It is generally safe to say that–as a movie buff–remakes are the bane of my existence. In this age of DVDs and Blu-ray, if the filmmakers got it right once, why make it again? “Bedazzled,” “The Producers,” “King Kong” and “Psycho,” who needs a remake?

There are always exceptions to any rule. I mean, “His Girl Friday” was far superior to 1931’s “The Front Page.” “Chicago” was way better than “Roxie Hart” with Ginger Rogers.

The remake of “The Taking of Pelham 123” seems to find a new niche for itself. It is a good movie; it just stacks up oddly against its 1974 predecessor, which, frankly, was a bit of a forgotten gem.

The premise of both films is the same. Bad guys take over a New York subway train. They hold it hostage and deal mainly with a good guy at the control center. Meanwhile, the main good guy and other good guys try to stop them.

The original 1974 version of the film beats the 2009 remake on story and characters. The 2009 rendition kicks 1974’s butt when it comes to action sequences, special effects and cinematography.

The original stars Walter Matthau as the good guy and Robert Shaw as the bad guy. The modern film casts Denzel Washington and John Travolta in the same roles.

Matthau is a terse, smart and wisecracking New Yorker. The supporting good guys are rude, obnoxious and, well, generally New Yorky. Shaw played a meticulous villain with no pity or remorse. His cohorts were lower functioning and a little stereotypical.

Washington is the best thing in the modern version. He is an intelligent every man who is much softer and more caring than Matthau’s edgy persona. Unlike the original character/movie Washington’s character is also an admitted bribe-taking public official. That seems a bit out of character for the character he’s playing. It dilutes the integrity of the character whose integrity should be beyond reproach. This isn’t supposed to be film noir, and the rest of the film avoids noir themes.

Travolta is erratic. His henchmen don’t have personalities or even roles, really. Shaw’s henchmen were crucial players in the heist. Each contributed a skill. Each has a personality that sets things off or creates rifts within the group. Their cohesion is tenuous. It builds greater tension.

For me, tension is the lynch pin that holds a move such as “The Taking of Pelham 123″ together. If I want pure action and the latest marvels in CGI, I’ll watch “G.I. Joe” or the new “Transformers.”

There’s tension in the remake, but there’s TENSION in the original. The 1974 version has a greater battle of wits and psychology. Both sides are roiling with turmoil. Even the bit players have greater significance and personality…which builds more tension. You care more if they get hurt.

Then again with the original you are stuck with virtually no effects, poor-quality ’70s’ film stock and such antiquated train technology you are left to wonder how New York managed to run a subway system.

Ultimately, it is just a matter of personal taste. While my tastes lean toward the original film, you should really watch them both and decide for yourself.

Be the first to rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Do you need further proof that Donald Rumsfeld had no business planning America’s war strategy in Afghanistan?

Today’s movie makes it more than clear that American troops–while totally prepared to kick Taliban butt–had absolutely no training in slaying 60-foot-long man-eating worms! Leave it to Rummy to screw up man-eating-worm combat training.

“Sand Serpents” is an epic cinematic achievement blending “Saving Private Ryan” with “Tremors.”

Lt. Richard Stanley (Jason Gedrick) leads his platoon on a mission to scout out a mining operation in a remote part of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Along for the hike is Capt. Jen Henle (Tamara Hope) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the mine was abandoned, you better believe the U.S. would exploit it for precious gems.

Everything goes swimmingly right up until they’re ambushed by the Taliban and taken prisoner. (I would also like to point out that Rummy failed to teach these guys how to shoot. While armed with machine guns and protected by steel girders and good foxholes, the Americans in this movie can’t hit Taliban fighters crossing open ground 20 feet away. Even I know that when in doubt, hold down the trigger and spray the area at waist height and you’ll be sure to at least wound somebody.)

Things look up when the explosives from their skirmish wake up some giant sand serpents, which eat all of the Taliban fighters.

Buuuuut, you can imagine that 4 gargantuan flesh-eating worms won’t be satisfied for long with a meal of only about a dozen guys.

It is impossible not to draw comparisons to “Tremors,” which starred Kevin Bacon and an all-star ’80s cast. You know it’ll even be stood up against “Beetlejuice” and “Men in Black II.” What is it about filmmakers and big, toothy worms? Doc Freud would have a field day!

The biggest difference between the 3 aforementioned films and “Sand Serpents” is that the other 3 played it for camp and comedy. “Sand Serpents” tries to play it straight. It’s not bad, but they totally blow a good opportunity to really go crazy on an Army vs. Giant Afghan Worms picture.

You still have fun. They do try to get in some good groaners. After their first worm encounter: “So, we just opened up a giant can of worms.” Or perhaps a nod to “Return of the Jedi“: “I’m not gonna get digested in some giant maggot.”

My two favorite characters were Sgt. Wilson and Pvt. Eno. Unfortunately, as they are black and in a B-movie, you can imagine how long they last.

Tamara Hope as the captain is my next favorite. At first I confused her for the bad-@$$ babe who was armed to the teeth in “Dead Noon.”

The worm FX are pretty good for a low-budget action-horror flick. The budget didn’t allow for much gore, although there is some good worm vaporization. The best FX came when a worm snatched a helicopter from the sky and wrestled it to earth! It is a little reminiscent of a similar scene in “Wyvern,” but they could very well have been made around the same time. So I won’t cry plagiarism just yet. It is a sick effect.

Surprisingly, the film really seems to nail the complexities of the conflict in Afghanistan. You have civilians trapped between the U.S. and the insurgents. You have mountain bunker networks. You even have white actors speaking Middle Eastern languages.

I won’t tell you it was as good as “Tremors,” but there are far worse ways for B-movie fans to spend 90 minutes.

Click a star to rate this post:
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The City of Brotherly Love is the setting for the quirky romantic comedy “The Answer Man.”

Jeff Daniels stars as an urban hermit named Arlen Faber. In 1988, Arlen published a hugely best-selling book called “Me & God.” Based on his supposedly true one-on-one chat with God, Arlen asked God tons of questions and wrote down all of the answers God gave him.

The success of the book turned into a curse when the entire world turned to Arlen for answers and advice. Unable to solve anyone’s problems, Arlen shut himself off from society.

Of course, Arlen never spoke to God and is bitter about not having any answers–especially with regard to his father’s slow death from Alzheimer’s Disease.

When his back goes out of whack, he is reconnected to the world through a chiropractor named Elizabeth (Lauren Graham) who has never heard of him. She’s a single mom struggling with why her husband abandoned her and their son. She has questions and conflicts like everyone else, but she doesn’t look to Arlen for the answers. She just perseveres. He’s intrigued by her. And eventually she becomes interested in him.

Meanwhile, a struggling bookstore owner named Kris (Lou Taylor Pucci), who is fresh out of rehab for alcoholism, has an ongoing dispute with Arlen. When Kris discovers Arlen’s address, he works out a scheme to resolve their dispute by having Arlen answer questions for Kris to help him with rehab. Arlen hates answering questions but is trapped into agreeing.

Both Elizabeth and Kris begin to draw him out of his shell, and he begins to help them just as much.

In all, this is a touching little movie. At its core are people desperately searching for the answers to questions that seem to be driving them to the brink of insanity. The humor stems mostly from Arlen’s chasing his own tail. Considered an expert by everybody else, he can barely handle his own life. It is a plot device that seems to date back to the ancient Greeks, but it still works.

Elizabeth and Kris are more sincere in their problems and roles, but by not playing it straight, their characters would be trivialized. The age difference between Daniels and Graham isn’t as distracting as one might think. In many ways it works well, as it did for Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson in “As Good as it Gets.”

There are some bumpy parts in the script or editing, where the viewer has to make a few leaps of faith without deeper explanation in the storytelling, but there aren’t many. It is good for rainy afternoon or a quiet weekend with someone special.

Be the first to rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...