Pelham 123

I don't recall a sneeze playing a role, and the focus was taken away from the investigators and placed on Denzel who's just a transit worker in over his head. It wasn't a bad movie but John Travolta left molar marks all over the scenery and Tony Scott has never met a cinematic trick he won't use. Good God the man overloads everything with unnecessary slow mo and stupid, abrasive colors and jump cuts on top of jump cuts and lousy soundtrack choices. That he's been fortunate enough to work with Denzel three times now is criminal.

Mudcat said:

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS I GUESS*


I saw the original but not the recent remake.

Did they structure the remake the same way, where a bad guy's sneezing played a key role? Did they in fact end the remake with a world-weary-but-suddenly-all-knowing expression on the face of one of the investigators, like Walter Matthau in the original?

Just curious.

Click to expand...

Haven't seen the remake (and don't intend to) but I'd guess that it ends with a bunch of noisy explosions and macho dialogue.

This isn't the 70's anymore. Mainstream cinema starts with the assumption that the audience are idiots.

Really liked that ending, I need to check out the original. Man, you can't cast a movie like that anymore. Every principal character seems to be played by someone who looks so much like a character, you know? Mattau's face at the end is absolutely priceless, and he almost looks like a cartoon. It's great stuff...

The original is up on Hulu, for free.

Of course, having said that, now I can't get hulu to let me find the URL . . .

I had to watch the original, and Die Hard around fifty or so times each for a copyright case.

I loathe them both now . . .

Mudcat said:

Thanks for the responses.

I just loved the ending of the original. Classic. That expression on Matthau's face in the last shot was better than 5 minutes of dialogue.

Click to expand...

The 70's really were a halcyon period for American cinema.
It was as though the directors were somehow allowed to make the films they wanted, the way they wanted, rather than being forced by studios to continually cater to the lowest common denominator.
I think this is reflected in how many films had unconventional endings.
eg. Pelham 123, The French Connection, The Conversation, Five Easy Pieces, The Godfather.

Then we got Star Wars. Then the 80's. Then Transformers 2.

We don't remember ancient trash.

Speaking of good modern films: The Hurt Locker and Moon, anyone?

Exir said:

We don't remember ancient trash.

Click to expand...

I think that was directed at me, and if so I actually agree, and made the exact same point on another film thread. But I would still refute the notion that the 70's are only regarded as such an innovative period in American cinema because we're only remembering the good bits.

It's period that fell between the disintegration of the last vestiges of the studio system and the invention of the high concept event movie.
For a decade where the old guard struggled to acclimatise, a wave of young 'auter' directors managed to sneak into the mainstream and make a series of films that aspired to a purity of purpose.
Some worked to brilliant effect, others inevitably fell into a mire of self indulgence, but I don't think Hollywood has been as consistently interesting since, and probably won't be again.

Exir said:

Speaking of good modern films: The Hurt Locker and Moon, anyone?

Click to expand...

Moon I enjoyed, and in it's own way it was a 70's film, although had it been made in the 70's it might have been brave enough to hold back on the inciting incident even longer, and been significantly better for it.

I saw the remake just the other day and I have to say I really enjoyed it.

Anyway, I haven't seen the original. So I wasn't expecting anything when I sat down. That probably helped.

I think that was directed at me, and if so I actually agree, and made the exact same point on another film thread. But I would still refute the notion that the 70's are only regarded as such an innovative period in American cinema because we're only remembering the good bits.

It's period that fell between the disintegration of the last vestiges of the studio system and the invention of the high concept event movie.
For a decade where the old guard struggled to acclimatise, a wave of young 'auter' directors managed to sneak into the mainstream and make a series of films that aspired to a purity of purpose.
Some worked to brilliant effect, others inevitably fell into a mire of self indulgence, but I don't think Hollywood has been as consistently interesting since, and probably won't be again.

Click to expand...

The comment wasn't entirely directed at you, but more at the general sentiments in the board.

I agree that it is entirely possible that the 70s stand out as particularly innovative, because you aren't the first to say that. I don't know enough about 70s cinema to make a judgment, though. But the larger political, social and institutional climate does contribute to the boom and bust of film-making at large.

Speaking of boom and busts, I think in 10-15 years' time we will be seeing a new boom in cinema, led primarily by the indies. With the advent of networking and the twitter age, word-of-mouth is becoming progressively more and more important. That, and the public is bound to become disillusioned (which I feel they are already beginning the process of). With filmmaking becoming cheaper and cheaper, indies are able to realize their artistic vision more and more. 99% will be crap, but due to the sheer number of films made there will be lots of gold, too.

All we need is for the indie crowd to start really learning and adapting to how internet networking works, and to use it to full advantage to rival the major studios. That, plus a move towards making "indie" a kind of brand, thus making it a selling point. When the day comes when the movie crowd consistently thinks "let's go watch that, the big studios haven't touched it!" the revolution will realize its full force.

JMHO, and liable to be complete BS as I have practically zero knowledge about how the film industry works. Consider this verbal diarrhea.

Is all good Exir, is all good.

I hope you're right that new technologies might usher in something of a new golden age of film making. Of course the fear is that that big boys will just hijack them with their savvier marketing techniques (and budgets).

The biggest problem is that a huge proportion of the cinema-going audience have been weened off the notion that film should, or even could, challenge you or make think.
Sadly that kind of tactic has become so prevalent across all aspects of the entertainment industry that it's almost pointless to rail against it. But we can hope.

Well, if there's one thing I'm pretty sure about human nature, it's that when strayed too far to one extreme, it will seek ways to lash back. I know that, among my teenage friends, saying they love "classic" or "cult" films is becoming a very popular counter-culture.

(ETA: Conversely, railing against box office hits is becoming "cool" in some cliques simply because they're box office hits. I know it's superficial, but it at least acts like a counterbalance against herd mentality. Negative feedback in action, shall we say )

Exir said:

Well, if there's one thing I'm pretty sure about human nature, it's that when strayed too far to one extreme, it will seek ways to lash back. I know that, among my teenage friends, saying they love "classic" or "cult" films is becoming a very popular counter-culture.

Click to expand...

That can only be good.

Growing up, myself and most of my contemporaries all looked back for film and music to augment what our own generation was creating (Even at the age of 20, Casablanca rated as one of my favourite films, and Talking Heads my favourite band.)

I really thought this trend was dying out, as nearly all the younger people I meet seem to have incredibly limited frames of cultural reference. They appear to know nothing other than the films and music of their own generation.

ps. If you do have any interest in getting better versed in 70's US cinema, then you only need to read one book. Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind is absolutely definitive.