Another ill-advised remake?
Apr. 6th, 2009 09:27![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
viktor_haagAfter seeing the trailer for Tony Scott's new redux of Taking of Pelham 123, I cannot help but feel that this project seems a bit ill-advised.
As good an actor as he is, Denzel is no Walter Matthau, and John Travolta is certainly no Robert Shaw (who packed more desperate menace into his tweedy cap than Travolta seems to manage in the trailer, despite his traditional scene-chewing cackling, and his rough-boy tats and handlebar mustache). Sargent's original, made in '74, was easily able to convey the urban grit of New York in conjunction with an underlying tone of the wry humour that the city is famous for. Matthau's casting as Garber seemed perfect at the time, and he, Shaw, and Dick O'Neill as Correl turn what might otherwise be a forgettable 70s crime thriller into a memorable piece of cinema.
Lack of acting talent won't be an issue for this film; Scott's name is big enough to attract an ensemble of heavyweights: Denzel, Travolta, James Gandolfini (reprising Lee Wallace's turn as the Mayor), John Turturro (IMDB does't name his role, but from the trailer, he appears to be an analog for the Correl character), and Luis Guzmán.
What might be missing from this redux is the sense of humour that lay underneath the original. The Scott brothers are undeniable visual masters, but a common criticism laid on both their projects is a certain lack of warmth, of empathic connection for the audience. I'm not sure I really want a Pelham that's all toughness and pistols and high-octane cop-car flipping.
In this regard, Matthau as Garber seems a much better choice: how the heck can anyone see Matthau in a Scott project? Even when Matthau plays tough, there's just something about his rumpled schlubbiness that connects with the viewer. Denzel can do tough, and Denzel can do tender and sensitive to a certain degree, and he has an undeniable sense of nobility about him. But as Garber? Matthau's Garber was purposefully not noble: he was a clever court Jester doing his job. And I have a really hard time seeing Denzel playing a court jester of any sort: he's a good enough actor that I wouldn't put it past him, but he just doesn't seem to come pre-packaged with that streak of rumpled, sad-sack good humour that suits such roles.
But it's just a trailer. I hope that Scott's film lives up to the original.
As good an actor as he is, Denzel is no Walter Matthau, and John Travolta is certainly no Robert Shaw (who packed more desperate menace into his tweedy cap than Travolta seems to manage in the trailer, despite his traditional scene-chewing cackling, and his rough-boy tats and handlebar mustache). Sargent's original, made in '74, was easily able to convey the urban grit of New York in conjunction with an underlying tone of the wry humour that the city is famous for. Matthau's casting as Garber seemed perfect at the time, and he, Shaw, and Dick O'Neill as Correl turn what might otherwise be a forgettable 70s crime thriller into a memorable piece of cinema.
Lack of acting talent won't be an issue for this film; Scott's name is big enough to attract an ensemble of heavyweights: Denzel, Travolta, James Gandolfini (reprising Lee Wallace's turn as the Mayor), John Turturro (IMDB does't name his role, but from the trailer, he appears to be an analog for the Correl character), and Luis Guzmán.
What might be missing from this redux is the sense of humour that lay underneath the original. The Scott brothers are undeniable visual masters, but a common criticism laid on both their projects is a certain lack of warmth, of empathic connection for the audience. I'm not sure I really want a Pelham that's all toughness and pistols and high-octane cop-car flipping.
In this regard, Matthau as Garber seems a much better choice: how the heck can anyone see Matthau in a Scott project? Even when Matthau plays tough, there's just something about his rumpled schlubbiness that connects with the viewer. Denzel can do tough, and Denzel can do tender and sensitive to a certain degree, and he has an undeniable sense of nobility about him. But as Garber? Matthau's Garber was purposefully not noble: he was a clever court Jester doing his job. And I have a really hard time seeing Denzel playing a court jester of any sort: he's a good enough actor that I wouldn't put it past him, but he just doesn't seem to come pre-packaged with that streak of rumpled, sad-sack good humour that suits such roles.
But it's just a trailer. I hope that Scott's film lives up to the original.
