The Rush Blog: john turturro

Friday, August 2, 2019

"TRANSFORMERS" (2007) Review

"TRANSFORMERS" (2007) Review"

Based upon the Japanese cartoon TV series and the line of Hasbro toys, "TRANSFORMERS" is the story about how Earth is caught in the middle of an intergalactic war between two races of robots, the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons, which are able to change into a variety of objects, including cars, trucks, planes and other technological creations. This 2007 film was developed by producers Don Murphy and Tom DeSanto and executive director, Steven Spielberg, had convinced Michael Bay ("PEARL HARBOR", "BAD BOYS" and "THE ISLAND") to direct it as his first family film.

I really do not know what to say about "TRANSFORMERS". It has a pretty good cast with the likes of Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Jon Voight, Anthony Anderson and John Turturro. It also featured the voices of Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime (leader of the the good alien robots) and Hugo Weaving as the voice of the evil Megatron.

I am already into the third paragraph of this post and I have yet to give my review. It sounds as if I am delaying in giving my view of the movie, doesn't it? Perhaps I am. Like I had stated in the previous paragraph, I do not know what to say about "TRANSFORMERS". On the surface, it is a pretty exciting, yet funny film. It can boast some first-class action, which happens to be Michael Bay's forte. And the performances are pretty good. I could say that Shia LaBeouf (Spielberg's new favorite at the time) was exceptional. Although there were times when I found his performance a little frantic. Rather like a young John Cusack on crack. Nearly six years ago, I thought Tyrese Gibson seemed a little too big to be playing second fiddle to a TV actor like Josh Duhamel. Now that both are big screen actors . . . well, I was too busy enjoying their on-screen camaraderie to really care one way or the other.

Despite all of the action, special effects and good performances, I had left the theater with this uneasy feeling that "TRANSFORMERS" seemed a little beneath for someone of Bay's talent or reputation when I first saw the movie. When one really comes down to it, the movie seemed nothing more than an over-the-top kiddie flick. But hey, if you are really a fan of THE TRANSFORMERS franchise, I suggest that you check it out. Chances are you will not be disappointed.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

"THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3" (2009) Review

Below is my review of Tony Scott's remake of the 1974 crima drama. "THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3" stars Denzel Washington and John Travolta:

”THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3” (2009) Review

Tony Scott’s new version of John Godey’s 1973 novel, ”The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” marked the third time Hollywood released a version of the crime drama about the hijacking of a New York City subway train. The first version, directed by Joseph Sargent, featured Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Nineteen eighty-eight saw the release of a television version that starred Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio. I barely remember the 1974 version and I have never seen the 1998 version. But since I recently saw this new version, I might as well give my two-cents on the movie.

In ”THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3” (2009) , Denzel Washington portrays a MTA dispatcher named Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), who is assigned to the Rail Control Center due to an ongoing investigation that he took a bribe to recommend a Japanese car manufacturer for the next subway car contract. It is Garber who ends up as the liaison between the New York Police Department/the Mayor’s Office and a man named “Ryder” (John Travolta) who has led three other men to board one of the MTA trains and hijack in exchange for $10 million dollars in ransom money. Also in the cast are John Turturro as Lieutenant Camonett of the NYPD Emergency Service Unit, who guides Garber into communicating with “Ryder”; Luis Guzmán as Phil Ramos (a.k.a. "Mr. Green"), one of the hijackers; and James Gandolfini as an unpopular mayor of New York City, who is under heavy pressure to address the hostage crisis.

Since my memories of the 1974 version is vague, I might as well express my view of the movie. In a nutshell, it was a solid and decent movie that had the good luck to possess a decent script written by Oscar winner, Brian Helgeland (”L.A. CONFIDENTIAL”). Yes, Helgeland made changes not only from the original novel, but also from the 1974 movie. That was to be expected . . . even though I have no idea what the changes are. Wait a minute. I am aware of one particular change. The Walter Garber character portrayed by Walter Matthau was a transit cop. Not that I care, since I have very vague memories of the movie. And for once, Tony Scott’s penchant for MTV style direction did not bother me. I thought it mixed well with the movie’s story. However . . . the sequence that featured the NYPD’s attempt to deliver the ransom money through the streets of Manhattan struck me as slightly ridiculous and over-the-top . . . especially with the number of car crashes that occurred this scene. As one character had put it – why not deliver the money via helicopter? The audience would have been spared that ridiculous scene. And one last scene annoyed me. It had to do with Garber’s attempts to track down and arrest “Ryder” and recover the ransom money. I thought it was a silly and contrived scene. But I must admit that I enjoyed how Scott captured the kinetic energy of Manhattan and kept the movie’s pace from moving too fast or two slow. ”THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3” struck me as a well-paced film.

At least four performances in the movie managed to catch my attention. I found James Gandolfini’s performance as an unpopular mayor rather sharp and funny, and a nice departure from his some of his heavier past roles – including Tony Soprano. Another amusing performance came from Luis Guzman as one of the hijackers, Phil Ramos. Whereas the other hijackers – including Travolta – projected an over-the-top menace, Guzman gave a restrained and funny performance. John Turturro’s performance as the police hostage negotiator was also restrained, subtle . . . and intelligent. And last, but not least, I was very impressed by Denzel Washington’s performance as the MTA dispatcher forced into dealing with an erratic and dangerous hijacker. Like Guzman and Turturro, he gave a very restrained performance and did an excellent job in keeping in character with an ordinary man, dragged into an extraordinary situation. Washington also gave the best performance in a scene that featured “Ryder” forcing Garber to confess to the charges of bribery, in order to save the life of one of the hostages. The one performance that troubled me happened to be that of John Travolta as “Ryder”, leader of the hijackers. Not only was it over-the-top, it was the kind of performance he had given several times in the past in movies like ”BROKEN ARROW” and ”FACE-OFF”. Back in the 90s, these flashy performances were fun and amusing. In 2009, I found it a little tiresome. At least he was convincing as an intelligent and dangerous man.

Judging from other comments and reviews I have read about this film, many seem quite willing to dismiss it as a crappy film. As far as I am concerned, ”THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3” is not crap. Granted, it is not the best action thriller I have seen, because I have seen better ones. But I do believe that it is a pretty solid and entertaining movie that should not be dismissed, because it is not exceptional. But I can see the writing on the wall. Chances are it will fail at the box office. Too bad. ”THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3” may not be a masterpiece, but I think that it is a hell of a lot better than a very mediocre movie like ”STAR TREK”, which is getting rave reviews.