a professional hostage negotiator) and Luis Guzmán (as one of the three criminals) were not pushed enough to make their characters come alive and make a significant impact in the story. Their characters could have been played by other actors and the movie would essentially have been the same. I also believe the movie had some serious problems when it comes to logic. For instance, the extended chase sequence near the end could have been completely avoided if the police had put trackers in any of the money bags. Since the police would know the exact positions of the criminals, the movie would not have wasted fifteen minutes of its time showing confusion and chaos. Overall, “The Taking of Pelham 123″ isn’t really a bad movie because more than half of it was right on track (pardon the pun). It’s just that it tried too hard to inject that Hollywood way of storytelling where a big chase sequence is a requisite. For a movie having characters who exuded edginess and intelligence, the movie was pretty dull and safe.

I’m sure you’ve heard (and if you haven’t that’s why you’ll visit this site more often) that KiD CuDi has a lead role in an HBO show called “How To Make It In America.” Well DatNewCuDi decided to highlight some things about the show since it’s about a month away from airing on February 14th. Hit the jump for everything you need to know, and some.

DatNewCuDi:

With the premiere of the first episode almost a month away I figured it was time I put together a post highlighting some things about the show. Keep reading for photos from the production of Episode 1, air dates & times for the first 3 episodes, cast info and some quotes from Cudi about the show.

As previously announced the show will premiere its first episode on February 14 on HBO. Recently it was confirmed that it would air at 10 PM ET. The following episodes are schedule to air every Sunday at 10 PM ET following a similar pattern that Entourage takes each season (8-12 episode season, 1 episode every week, 30 minutes per episode). Episode 2 will air Feb. 21, Episode 3 will air Feb. 28 etc.

Episode 1 overview:
In the pilot, Ben (Greenberg) and best friend Cam (Rasuk) start a leather jacket hustle when Cam’s cousin Rene (Guzman) threatens injury if an old loan isn’t repaid. In the follow-up episode, “Crisp,” the two enterprising friends try to start their own retro denim brand.

If you miss the premiere, it’s currently set to re-air at the following times:

Monday Feb. 15 2:05AM ET
Monday Feb. 15 5:25PM ET
Tuesday Feb. 16 1:25PM ET
Wednesday Feb. 17 12:00AM ET

A bit about Cudi’s character:

“I have a lead role,” Cudi said in an interview. “My character’s name is Domingo Dean. I actually named my character after both of my brothers – Dean, who lives in Phoenix, being one of them, and Domingo. My character’s kind of the comic relief. He’s really witty – a hopeless romantic but a player at the same time.”

Show Overview:
How to Make It in America follows two enterprising Brooklyn twentysomethings as they hustle their way through New York City, determined to achieve the American Dream. Trying to make a name for themselves in New York’s competitive fashion scene, Ben Epstein (Greenberg) and his friend and business partner Cam Calderon (Rasuk) use their street knowledge and connections to bring their ambitions to fruition. With the help of Cam’s cousin Rene (Guzman), who is trying to market his own high-energy drink, and their well-connected friend Domingo (“Kid Cudi”), the burgeoning entrepreneurs set out to make it big, encountering obstacles along the way that will require all their ingenuity to overcome.

Cast:
Scott “Kid Cudi” Mescudi – Dean
Bryan Greenberg – Ben
Victor Rasuk – Cam
Luis Guzman – Rene
Lake Bell – Rachel
Shannyn Sossamon – Gingy

Writers & Producers:
Creator and first-time writer Ian Edelman is collaborating with Emmy nominee Rob Weiss (“Entourage”) on many of the show’s scripts.”How to Make It in America” is produced by Stephen Levinson, Rob Weiss, Ian Edelman, and Mark Wahlberg.

Pictures:

Facebook page:

If you want to stay as up-to-date as possible on everything about the show become a fan of the official “How to Make it in America” Facebook page.

Trailer:

If you missed the Teaser Trailer a few weeks ago here it is again:

The Taking of Pelham 123 is a 2009 thriller film, directed by Tony Scott, and starring Denzel Washington, and John Travolta. The film is based on the novel of the same name by Morton Freedgood (writing under the pseudonym John Godey), and is a remake of the original 1974 film adaptation, which was also remade in 1998 as a TV movie. Production of the film began in March 2008, and the film was released on June 12, 2009.^[2]

Four heavily armed men, led by the mysterious Ryder (John Travolta), board the New York City subway 6 train departed from Pelham Bay Park Station at 1:23 p.m., and proceed to take control of it.

Meanwhile, MTA dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is assigned to the Rail Control Center, due to an ongoing investigation that he took a bribe to recommend a Japanese car manufacturer for the next subway car contract. The group then uncouple the front car from the rest of the train and hold the passengers in this front car hostage. One of the hijackers, Bashkim (Victor Gojcaj), kills an undercover police officer in the course of the action. Ryder and a former MTA train operator named Ramos (Luis Guzman) settle down in the front of the car, while the other hijackers watch the hostages in the back. They demand $10 million in ransom money to be paid within 60 minutes. For each minute past the deadline, one passenger will be killed. Garber and Ryder exchange conversations through the microphone, while Ramos and Emri (Robert Vataj) set up a wi-fi booster apparatus to enable Ryder to access his laptop in the tunnel to watch the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunge nearly 1,000 points during the next hour.

Unknown to him, one of the male passengers has an active laptop with a webcam, that was casually knocked to the floor, facing the car’s interior previously when they took their hostages, which simultaneously reconnects using that same wi–fi link; reestablishing a previously used videochat to his girlfriend’s desktop; when she returns to her PC, she sees the hostage situation through her webcam and provides the live feed to a local television station. Garber agrees to have the city pay Ryder the $10 million ransom, after the Mayor (James Gandolfini) is intercepted by his staff aboard a train in the Bronx and is transported back to RCC.

NYPD Emergency Service Unit Lt. Camonetti (John Turturro) enters RCC, and Garber’s boss, who has a rocky relationship with Garber, orders Garber to leave the premises. Camonetti takes over the hostage negotiations, infuriating Ryder, who demands that Garber be put back on the mic and that he will speak only to Garber. When Camonetti refuses, explaining Garber has already left the building, Ryder shoots and kills the train operator. Camonetti immediately has Garber brought back on the mic, talking to Ryder, while he sets up a sniper unit in the tunnel where the car is stuck, ordering all officers not to fire until told to do so. Camonetti is puzzled as to why Ryder will only talk to Garber, but when he learns about Garber’s bribery investigation, he asks Garber to consent to a search of his home; Garber agrees. Ryder learns through news reports about Garber’s alleged bribe in Japan and forces him to confess by threatening to kill the boy with the laptop. Garber explains his action by saying he needed the money to pay for his kids’ college educations, and that the Japanese company had been his first choice anyway. Meanwhile, a rat on the roadbed crawls up an officer’s leg, causing him to discharge his sniper rifle, killing Ramos and leaving the hijackers without an experienced train driver.

The money is transported uptown to Grand Central, and Ryder demands Garber to personally deliver it within 7 minutes. Garber accepts a concealed pistol from a police officer, then delivers the money. Ryder orders him to operate the train to another location, where the hijackers exit. To ensure that the police go to the wrong location, Ryder uses a special mechanism to lock the driving lever in the full-speed position, bypassing the dead-man’s switch and causing the train to head towards Coney Island at high speed.

The MTA are unaware of the mechanism holding the driving lever down and believe the hijackers and Garber to still be inside the train. Garber escapes from the hijackers and follows them to the emergency exit inside an abandoned subway station underneath The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Inside the hotel, Ryder splits away from Bashkim and Emri, who are surrounded outside the hotel by police; as they both reach for their guns and begin shooting, the police open fire on the two of them, killing them. The runaway train is tripped by a red signal one station away from Coney Island and the train comes to a halt safely. Ryder boards a taxi with Garber in pursuit. Ryder checks his laptop, where it is revealed that he has short–sold the market and invested in gold, earning him a profit far larger than the ransom money. Ryder goes to the Manhattan Bridge, where he leaves the cab, due to heavy traffic, and uses the pedestrian walkway on the bridge. Garber confronts Ryder on the bridge where Ryder demands Garber kill him before the police do. Ryder gives Garber 10 seconds to shoot him. When Ryder finishes counting to 10, he takes out his gun, but Garber gets the first shot out. Before Ryder dies, he calls Garber is his “goddamn” hero.

The mayor thanks Garber for saving the hostages, and promises that the city will support him in the bribery investigation. The Mayor then offers Garber a ride home in his car along with the escort service. Garber refuses the offer, saying the subway is faster. When he is taking the ride, he sees the empty compartment of Pelham 123 and he smiles.The last shot of the film shows Garber walking into his home.

I found the movie very enjoyable, the subway ride was unlike any I have ever taken. Although the movie was remade twice (2) the added updates with the cell phones and laptops brought the movie right up to date. This movie is well worth the time that you will spend watching it. I give this move 4**** stars.

To see more of what’s on your mind click here

Watch The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 Movie Trailer – Watch a funny movie here

Cleaner è un film del 2007 thriller diretto da Renny Harlin, e interpretato da Samuel L. Jackson, Ed Harris, e Eva Mendes.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Thriller | Renny Harlin | Samuel L. Jackson | Ed Harris | Eva Mendes | Luis Guzmán

There is one Independent that is buzzing on the net as we speak , Still Waiting.

Still Waiting (2009), stars John Michael Higgins and Luis Guzman, and is the sequel of the first movie titled Waiting….. MORE on- http://technoclips.blogspot.com/2009/11/still-waiting.html

John Travolta and Robin Williams team up in the Walt Disney Company’s Old Dogs, a family comedy that pairs the two as close business partners whose lives are thrown into disarray when twin seven-year-olds are put into their care. Travolta’s wife, Kelly Preston, co-stars, along with the couple’s daughter, Ella, who makes her big-screen debut here. Wild Hogs helmer Walter Becker directs a script by Evolution scribes David Diamond and David Weissman, with producing duties going to Andrew Panay, Peter Abrams, and Robert Levy.

The Taking of Pelham 123 2009

Director: Tony Scott

Writer: Brian Hegeland

Starring Denzel Washington, John Travolta, Luis Guzman, Victor Gojcaj, John Turturro, James Gandolfini and Michael Rispoli

    Tony Scott is one of the best modern action film directors today, so whenever he has a new film I always see it.  I had heard of the original version of this film but had never seen it.  I will definitely seek it out after seeing this version.  This was a solid action film with some very tense scenes in it and a great interplay between Washington and Travolta.  I always have liked Travolta more when he plays the heavy, such as his great performances in John Woo’s Face Off and Broken Arrow.  This is a fast paced and expertly executed crime film and all the lead actors do an excellent job.  The only fault I have with the film is that it doesn’t bring anything new or exciting to the action film genre.  But it is still a enjoyable and gripping film to watch.

    The plot basics are this, four amred men hijack a subway train one afternoon in Manhattan.  They stop and decouple the first car and then begin their plan too blackmail money out of the city by holding the people on the train hostage.  The leader of the terrorists is Ryder (Travolta) and he gets in contact with dispatcher, Walter Garber (Washington), who has been recently demoted due to being investigated for taking a bribe.  He makes aconnection with Ryder and he refuses to deal with anyone but Garber.  Ryder demands ten million within a hour or for every minute the payoff is late he will eliminate a hostage.  The Mayor (Gandolfini) okays the deal, but it seems the payoff is putting the stock market through the wringer and the negotiator in charge (Turturro) is wondering if Ryder only wants the money or is making a stock broking gambit with it too make himself obscenely rich.  As the time limit comes and goes Garber has to meet Ryder with the money and what follows is a tense face off and a game of cat and mouse, and who knows who will come out on top in this gambit?

    This is a good film.  Scott’s direction is great as always.  His style of fast cutting and quick edits is not for everyone, but I always enjoys what he does with the camera.  The film is violent too and never skirts away from showing it.  The way he sets up the SWAT sniper’s attacks is tense and when everything goes wrong it comes together perfectly.  Hegeland’s script is tightly woven and he really breathes life into both Ryder and Garber’s characters.  The cast is good too, Washington and Travolta have great chemistry together and as usual Travolta hams it up and it suits the film well.  Turturro is also good as the negotiator trying to get to the bottom of what is happening here.  I also really enjoyed Gandolfini as the mayor, he brought a much needed comedic element to the film and with all the tense face offs in the film it is much needed for the viewer to catch his breath from time to time.  The action sequences in the film are very good, I especially liked the sniper attack, that was the most memorable one in my book.  This was a tense and exciting film, but in my final estimation it does not add anything great to this type of crime film.  I think the thing that makes this film the most enjoyable was Travolta’s performance.

This one gets 3 out of 5

<object width=”560″ height=”340″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0IA7yVWl19k&hl=en_US&fs=1&”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0IA7yVWl19k&hl=en_US&fs=1&” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”560″ height=”340″></embed></object>

There are certain films that seem so wide in scope and epic in proportions that they kind of make other films seem a bit pale in comparison.  I don’t want to necessarily say that they are “the best movies there are,” but they certainly make you contemplate your life, as well as other movies and how you view those.  Magnolia was easily one of those films.

The movie is long and wandering, and yet intimate and precise.  It deals with every day, real life issues, but tackles them as one might approach an epic journey, as well as adding on aspects of unreal, magic, and abstract vignettes.  It is a film of contradictions, both in plot and production.

The film begins by discussing three classic urban myth coincidences, all shot beautifully and interestingly.  Unfortunately, I don’t think the movie itself quite tied back to those original ideas.  I was expecting some sort of major payoff, where everything converged nicely.  Like real life, there were minor coincidences and unexpected relationships, but never the magical dues ex machina i was expecting.  I understand why thematically  that wouldn’t have been necessary, but I still felt a little misled.

I don’t know if I loved all of the less realistic aspects of the film.  In one memorable scene, all of the characters, in their own private worlds, sing along to an Aimee Mann song.  The song was pretty and relevant, but… why?  I don’t know if the movie really gained anything from that sing-along session.  We get it: all of these characters lives and stories are interweaved, and they are all going through oddly similar things.  We don’t need to hear them singing a song like this in order to recognize that.  On the other hand, I thought the frogs were actually kind of interesting.  And the only reason it really worked was because of the way the characters responded to it.  People didn’t start freaking out or thinking that the world was going to end.  It was just something that was happening and they dealt with it accordingly.  They noticed it and took it in, but didn’t over-react or completely lose it.

Is it weird that one of the most interesting factors of this movie (to me) was its pretty strict adherence to Aristotle’s Unities?  Everything takes place in the valley in one day.  The unity of action has always been a bit fuzzy to me, but I think it could easily be argued that Magnolia adhered to this as well.  For a movie of its scope, Magnolia is also intimate and small in its own way.

Not really sure what else to say about it.  I’m still thinking about the connections and relationships, which is impressive no doubt.  The performances were all stellar, with special mention going to the old and the young.  PTA does a great job of managing this ensemble cast.  The recognizable stars did an awesome job of playing against their types, which is always fun to watch.  The movie doesn’t so much end as go on and on, like life.  It often feels like story lines are being neglected, but there is just so much going on at the same time (like real life), it is impossible to give the appropriate amount of focus to any one thing or person.

So, if you couldn’t tell, I really did love this movie.  It is FAR from perfect, but if anything I appreciate it for it’s ambition and unavoidable imperfections.  Probably the seminal PTA film, although I may still like There Will Be Blood more.  I’ll have to keep thinking about that one, though.

Two best friends — one unlucky-in-love divorcee (ROBIN WILLIAMS) and the other a fun-loving bachelor (JOHN TRAVOLTA) — have their lives turned upside down when they’re unexpectedly charged with the care of six-year-old twins while on the verge of the biggest business deal of their lives. The not-so-kid-savvy bachelors stumble in their efforts to take care of the twins (newcomers ELLA BLEU TRAVOLTA and CONNER RAYBURN), leading to one debacle after another, and perhaps to a new-found understanding of what’s really important in life

Starring: John Travolta, Robin Williams, Kelly Preston, Seth Green, Matt Dillon, Rita Wilson, Dax Shepard, Bernie Mac, Luis Guzmán, Ella Bleu Travolta, Conner Rayburn, Lori Loughlin, Justin Long
Director: Walt Becker
Screenwriter: David Diamond, David Weissman
Producer: Andrew Panay, Robert L. Levy, Peter Abrams
Composer: John Debney
Studio: Buena Vista Internationa

MOVIE TRAILER :

The Undercard Weigh In Follows the Main Event Weigh In…

To check out what’s really going on in the world of boxing always go to Fight 2 Tha Finish TV @ www.Fight2ThaFinish.info

VERDICT:
5/10 Insufficient Fares

It is what it is. Not as good as the original.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is about one bad mofo that hijacks a New York City subway car and holds its passengers hostage until the city pays him ten million bucks in one hour – at which point he’ll start offing folks for every minute the money’s late – and the train dispatcher that has to deal with this jerk so that he doesn’t go on a killing spree.

Yup, just another day in New York City.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of director Tony Scott and this most recent effort of his isn’t really doing much to sway me in his favor. The guy’s famous because he’s Ridley Scott’s brother and because he’s been churning out one generic Summer blockbuster after another almost every year for well over a decade now even though he hasn’t done anything worth noting since Crimson Tide back in ‘95. But I’ve already gone on my Tony Scott rant in my Man on Fire review. The point is he hasn’t really upped his game here and still remains a hack in sheep’s clothing.

For those who haven’t seen it, the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a freakin’ fantastic movie. It’s a bit dated by today’s standards, but the thing it has going for it was its unusually well-written and surprisingly hilarious script. It did well to balance out the tension with a great sense of humor to keep it from getting too serious for its own good. And while the script in 1 2 3 does well to stay true to the plot line of its source material (at least for the most part), it’s desperately missing the kickass script that made the first run-around so memorable, so much so that it ends up being an Achilles’ heel of sorts for the rest of the movie as a whole.

John Travolta plays our train-jacker, Ryder, a role originally played by Robert Shaw (aka: Quint from Jaws). Shaw was awesome in the role because he didn’t show a lot of emotion, played it cool no matter what kind of shit hit the fan, and didn’t mince words or let his guard down during hostage negotiations. And while Travolta is fine here, that subtlety has gone straight out the window. Now Ryder yells a lot, is about as cool as a common street thug with a handlebar mustache, and yaks away to the dispatcher as though he were begging to be caught. Unfortunately, this script change isn’t exactly an improvement, nor was the decision to establish him as the bad guy by having him end every sentence with “MOTHERFUCKER!”

Very well played, indeed.

And Denzel Washington is fine as the train dispatcher, Walter Garber, but, once again, isn’t as good as Walter Matthau was in the role. I was talking to a stranger about Denzel on the train to work recently – one that didn’t get hijacked for a change – and she made a good point that it seems like every role Denzel takes nowadays pretty much boils down to him running around in a suit while yelling on his cell phone. Maybe it’s cause he keeps signing on to do these Tony Scott movies, but I think it’s about time Denzel upped his game and started doing more movies that allowed him to just be a badass while standing still, like Training Day 2 or something, where I guess he would be playing a zombie.

But the upside of this movie is that since the original was good, the remake manages to retain some of that magic and stay entertaining to a certain degree. Can’t say that Tony Scott’s editing choices and overall visual style still don’t confuse the hell out of me as it goes from a normal frame rate to blurry slo-mo every two seconds for no reason at all, but that’s to be expected by now. Ends up being a somewhat intense movie even though it gives away some of the outcomes from the get-go.

Oh, and Luis Guzman has a bit role as Ryder’s accomplice. So does John Turturro as the hostage negotiator. They don’t really do much to stand out or anything, but, hey, I like these guys. They’re funny dudes.

Anyway, didn’t have very high expectations for this movie, can’t say I was really disappointed as a result. Pretty forgettable experience, especially in comparison to One Two Three, but still, 1 2 3 could’ve been worse.

Take that as a compliment, Mr. Scott. You ain’t getting a whole lot of ‘em from my end.

Ani tytuł (lewy sercowy), ani plakat (poniżej), ani opis fabuły (A beleaguered small-business owner gets a harmonium and embarks on a romantic journey with a mysterious woman.), ani trailer (no, może troszeczkę), ani nazwisko reżysera (paul thomas anderson), ani TYM BARDZIEJ nazwisko sandler (adam sandler), nie są w stanie przygotować widza na ten film.

Ja spróbuję, choć może to zaowocować (dla czytelnika) nieznaczną utratą tych pięknych odczuć jakich doświadczyłem oglądając to dzieło.

Napisany i wyreżyserowany przez Paula Thomasa Andersona film z Adam Sandler w roli głównej jest ‘psycho’. Określenie to zasłyszane i ukradzione od pana Wojciecha już dość dawno temu, najlepiej opisuje ten obraz. Jest dziwaczny i klimatyczny. Zaczyna się tak…

Barry Egan to troszeczkę opóźniony w rozwoju typ albo po prostu lekki psychopata. Jest samotnikiem i odludkiem, co może być spowodowane wyjątkowymi relacjami rodzinnymi (nie będę o nich pisał bo bym zepsuł niespodziankę!). Ma firmę która sprzedaje rzeczy (nie będę pisał jakie bo zepsułbym niespodziankę!) i poznaje kobietę…

Samotność i paranoje bohatera nie dość, że są bardzo sugestywnie pokazane dzięki świetnym kadrom, genialnej scenografii i pojebanej muzyce, to jeszcze muszę tu wspomnieć o aktorstwie Adam Sandler, czy raczej Adama Sandlera. Tak jest! Jest niezłe. Potrafił zagrać tego sympatycznego retarda z lekkimi tylko manierami swego standardowego performance’u. Dostał nawet za to jakąś nagrodę prawdziwą (a Anderson z tym filmem wygrał w Cannes!) i jak normalnie go nie znoszę, tak tu byłem pozytywnie zaskoczony.

Akcja, czy też fabuła filmu, jest pojebana. Mamy tu trzymający w napięciu psychologiczny thriller i wzruszający dramat obyczajowy, które przeplatają się z komediowymi gagami oraz absurdalnym humorem. Oglądając lewy sercowy, nie miałem pojęcia co się zaraz stanie do ostatniej minuty filmu. Czy to w wątku miłosnym, czy w kryminalnym, wszystkie postacie zachowują się tak specyficznie, że naprawdę nawet przez myśl mi nie przeszło by zastanawiać się nad tym co zrobią, czy co będzie dalej. Okropnie mnie to cieszyło.

W rolach drugoplanowych zobaczymy Emily Watson czy Luisa Guzmána, ale największym bossem w filmie jest Philip Seymour Hoffman, którego postać jest przepiękna i gdy się go widzi, należy przygotować się na piękne motywy. A jeśli już mowa o motywach, to ten film jest ich pełen. I to cudownych. Zaczynając od samochodu, brnąc przez ‘pianino’, restaurację, braci blondynów, czy wreszcie kończąc na ‘That’s that!’ i słuchawce telefonicznej, cały czas miałem wrażenie, że jestem w raju ‘motywów’.

Podsumowując, film zobaczyć trzeba. Jestem pewien, że niektórych totalnie zamęczy wizją, fonią czy fabułą (tych głupszych), a innych zachwyci pięknem, ale nawet jeśli należysz do tych pierwszych, totalnie warto go doświadczyć. Jest wyjątkowy. Taka trochę artystyczna, psycho-pojebana komedia romantyczna z aktorem debilem, gagami i kosmicznymi motywami, wyreżyserowana przez wybitnego reżysera. Raz jeszcze więc, ej weź to obejrz.

—-
mały gratis to króciuteńki filmik nagrany podczas kręcenia punch-drunk love przez P.T.A. na potrzeby ‘meatball series’ Adama Sandlera.

Even in a crowd, John Travolta stands out.

(Columbia) Denzel Washington, John Travolta, James Gandolfini, Luis Guzman, John Turturro, Michael Rispoli, Victor Gojcaj, Ramon Rodriguez, Aunjanue Ellis, Gary Basaraba, John Benjamin Hickey, Alex Kaluzhasky. Directed by Tony Scott.

We never know what awaits us when we walk out our front door every morning. Maybe it will be a good day, maybe a bad one. Maybe it will be an extraordinary day.

New York subway dispatcher Walter Garber (Washington) is having a bad day. He’s been demoted from a management position for the New York Transit Authority to dispatching trains because of the suspicion that he took bribes. He has to put up with the abuse from a nasty mid-level manager (Rispoli) and the stress of the upcoming trial hangs over him like a cloud.

A strange voice comes over the microphone for the train Pelham 123 where his buddy, Jerry Pollard (Basaraba) should be. It’s a man calling himself Ryder (Travolta) informing him that he and a group of armed men have taken the train and are demand a $10 million ransom to be delivered in an hour. After that, one passenger will be executed for every minute the ransom is overdue.

The mayor (Gandolfini), a lame duck going through a marital scandal of his own, turns out to be remarkably helpful and tolerant, not at all the way New York mayors have been portrayed onscreen these days. A patient hostage negotiator (Turturro) tries to help, but Ryder and Garber have formed a strange connection. As time ticks down and the city races against the clock to save the hostages, a relationship forms between Ryder and Garber, which will inevitably lead to a showdown that only one will walk away from.

Based on a 1974 movie starring Walter Matthau (as Garber) and Robert Shaw (as Ryder) – itself based on a John Godey novel – Pelham reunites director Scott and Washington, who have also done Crimson Tide, Man on Fire and Déjà vu to name a few. Whereas Matthau was rumpled, cynical and tough, Washington is basically a good-hearted heroic sort who made a mistake and is paying for it. While Shaw was icy and cool, Travolta is loud, angry and not very different from his character in Broken Arrow.

Perhaps it was a mistake, but I watched the 1974 original the night before I saw the remake. Whereas the original was gritty and realistic, the new one is sleek and modern. The 1974 edition had a loud, abrasive jazz score; the 2009 version is more traditionally scored. The first Pelham was low-tech and relied on characterization and tension for its thrills; the second uses digital effects and bigger car crashes to set the tone (although the 1974 version’s iconic car crash was quite elegant).

So is the first version better than this one? I think so, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth seeing. They are definitely different movies meant to appeal to different audiences. Some of the twists in the first Pelham were telegraphed whereas I have to admit that wasn’t the case in the new one. Director Scott is a veteran action director and while this isn’t going to be regarded as one of his best, it’s still solid and extremely watchable. The problem I have here is that he often uses stylized camera tricks such as slow-mo helicopter travelling shots, or cameras that spiral around their subjects. It’s annoying and unnecessary. Washington and Travolta are both dependable performers and while you don’t get the sense of their character’s soul as much as you might like, I’d rather see these two in mediocre performances than a lot of other actors at their best.

This is definitely a Hollywood action film, with all that is good and bad about the genre. If you like that sort of thing (and I do), I guarantee you’ll go away entertained. If you prefer thrillers to action movies, you might do better to rent the original than see this. This movie won’t blow you out of the water, but it will accomplish what a lot of movies fail to do – it won’t make you regret plopping down the ten bucks to see it.

WHY RENT THIS: A slick Hollywood action movies with some very nice scenes. Washington and Travolta aren’t at the top of their game, but their game is such that even a sub-par performance by either is worth checking out. Gandolfini makes a great mayor.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: No new ground is broken in the action movie genre. There is more brawn than brain to this movie. Scott succumbs to “look-ma-I’m-directing” disease.

FAMILY VALUES: Some blue language, a couple of cold-blooded killings but otherwise suitable for older kids..  

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The first name of Denzel Washington’s character was changed from Zachary to Walter in honor of Walter Matthau, who played the role in the original film.

NOTABLE DVD FEATURES: None listed.

FINAL RATING: 6/10

TOMORROW: Bolt