Brian T wrote:...Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974: Joseph Sargent) ***½/****:What an effective and fun thriller this movie is. I was not expecting that much though I knew it had a good reputation with a few critics (like New York Times who have had it twice in their top 1000 films).Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:I have also not seen the remake, but after watching this I have some curiosity towards it. But I wonder how effective they could have made it especially compared to this well made movie.
Late to comment on this, but I'll add two things. First, it's great that you saw this before the remake, as it blows the remake out of the water. The remake is not a bad film, per se, but it has almost none of the flavour of the original, and certain little touches they added to modernize it -- particularly the young guy communicating with his tease of a girlfriend via his laptop) were wholly unnecessary.
And you should probably know it's considered a criminal offense to review the original TAKING OF PELHAM without paying due respect to David Shire's rousing score, one of the best of the decade. You may now make the requisite additions to your review.
Great to hear from you again. I was wondering if you were still alive, so it is good to see a post from you. Though I wasn't expecting any response on Grand Slam Opera. However, all of you should see Buster Keaton .
That's why I wrote some comments on ...; this absolves me from all sins of missing important ideas in the following review. Actually when I put it in there I do it to remind myself and others that its just that comments . So if I do a proper review of it in the next decade I will, of course, mention the score (I agree with you).
I've been watching a lot of Fatty Arbuckle shorts lately. One of the more underrated comedians of all time. Of course partially has to do with his trial and blacklisting. Here is some random musings on this topic:
The Keystone shorts are usually not as strong as later comedy (from many artists) and are certainly formulaic, but it is fascinating to see the early comedians at work. Arbuckle was unjustly forgotten because of his scandal which hurt his career, but before that he was one of the most popular comedians. Trying to figure out who was more popular than who is a bit difficult. The two most popular comedians of the 20s was Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin. I've often read that Lloyd sold more tickets but Chaplin sold more per movie. Figuring out the truth is hard to impossible. But I do know that Arbuckle, who is often stated getting the first million dollar contract, was probably as popular as Chaplin for several years. The problem with his scandal is that the newspapers and public turned against him resulting him in being blacklisted (pretty much for the rest of the 20s and up until he signed a new contract with Warner Bros which actually ended up being successful, but unfortunately he died of a heart attack before he was to do a new feature length film) and unfortunately this resulted in many negatives being burned, an attack on his character and also unfortunately his films.
Lloyd hurt his popularity later on by keeping much of his films from being released for many years (with a few retrospectives exceptions).
I'm a fan of all these guys though.
The comedian from the silent era I have yet to see which I need to rectify soon is Harry Langdon (one of the reasons for picking up his late entry Hallelujah I'm a Bum with Al Jolson). When I get more of his releases I'll make note of them.
But I wanted to also add Arbuckle is interesting for a couple of other reasons too. Though "breaking the fourth wall" was done since the beginning of cinema he seems to incorporate its use into many interesting gags as far back as the Keystone shorts. I was also surprised to see reverse footage used in a gag as well (I wonder when this was first used?). He seems amongst the Keystone shorts to be the most inventive when using the camera.