Ok, I admit I've had a crush on Stallone since I first saw the previews of "Lords Of Flatbush" and thought, "who is that guy?" AND, I think we Rocky fans just find the character lovable.....BUT 4 more Rockys? With the ending one maybe, "Rocky gets in the Ring with God". Ha ha

I know your sentimnt though Yogi. Rocky is just so symbolic I think of the underdog makes it story, that we hate to see it end.

TIS

Even God would have to go some to beat Rocky

How about four more Rambos?

No, it shouldn't be that easy. It should be Rocky vs Chuck Norris

How up to date and fresh.

Besides, how many watchable Chuck Norris movies* you know of? I guess we can thank Conan O'Brien for starting those fucking facts with his Walker: Texas Ranger lever.

*=CODE OF SILENCE was pretty good.

come on chuck norris is a god lol actually he is probably a prophet...bruce fucking lee is the true god.

How about Rocky entering politics?

By the way, why and when did they remove his statue?

people complained about the statue not being "art" worthy to be in front of the art museum. so, they tooked it down and placed it in front of a stadium after rocky III or IV. they placed it back for V, and i think put it away in hiding. after people protesting it they finally placed it to the side of the steps leading to the museum some years back.

I watched Old Yeller recently and barely flinched and felt like an unfeeling doosh. I just watched Far from Home: The Adventures of Yellow Dog (1995) and wept like a baby at the end.

Really? You cold hearted douchebag.

I haven't seen Old Yeller in years, but I always thought it was sad. The only reason I don't want to get it for my grandkids just yet is because of Yeller's fate. I never heard of the Yellow Dog.


TIS

I think I've only seen "Old Yeller" once. I don't believe I cried either.

Now, "Homeward Bound".....I needed 2 boxes of kleenex.

You too Beth? Hmmm. Like I said, it's been years, perhaps it wouldn't have the impact now. Don't know. Then again, I am kind of sappy and cry easily over these things.


TIS

I saw both. I cried at "Old Yeller". The dog died!! Not so in "Homeward Bound".

Also, "Bambi" caused some tears when I first saw it... I was only 5 or 6, but still....

old yeller didnt stun me...bambi did...then again almost every fucking disney movie stunned me lol. recently though marley and me almost got some tears out. i knew the ending, but yea didnt help lol.

Anyone seen the new terminator film?
Is it worthy?

Oh, and same question about the "Sarah Connor Chronicles".

No. Sam Worthington is going places, but not with that one.

Also, funny that Worthington's next released film is AVATAR, James Cameron's new long-awaited release, and of course Cameron directed the first (and only good) TERMINATOR movies.



Cancelled.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 (2009) - **1/2

The 1974 original movie THE TAKING OF PEHAM ONE TWO THREE from director Joseph Sargent is one of the great 1970s thrillers (a rich decade for that breed), and frankly one of my personal favorites within the genre. It's hard to describe with justice why it's so great, akin to dancing about architecture. I would say that it's the sort of popcorn thriller I would aspire to emulate if I actually was a director instead of reviewing cheesy actioneers starring Dolph Lundgren. TAKING is such a lean and goddamn mean action narrative, with barely any script fat to distract from its nail-biting suspense, frantic electricity, and escalating energetic pace much like the runaway subway train in the hectic climax. It's what most thrillers want to be when they grow up.

As with other great ass-kicking 70s cinema, TAKING has no time to fuck around. As a bonus, we get some terrific and surprisingly appropriate New Yorker cynical humor that both lightens up the mood, while simultaneously unnerving the audience, and David Shire's great soundtrack. You know, back when even action-thrillers had memorable rockin' scores instead of the same generic-bland compositions we get stuck with these days. In fact, after the release of the movie (and Morton Freedgood's source-novel), no #6 train in the New York City Subway has ever been scheduled to leave Pelham Bay Park at either 01:23 or 13:23 (the exact time of the fictional crime.) Also later Quentin Tarantino's RESERVOIR DOGS "lifted" the color-codenames from TAKING, and shit even the movie was cited in a song by the New York City-native Beastie Boys. Now that's pop culture impact that you can't fucking buy.

So the point is that before I begin, I want to say that I wasn't necessarily against a remake of TAKING, I just didn't give a shit. The very basic plot dynamics of gun-wielding criminals hijacking a NYC train and demanding a rich ransom from the city within a hour before they start executing the passengers could be told in any decade. But any possible interest waned when director Tony Scott was hired, and the last movie of his I liked was back in President Clinton's first term. Then I see the trailer, with Scott, Travolta, Denzel....I had a sneaking suspicion that this might be pretty routine and forgettable.

Yup.

I had a good laugh when in press junket interviews Scott, Denzel, and scripter Brian Helgeland kept emphasizing how "analog" the original PELHAM was, and how they "digital" updated with the remake. See they replaced ONE TWO THREE with 1 2 3. That's how modern they are. Cute and all, I bet they pat themselves on the back with pride...except it was already been done. What people are forgetting is that PELHAM 1 2 3 is actually the third cinematic version of the same story. A decade or so ago, there was the television movie with Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio which included computer technology and shit. To be fair, the new PELHAM now includes Wi-Fi, which technically counts as an upgrade.

It's unfair to repeatedly compare a remake with its father. A remake has got to stand on its own, right? Yet two aspects kept bugging the hell out of me with the Scott retake. In the original when Robert Shaw and his military disciplined deameanor seized the train, he was a no bullshit sort of enigmatic villain. He's legitimate, lethal if necessary, and quite believable. John Travolta with 1 2 3, he's your typical movie hostage-taker baddie. He chews up the scenery, his arrogance leads to his downfall, trying to buddy up with hero Denzel, making goddamn speeches, you know all that usual nonsense. Think of this as DIE HARD on a train.

Second, 1 2 3 falls into the quicksand trap that suffocated Peter Hyams' SUDDEN DEATH, which is when the filmmakers lack the confidence in their story and audience and thus try to overcompensate with junk plotting, i.e. "Fat." Guess what? Dispatcher-turned-hero Denzel Washington has a beef with his obstacle-for-the-screenplay's-sake superior. He's also under investigation for allegedly taking a bribe from a Japanese train company, which is why poor Denzel is stuck at that crummy demoted gig when the shit goes down. His wife is also worried about him. I guess Tony Scott thought criminals hijacking a subway train of passengers at gunpoint wasn't dramatic enough.

Man, I can't believe Brian Helgeland has come to this crap. A long time ago, Helgeland won an Oscar for penning the adaptation of the classic masterpiece L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. He later directed the wholly satisfying and unrepented badass revenger PAYBACK, before Mel Gibson took it away and castrated. Apparently something similar also happened to his THE ORDER with Heath Ledger, so Helgeland's career amounts to now scribbling such vanilla wafers and tap water like 1 2 3. Poor guy.

Then I realized something. 1 2 3 is for those people who thought Spike Lee's INSIDE MAN was too arty, too political-conscious, and too memorable. I'm certain quite a few of the same people who trash INSIDE MAN's plot twist will embrace the logic and mental gaps of both cops and criminals. The same types who will pay to see Michael Bay's new film this weekend, and then claim a decade later that they didn't. Also, anyone notice that both 1 2 3 and INSIDE MAN have Denzel as a hero under investigation by their higher-ups?

I'm reminded too of Hyams' NARROW MARGIN another remake of a supposed classic thriller which I sorta liked, but just barely over 1 2 3. The difference was that while I saw the first PELHAM, I haven't seen THE NARROW MARGIN. If I had seen that, would I have still given a passing grade to the Hyams' remake? I really don't know. But as you can see, I'm trying to be fair here and not be too righteous.

I must admit, at times I was involved and somewhat even entertained with Scott's 1 2 3. With it's comfortable big budget to buy an actual (or at least looks like) an authentic shoot in New York and a respectable supporting cast (John Turturro, Luiz Guzman, James Gandolfini), it's certainly not a bad movie per say. But that's about it. In fact it's probably Tony Scott calms down from his mid-life crisis Avid-machine abuse that marked MAN ON FIRE, DOMINO, and DEJA VU. He still insists on that awful kind of slow motion I despise, which I've blasted before. Not smooth dreamlike Brian DePalma slow motion, but the sort that's supposed to emulate "time stopping" but instead comes off as looking into a beer bootle while drunk.

This is Tony's watchable work since perhaps CRIMSON TIDE or ENEMY OF THE STATE, but considering Tony's filmography this decade, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. I'm afraid I must still wait for the return of old school Tony Scott, who made TRUE ROMANCE, REVENGE, THE HUNGER, THE LAST BOY SCOUT. You know, back when one could give a fuck about Tony Scott.

Also, I like how Gandolfini the inept and outgoing Mayor is the one who figures out Travolta's endgame scheme. Not the cops or even Denzel, but the Mayor, an authority part in such tales that usually is relegated to punchline (like the original PELHAM) or useless figurehead (think most disaster pictures). Also he asks a relevant question that I've asked about all three PELHAM flicks: Instead of rushing traffic by squad car or motorcycle to deliver the money, why not just use the faster and less hazardous helicopter? The answer why of course is self-evident.

(BTW, if you want a good laugh, check out the hilarious and dead-on review of this remake in the AD forums by Blue Velvet Bayou. http://www.awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?t=15940)

I just happened to turn on tv while having my morning coffee and saw that Valley Of The Dolls was on. Wow! I don't think I've seen it since it was released in 67.

While dated, it was kind of fun to watch. Patty Duke, Barbara Parkins, and Sharon Tate (who was quite pretty btw). I forgot that Martin Milner (Route 66) was in the movie and Paul Burke whom I've always liked. I think from the tv show The Naked City (right SC?), oh and Susan Hayward who I've always liked too.

For those who don't know "Dolls" was referring to pills (uppers, downers, whatever). Based on a book by Jacqueline Susann (the Danielle Steele of her time)that was very popular.

I'm fairly sure this was probably one of the last movies Tate made before she was brutally murdered by the Manson family.

TIS

I always wanted to see the "sequel" BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, the X-rated Russ Meyer sexploitation picture scripted by Roger Ebert.

No, that wasn't a mistype.

Really? I know of the movie (never saw it) but Roger Ebert?

Poor guy. Have you seen him lately? Did he have a stroke or what. He can hardly talk.


TIS

From wikipedia:

He underwent further surgery on June 16, 2006, just two days before his 64th birthday, to remove cancer near his right jaw, which included removing a section of jaw bone.

On July 1, Ebert was hospitalized in serious condition after his carotid artery burst near the surgery site and he "came within a breath of death". He later learned that the burst was likely a side effect of his treatment, which involved neutron beam radiation. He was subsequently kept bedridden to prevent further damage to the scarred vessels in his neck while he slowly recovered from multiple surgeries and the rigorous treatment. At one point, his status was so precarious that Ebert had a tracheostomy done on his neck to reduce the effort of breathing while he recovered.

In a July 21, 2007 commentary on a rebuttal to Clive Barker, he revealed that he had lost the ability to speak, but not to write. Currently, he talks using a computerized voice system. He initially chose to use a voice with a British accent that he named "Lawrence", but eventually began using one with an American accent.

saw the sixth sense again, and man this is a really great movie...a few moments there that me jumping.

It was a very good movie. I think one that I've only seen on time. I could get into it again. Although, for that particular movie, the first time is the best.



TIS

I saw it on opening weekend.
Before it became a super blockbuster hit
Before it became a major Oscar nominee
Before it became a pop culture "classic" that everyone, even new viewers, know the ending.

Back when it was a pretty fucking good movie by a promising filmmaker.

You know, before THE HAPPENING.

I like Unbreakable a lot more than The Sixth Sense. What has happened to Shyamalan? His movies have gotten worse with each movie since his first two.

idk, but he did lose it.

anyway though some time this week will watch the maltese falcon

It went to his head?

You know, he thought his farts smelled like mint?

Dunno, but whatever it is, Tarantino seems to be suffering from the same disease.

Went to the cinema last night to see PUBLIC ENEMIES. Had been really looking forward to it but it was not as good as i thought. Just a bit slow in the middle. Great acting,great photography and sets,just a bit slow.


P.S. I posted about a show called Occupation on the BBC which was worth seeing. One of the lead chaps in that was Baby Face Nelson in this. He also plays the mad skinhead in THIS IS ENGLAND. I forget his name but he is a fine actor.

Is it anything like Heat? And do Depp & Bale come close to the De Niro & Pacino performance?