WWTBAM Bored

Why?

That is so wrong.

Spoiler

http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=906&page=3

It was already remade about ten years ago as a TV movie with Walter Matthau's character being played by the male/female team of Edward James Olmos and Lorraine Bracco (Vincent D'Onofrio played Robert Shaw's role as the lead villain). If the movie could survive that version, it can survive Denzel Washington/John Travolta/Tony Scott.

Looking at imdb it is in post-production, so it will be seen.

On basis of the data in imdb, I am going to make an observation, and conclusion, and potential trivia question; might be wrong...

The originalfilm and TV remake both have at least as standard title "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three"; the new one is listed as "The Taking of Pelham 123". I also see director Scott along with brothr RIdley as one of the executive producer of Numb3rs, which might be shout-outed to by the slight change in movie title.

silverscreenselect wrote:It was already remade about ten years ago as a TV movie with Walter Matthau's character being played by the male/female team of Edward James Olmos and Lorraine Bracco (Vincent D'Onofrio played Robert Shaw's role as the lead villain). If the movie could survive that version, it can survive Denzel Washington/John Travolta/Tony Scott.

I've never seen the original, so I'll watch only the new remake. That way neither will suffer by comparison for me.

SportsFan68 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It was already remade about ten years ago as a TV movie with Walter Matthau's character being played by the male/female team of Edward James Olmos and Lorraine Bracco (Vincent D'Onofrio played Robert Shaw's role as the lead villain). If the movie could survive that version, it can survive Denzel Washington/John Travolta/Tony Scott.

I've never seen the original, so I'll watch only the new remake. That way neither will suffer by comparison for me.

I can see an argument for watching the new remake first. But I have to tell you, the original is one of my all-time favorite movies.

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It was already remade about ten years ago as a TV movie with Walter Matthau's character being played by the male/female team of Edward James Olmos and Lorraine Bracco (Vincent D'Onofrio played Robert Shaw's role as the lead villain). If the movie could survive that version, it can survive Denzel Washington/John Travolta/Tony Scott.

I've never seen the original, so I'll watch only the new remake. That way neither will suffer by comparison for me.

I can see an argument for watching the new remake first. But I have to tell you, the original is one of my all-time favorite movies.

Watch the original but after the remake. It is a GREAT movie.

I wonder how they will handle the japanese tourist part? Not quite PC now.

christie1111 wrote:

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote: I've never seen the original, so I'll watch only the new remake. That way neither will suffer by comparison for me.

I can see an argument for watching the new remake first. But I have to tell you, the original is one of my all-time favorite movies.

Watch the original but after the remake. It is a GREAT movie.

I wonder how they will handle the japanese tourist part? Not quite PC now.

Those who think of Walter Matthau only as a comic actor should see the trilogy of suspense films he did in the early 1970's: Pelham, The Laughing Policeman, and Charlie Varrick. All three were solid films and solid roles for Matthau (and all three bombed at the box office). After that, he never did a serious role again.

It's always interesting when they remake films of this vintage to see how the technology can be updated to make the basic scenario remain plausible.

silverscreenselect wrote:

christie1111 wrote:

ToLiveIsToFly wrote: I can see an argument for watching the new remake first. But I have to tell you, the original is one of my all-time favorite movies.

Watch the original but after the remake. It is a GREAT movie.

I wonder how they will handle the japanese tourist part? Not quite PC now.

Those who think of Walter Matthau only as a comic actor should see the trilogy of suspense films he did in the early 1970's: Pelham, The Laughing Policeman, and Charlie Varrick. All three were solid films and solid roles for Matthau (and all three bombed at the box office). After that, he never did a serious role again.

It's always interesting when they remake films of this vintage to see how the technology can be updated to make the basic scenario remain plausible.

Don't forget Charade

Great dramatic roles by Walter Matthau must include both the brilliant and still relivant 'A Face In The Crowd' (you will never view Andy Griffith the same way) and 'Fail-Safe'. Of course there is the great 'Lonely are the Brave' in which he does very good work as well.

---Jay

silverscreenselect wrote: . . .

Those who think of Walter Matthau only as a comic actor should see the trilogy of suspense films he did in the early 1970's: Pelham, The Laughing Policeman, and Charlie Varrick. All three were solid films and solid roles for Matthau (and all three bombed at the box office). After that, he never did a serious role again.

. . .

Matthau was on the Tonight Show and said that he tried for the neatnik role on the Odd Couple because he could phone in the slob. He said the producer told him something like, "OK, phone it in then. Act on your own time."

SportsFan68 wrote:Matthau was on the Tonight Show and said that he tried for the neatnik role on the Odd Couple because he could phone in the slob. He said the producer told him something like, "OK, phone it in then. Act on your own time."

When Becket was playing on Broadway, Laurence Olivier played the title role and Anthony Quinn played King Henry. One of my college English professors told our class that criticism arose that the two actors were just playing their "natural" roles and their performances weren't so much great acting as solid casting. So they decided to switch roles for a few performances to prove their critics wrong.

When I read the post above, I remembered the story (and Anthony Quinn's role) but I couldn't place Olivier so I decided to look it up to verify before I replied. What I found out was that there is some controversy about whether this actually ever happened. Some sources say that the two did switch roles for a while, and others (primarily Donald Spoto's biography of Olivier) claim than Quinn never played Becket. It is clear that after Quinn left the cast, the show went on tour and Olivier wound up playing the King with Arthur Kennedy as Becket.

I tend to believe my professor's version of the story that the switch did occur but only briefly. The story makes sense and when he told it to us, it was close enough in time so that he could very well have seen it or heard about it directly. If it is true, it wouldn't be the first time that actors switched roles (as Michael Caine did for the misbegotten remake of Sleuth) to make things more entertaining.

SportsFan68 wrote: Matthau was on the Tonight Show and said that he tried for the neatnik role on the Odd Couple because he could phone in the slob. He said the producer told him something like, "OK, phone it in then. Act on your own time."

Few people remember that it was actually Art Carney who played the Felix role in The Odd Couple on Broadway. During the production, Carney suffered a nervous breakdown and wound up being hospitalized for a while so Jack Lemmon got the film role (in large part because of the great chemistry he and Matthau displayed during The Fortune Cookie). It was Jackie Gleason who helped get Carney's career back on track by restaging The Honeymooners as part of his variety series and giving Carney his old Norton role back.

Matthau got started as a dramatic actor and played a number of heavies in his earlier days. Due to his size and looks, he probably would have been a career villain were it not for his appearance in Odd Couple on Broadway which made him marketable in the comic roles he became known for.

FYI - The Taking of Pelham One Two Three will be airing on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) this coming Wed evening/Thursday morning Dec. 10-11th at 1:30 AM EST.

Uncut and commercial free.

I find it interesting that the station/company that was initially defiliing films (IMO) with the coloreraztion process is now one of the few stations that preserves films and shows them untouched and unedited.

---Jay

frogman042 wrote: I find it interesting that the station/company that was initially defiliing films (IMO) with the coloreraztion process is now one of the few stations that preserves films and shows them untouched and unedited.

---Jay

Since AMC began censoring, editing, and commercial inserting in their movies (as well as not showing most of the more recent ones widescreen), I quit watching them. TCM is by far the better choice, and they also react swiftly to put tributes together to actors when they die. You can usually count on a decent retrospective of their work on the air within a week or so.

silverscreenselect wrote:

frogman042 wrote: I find it interesting that the station/company that was initially defiliing films (IMO) with the coloreraztion process is now one of the few stations that preserves films and shows them untouched and unedited.

---Jay

Since AMC began censoring, editing, and commercial inserting in their movies (as well as not showing most of the more recent ones widescreen), I quit watching them. TCM is by far the better choice, and they also react swiftly to put tributes together to actors when they die. You can usually count on a decent retrospective of their work on the air within a week or so.

If it was airing on AMC I wouldn't have posted, most likely because I don't watch it because of the editing and the commercials - so I wouldn't be aware it was on the schedule. If by the off chance I did find out it was on AMC, I still wouldn't post it because that is no way to see this or any other film.

Yes, I can be a snob about certain things. I have been building quite a big dvd collection by recording off of TCM and because prices are so low this weekend I've been transfering a lot of them to a 500GB portable HD I picked up. That is powered by the USB so I can have my film library available when I travel for work.

---Jay