An Unfortunately Insignificant Movie Night

Over the last two years, director Tony Scott and Academy Award winning actor Denzel Washington have teamed up to make two films involving trains, The Taking of Pelham 123 and Unstoppable. Yesterday I thought it would be fun to check out both films and compare to two efforts.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is a remake of a 1974 film and stars John Travolta along side Washington. Denzel plays Walter Garber, a New York city subway dispatcher who unexpectedly being a hostage negotiator when Travolta's character Ryder calls his dispatch line declaring he's hijacked a subway train and wants $10 million dollars. As the movie progresses, we pick up that Ryder's true intentions may not be about the ransom money, but on a much bigger score.

Surprisingly, I have to say that Pelham 123 was the best of the films I watched yesterday, but that's really not saying much. Pelham is a by-the-numbers predictable thriller movie. John Travolta's performance is way over the top at times, and you can see the ending coming a mile away. Keep your expectations low and Pelham will keep you entertained (** ½ Stars)

Unstoppable is another cheesy, clichéd thrill ride. Predictably, everything that could go wrong does go wrong in this film, which obviously was put in to add to excitement level, but at times insults the viewer's intelligence. There is way too much cheering in this movie, no one really seems too concerned that this train actually might crash and cause death and destruction. I would describe Unstoppable as a combination of the films Speed and Armageddon. In terms of a “keep you on the edge of your seat” action thriller, this one is worth watching. But remember to just sit back and not to think too much about how preposterous the story actually is. (** ½ Stars)

I hope Denzel and Tony Scott got big paychecks for these two movies, because overall they are both pretty vapid and unoriginal films that do nothing for their impressive career resumes. After my Denzel train double header, I thought my movie evening was over. But thanks to my good friend Jeff and his movie pass I unexpectedly was able to check out the free showing of Clint Eastwood's new film Hereafter. With such good critic buzz, especially from Roger Ebert, who I have immense respect for, I was pretty excited to finally get the chance to watch it. As we walked into the theater, we thought we had lucked out having the whole place to ourselves, later we would discover it was just a sign of the quality of the film.

Hereafter is slow, slow, slow. Half the time it seemed like Matt Damon literally didn't wanna be there. His portrayal of psychic George Lonegan is hokey and stereotypical. The best part of the movie was the ending. Not because it gave some great revelation as to what had happened over the previous two hours of the film, but simply because it meant the movie was finally over. Hereafter is dreadfully slow and boring. I thought Clint Eastwood had hit rock bottom with his 2008 release Gran Torino, but unfortunately I was wrong. Tedious and insipid, Hereafter makes dying look like a better choice then watching this film. (* ½ Stars)



An empty Hereafter theater