The Taking of Pelham 123 **1/2 (rant)

Remakes...hmm...
I can think of a couple I liked ('The Thomas Crown Affair', for one). But generally, I don't think they're a good idea: especially when the original film got it right the first time. As a fan of the 1974 version of this movie (starring Walter Mathau and Robert Shaw), I was kind of dreading watching this remake. I think John Travolta tends to over-act his 'bad-guy' characters, and I wasn't looking forward to watching him in this role. But, I've enjoyed some movies directed by Tony Scott ('Enemy of the State'/ 'Man on Fire') and I usually like Denzel Washington (except when he over-acts his 'bad-guy' roles), so I thought I'd give it a go.

My overall feeling about this particular remake...I didn't hate it - but I won't remember it.


The Taking of Pelham 123 is set in New York. The story is about a small group of criminals who board a subway and take a section of it, with its passengers, hostage. They demand a ransom and co-ordinate a deal with the mayor, the police and a metro representative. The city has an hour to pay up; or a hostage will be killed each minute. (In the original film, a million dollars was the price tag - Now, in 2009, with the cost of living exponentially higher, it's ten million).


Once again, Tony Scott incorporates his high-tech cinematography style- shaky camera; over-lapping images; blurred action scenes. I get a bit frustrated when I can't see what's actually going on during chase scenes (especially, when the dialogue is boring and I need something to concentrate on), so I wasn't too happy with not being able to follow anything going on above ground.


Below ground: the film tries to concentrate on the relationship between Travolta (tattooed 'bad-guy') and Washington ( 'average joe' guy, trying to right a wrong from his own life). The script just wasn't good enough and the supposed connection between the two wasn't genuine for me. It just made me miss the original film.


Back in the day (I know I'm sounding like an old-timer now) screenplays usually allowed us to get to know the characters a little bit before the crisis happened: we'd get invested in them and care if they lived or died. Now, the action has to start right away (or God forbid we lose interest) and the screenwriter hopes that the dialogue that ensues between two characters while all the action goes on will make us get to know them and care about their well-being. In this film; that just didn't happen for me. There wasn't anything unique or original about these characters and because I already knew how the story was basically going to play out, I didn't care about them.


The film had a lot of challenges to face in 2009 that the original film didn't. -New York, post '911' is very different (someone takes someone hostage - are they a terrorist?) - everyone has cell phones and computers with webcams (probably why the ransom had to go up). - And the whole time the film was going on, I couldn't believe the SWAT team couldn't take down 4 guys with guns.


Generally, this movie isn't terrible: it's got its moments - but it's definitely a renter.


I wanted to write this review because I want everyone to see the 1974 version. They got so many things right with it...Who doesn't love Walter Mathau, for one? (and his 'average joe' character outshines Denzel's) - New Yorkers back then, weren't afraid of everything and the hostages in the subway are actually characters in the film who often times get sassy with their captors - Politically incorrect humour is abundant in the movie and it makes the film funny- The three other bad guys have roles, and the audience gets to know them- The New York cops and the Mayor are animated and interesting in their own right - And finally, the film isn't handicapped by present-day technology ( you actually believe four guys with guns, in a dark tunnel where no one can see what they're doing, are a threat).


If you insist on seeing only the 2009 remake of 'The Taking of Pelham 123', be warned: Travolta saying "mother f*****" a ton of times does not put him in the same caliber as Robert Shaw's cool, calm, calculating 'bad-guy'. If you don't see the original; you'll really be missing out.

Revisiting "The Big Lebowski"

What is the big deal about "The Big Lebowski?" Eleven years after its release, I still hear about this movie everywhere. When people find out I'm a movie fan, they ask if I've seen this one. And just about every guy I know includes this film in his top ten list. Last week at the theater, one of the ads (before the film I was about to see) was promoting Canadian athletes and Sara Renner (cross country skier) stated it was her favourite film. "Again?", I grumbled. "What is so great about this guy named "Dude?" As I sat in the theatre, I recalled the time I did try to watch the film in 1998 but turned it off because if I heard them say "dude" one more time, I was going to kill someone.

Generally, I'm a Cohen Brothers fan. I love the way their movies are shot. Their use of vibrant colours and original camera angles make the scenes in their films interesting and often times, beautiful to watch. I have raved about some of their films ("Raising Arizona"/ "Miller's Crossing"/ "Fargo"). And over the years, many of the zany characters and off-beat dialogue incorporated in their movies have had me roaring in my seat. But I've also found some of the brother's films forgetable and I was disappointed in their Oscar winner "No Country For Old Men".

After hearing yet another endorsement for "The Big Lebowski" (and by a Canadian Olympic Athlete, no less) I decided to rent the movie and give it another chance. "I'm eleven years older now", I thought "Maybe I'll catch something I missed back then". So I made myself a white russian, put the DVD in, and pressed play.

Although my tolerance for the word "dude" had gone up and I could sit through the whole movie this time, I still didn't love this film. I liked parts of it: It was visually stunning (especially in the bowling alley). I liked Jeff Bridges, and John Goodman made me laugh. But I guess the story line didn't really grab me and I wasn't laughing during many parts where I'm sure the Cohen Brothers would have wanted me to.

I'm not going to dissect the whole film. I know that the people who love it, LOVE IT! And I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind. I'm just not one of those people; so we'll have to agree to disagree. (Although I did wonder if I would have enjoyed it more if I were a guy, smoking pot while sitting on my couch in my boxers)

I won't watch this film again. One and a half times was enough for me. However, I am glad I picked it up just so I could see John Turturro in a purple jump suit. I didn't make it through to that scene the first time and I thought he was hilarious! In my opinion, he stole every scene he was in. For me, he was "the dude" of the movie.

Gran Torino ***1/2 (rave)

Rent this movie! It finally came out on DVD today and it is definitely worth a watch. At 78 years old, Clint Eastwood still captivates the screen with his 'tough guy' persona we've all come to know and love.

In "Gran Torino", (directed and produced by Eastwood), Clint plays a Korean War vet named 'Walt Kowalski'. Walt has just recently lost his wife and is estranged from his two sons and their families. He insists on staying in the 'old neighbourhood' in Detroit, even though he's the only 'white american' left on the block. As an unabashed bigot, Walt wants nothing to do with his neighbours nor the Catholic priest who's trying to help Walt release some of the burdens from his past. When the teenage boy, 'Thoa', from next door tries to steal Walt's prized possession, (as part of a Hmong gang initiation), Walt's secluded life and his prejudiced views are challenged and changed forever.

Once again Eastwood does a great job with character exploration. Like "Million Dollar Baby", "Gran Torino" delves into personal relationships and the power of 'unlikely' friendships. As Walt grows to understand and care for his neighbours, we see the chips in his armour that make him human and good. Even though he unapologetically utters every racial slur in the book, you still know that he's an invaluable person to have in your corner.

There's a lot of humour in this movie; which kind of surprised me. I knew there would be action and dramatic scenes, but I wasn't expecting to laugh out loud. And yet many of the scenes Eastwood has with Thoa (played by Bee Vang) were touching and poignant through their humour. Watching Walt trying to 'make a man' out of Thoa kept me giggling and enjoying the film all the more.

Ahney Her plays Thoa's sister 'Sue'. She too has great on-screen chemistry with Eastwood's character. Although she doesn't have the same amount of screen time as Bee Vang, I thought her acting chops outshined his.

I think this film would appeal to both men and women; so it's a good "date night" pick. It's dramatic; but not overly so - It's got action; but it's not all action. - It can be touching in parts; but not enough to make you guys throw up. (I know I'm stereotyping male/female tastes in film, but you get the idea)

And if you want to make it a "Directed by Clint Eastwood" night at the video store: pick up "Unforgiven" (for the fellas) and "Bridges of Madison County" (for the gals).

-Just try not to argue over which movie is going in the DVD player first.

Drag Me To Hell *1/2 (rant)

I can't tell you how disappointed I am to have to write a rant about this film. I was excited to see this movie. The approval rating on 'Rotten Tomatoes' is really high (93%). You hardly ever see such a thing for horror movies. I was psyched! I got ready to take the plunge and prepared myself for being scared shitless. Even though horror movies aren't my favourite genre of film, I can really enjoy the thrill of jumping in my seat and laughing nervously beside my fellow movie lovers. So I curled up in my chair, wrapped my jacket around me, sat in the dark and waited...

"Drag Me To Hell" revolves around a loan officer named Christine, played by Alison Lohman. She refuses to help an elderly gypsy woman extend her mortgage loan in the hopes that making this 'tough decision' will help her get a job promotion. After being rejected by the bank and 'shamed' by Christine, the 'one dead eye' gypsy places a curse on her -making Christine's life a living hell. Haunted now by an evil spirit that wants her soul, Christine enlists the help of a seer, played by Dileep Rao, in order to stop the haunting and improve her fate.

I hate to say this but I didn't find the movie scary at all. I always knew when the next thing was going to jump out at her and I felt like I was seeing a movie I've seen a hundred times before. Lohman's acting was painful to watch and I wasn't too impressed with the supporting cast either. Justin Long ( the 'mac' guy) played the 'devoted boyfriend' role but I wasn't convinced he actually cared about what was going on with his tormented girlfriend. Instead, he waited in the wings while she sorted her 'crazy shit out'.

Another disappointment for me was the movie didn't make me laugh. You expect the cheesy one-liners from horror movies to give you some comedic relief between scares. Okay, there might have been a couple ("that's the last of my hair you're getting!") but not enough to keep me invested in the film and by that time, I'd had enough and just wanted it to be over.

In my opinion, Sam Raimi's film was filled with bad Halloween costumes, gimmicks that didn't work (the evil handkerchief) and the same horror film formula we've seen time and time again. The only original thing about the movie is perhaps Lohman now holds the record for having the most gross stuff spewed on an actress' face.

I don't know what other reviewers have seen in this film. Maybe they're all "Spiderman" fans and want to give Sam Raimi a break. Maybe they think this movie is campy enough to become some kind of cult classic. But I didn't get it. I guess my expectations were too high. I was hoping for another "The Ring" and instead I got another "The Ring 2".

Why I Feel I've Been Betrayed By Michael Moore:

I have to start off by saying I was, at one time, a HUGE Michael Moore fan. I'm a liberal thinker: I root for the 'little guy' and I think corporations are big, bad entities that manipulate and oppress the average consumer/worker. (Before you even begin to debate this statement, watch "The Corporation" and "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" and then get back to me).

I use to take great delight in watching Moore's films. I'd cheer him on as he pushed his large body and microphone into the faces of powerful people and demanded some kind of justice for the wrong-done-by 'average joe'. I've probably seen "Roger and Me" ten times. I found Moore's narration in the film humorous, insightful and humanistic. I cared for the GM assembly line workers who lost their jobs in Flint, Michigan just as much as Michael wanted me to, if not 'moore' so.

His second film, "The Big One", had me cheering in my seat. Although this documentary didn't become as renowned as the first, I loved his attack on Corporate America. It was the first of its kind I'd seen and watching him burst into large, cold buildings and calmly asking , with camera by his side, to speak to the man in charge (with the intent of challenging his 'downsizing policies') was priceless to me. I'd laugh and shout "take that, you bastard!" Because this film represented political views I align myself with and the humour brought back fond memories of episodes from Moore's television show, "TV Nation", and it's caped crusader "Crackers"- the corporate crime fighting chicken, I didn't sit and watch it with the skepticism I now embody while watching or reading anything that presents itself as 'news' or 'truth'. Instead, I let Moore's witty voice-overs, entertaining film edits and ballsy moves while combating 'the big, bad world' wash over me. He had me hook, line and sinker. I recommended his movies to everyone and read his book "Downsize This". Even though I didn't always agree with him on everything, I still applauded his overall messages and thought his attempts at stirring things up was admirable. I knew that what he was doing wasn't 'true documentary' but I thought, "hey, if it gets him more main stream attention and a wider audience for his films; all the power to him. The 'little guy' can use all the help he can get".

My love for Michael began to falter after seeing "Bowling for Columbine". (Which is kind of ironic seeing as this is the film that got him huge recognition and an Oscar for "Best Documentary"). I host an Oscar party every year and you'd think I'd be the first person applauding when he won that night, but I wasn't...Doubts and cynicism were setting in and I felt uneasy.

Don't get me wrong. I still agreed with a lot of the issues he addressed in the film: Why do Americans feel the need to bare arms? Why are other countries, like Canada. safer to live in? What is up with Charlton Heston? But his narrative in this film set off some alarms in me.

I found Michael's voice-overs in "Bowling for Columbine" contained an extreme 'emotional' slant. He stopped using humour and facts as his weapons and instead, replaced them with contrived emotional response tactics. I felt manipulated as I listened to sad music and watched Moore gingerly place an 8x10 photo of a dead girl on the steps of the now senile, Heston's house. I thought it was beneath Moore and I was disappointed in him. It reminded me of John Stewart's complaints when he saw footage of 911 being played back over and over on the news with sad music playing in the background. "I'm not an idiot", he stated during one of his shows. "you don't have to play sad music in order for me to know these images should make me feel sad." I felt Moore was doing the same kind of manipulation. I thought that entire scene with Heston was over-the-top, insincere and irritating.

My support for Moore's films continued to diminish after watching "Fahrenheit 911". Once again, Michael's tone of the film was filled with, what I deemed, contrived sentiment. When the camera zoomed in while he comforted a mother who lost her son in the Iraqi war, I wondered if Moore really cared about her or just wanted to get 'the shot'. It seemed to me that 'Michael' now was the star of his documentaries, not 'the cause'.

Moore's voice-over during the scene when Bush was sitting in a classroom after having just been informed of the attack on the World Trade Center made me angry. Obviously, as a 'lefty', I am not a Bush supporter. (The man can't put a sentence together and his laugh is just plain creepy). But why couldn't Moore just film Bush's reactions and non-reactions and let the audience come to their own conclusions? I felt like he was talking down to us now; preaching to his own choir and trying to glorify himself as some kind of 'working-class hero'. I wasn't buying it and I no longer viewed his actions as admirable.

Then I heard Moore only wanted "Fahrenheit 911" considered for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards and didn't even enter it for "Best Documentary". He had won the "Palm D'or" award at Cannes for the film and wanted Americans to accept it as the most important movie of the year, as well - This was the film that was going to wake Americans up and get Bush out of office. That reeked of ego to me and I think that move really bit him in the ass: "Fahrenheit 911" didn't get nominated for "Best Picture" and George W. got re-elected for another 4 years.

So I was disgruntled with Moore. Where I had once viewed him as a witty, smart, brave activist, I now feared that fame and Hollywood popularity had made him too attached to the sound of his own voice and incapable of even trying to show the other side of the political issues he covered in his films. I realized he wasn't interested in opening up a forum for debate or letting people think for themselves. Just as "Fox News" tells its conservative audience 'how it is', Moore had nominated himself as our liberal preacher. I don't like to blindly follow other people around, so I took Moore off of the pedestal I plopped him on many years ago and, in protest, refused to see his newest film "Sicko".

Then I came across a documentary about Moore called "Manufacturing Dissent" (not to be confused with Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"). This film, made by Canadian filmmakers Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk, really opened my eyes. In it, Melnyk follows Moore around the States trying to get an interview with him. She starts off as a fan of Moore's but as he continues to avoid her, she gets a little ticked off and starts doing some digging around about him and his movies. Some of her findings included:

* Moore is not from Flint, Michigan

* He consistently mixes up the chronological order of events in his films

* Many people from his movies feel like they've been misrepresented by him and some have sued (including an Iraqi war vet)

* He has manipulated scenes (in "Bowling for Columbine", for example, he set up the scene of buying the gun in the bank. The guns are not kept at the bank but in a vault miles away. Moore insisted they bring a gun to the bank so he could walk out immediately with it for that scene).

* He has fabricated stories. - Heston did not go to Flint for a gun rally days after the young girl (8x10 photo) was shot there.(Which is what his interview with Heston was fuelled by).

And the clincher for me...

* While his first film "Roger and Me" showed failed attempts by Moore while trying to get an interview with Roger Smith, (the CEO of GM Motors: The person Moore held accountable for destroying his 'home town', Flint), in actual fact, Michael did meet Roger Smith and interviewed him. This interview was documented and Moore asked a friend to suppress it.

I was disheartened to find out that fame and popularity were not what changed Moore. Instead, he was manipulating his material and fabricating facts from the start. When there is little truth in your documentaries, how can you respect the filmmaker?

I realize Melnyk had her own agenda while filming "Manufacturing Dissent" and she may very well have just been one pissed off lady who really wanted an interview. But, she's from Canada eh? And typically, we're nice and try not to make a fuss unless absolutely necessary. So, in the hopes there can still be some truth found in documentary films, I do give her and her film the benefit of the doubt.

I did eventually rent "Sicko". (My curiosity got the better of me). Once again, I agree with the 'left' view that a country should take care of it's citizens and this includes health care. But as I watched the movie, I wondered if the 'facts' presented by Moore were the facts and if scenes in the film were genuine or set up days in advance. I wondered if Moore really cared about the group of people he was filming, who couldn't receive proper medical attention in the States, or if they were just an excuse for him to get in front of the camera and use a bullhorn while charging around on a boat.

After watching "Sicko", I thought the subject matter was important and I was glad the film was made. But because I am no longer proud to have Michael Moore represent us 'lefties', I wished someone else had made it.