NEWS: Tupac Film Announced

Morgan Creek Productions have announced that a film about rapper Tupac is to go ahead this year with Antoine Fuqua at the helm. Good news?


I imagine a lot of people will be excited that "Training Day" director Fuqua will be responsible for the long-awaited biopic of one of the most famous rappers of all time. However, I don't know if it's such a good thing. This is mainly because I didn't like Training Day that much, I thought it was an average movie at best and more proof that as much as I like Denzel in interviews etc. - he is essentially a very 2D actor. In any case, I don't think he'll be slipping into Tupac's shoes. I hope so anyway. But people who liked Training Day forget what other films Fuqua has done - the abysmal "King Arthur", lacklustre "Tears of the Sun" and the Wahlberg bore "Shooter" - all arguably his biggest films since "Training Day". It just shows that if you do some nice, splashy music videos it doesn't mean you got the balls to go over 3 minutes and he might have hit the right notes with his Oscar-loved Washington vehicle, but can he do Tupac justice?

In any case, apparently Tupac's family are happy about it and I doubt it will bring up his violent tendencies including shooting two drunk cops, his part of a gang-rape of a 19 year old girl (something he denied to his grave but was committed for - after having sex with her a few days before she came back and then it all got a bit twisted in the bedroom with his mates). Anyway, it's a tricky subject to handle, a person idolised by millions but with a very chequered past.

Unstoppable

Tony Scott and Denzel Washington are back with yet another 'thriller' as an unmanned train is running along the tracks. Not exactly Trainspotting...

Why, oh why, oh why do I even bother going to see a Tony Scott film, they are unbelievably awful. The camera is all over the place, making me feel sick, his focus pulling, sweeping shots, intense close-ups and shaky-cam look unprofessional to say the least. This whole effort to create action through a flimsy script by making the audience feel like they are on a rollercoaster is, in essence, playing on people's stupidity. By drawing their attention away from what matters, it's like dealing with a thick child who has fallen over; he's so taken away with a cuddly toy that he forgets that his knee is bleeding everywhere - and watching this film was definitely painful.

The journey to even get this film made was painful. The overrated diva that is Denzel Washington refused to have his $20 million salary cut holding up production. Tony Scott even got his pay cut to $4 million, though God knows who would pay him so much. It's a recession remember? The entire budget for the film was $90 million, so you can see how much of that was spent on Denzel's pulling power. Finally the film got made and is 'inspired by true events'. This statement always makes me laugh. Isn't every creation inspired by true events? Based on true events is something different (and usually a lie in films anyway) but 'inspired' by true events? You could say that about a diary of birdwatching - which would probably be more interesting than this film.

In any case, a train is left accelerating by accident without anyone driving it and it's left to Washington and Pine to save the day. Denzel plays his classic 'everyday' hero role that he usually does, especially in Tony Scott films, and Chris Pine tries to keep some integrity in the film by giving off a clearly angry young man on his first day on the job. How unlucky for him then. There's some lacklustre back story which is to fill in the gaps where trains are moving because, as every commuter knows, train journeys are usually very boring. The two bond and it's supposed to show a coming together of generations, and a somewhat meagre attempt at how people are losing their jobs, which Denzel can obviously sympathise with seeing as they were unfairly offering him only $16 million - the cheap bastards, no wonder he was threatening to pull out.

They film the train like it's a monster on the rampage when it seems to be going at different speeds from shot to shot. It needs to be stopped before it goes round a rather nasty bend which is inconveniently located above a bunch of fuel tanks and is carrying a load of flammable liquid as well. Not ideal then - who decided to put the train track there? So yeah, they have to stop a train. When I came out, some people were saying how great it was and that it was 'just like that programme 24' - so I guess there's always a market - for idiots - who probably don't watch 24 anyway. I was also annoyed I lost a button on my coat which got caught on the drinks holder as I stood up. That didn't help.

There's some explosions and it has Rosario Dawson in it as a dressed down stressed out worker, but she's still hot - and for the ladies Chris Pine has his shirt off at the beginning of the film so maybe watch it for that and then leave. I would rather have not gone and then I'd still have that button. Stop the Unstoppable and just don't watch this film. It's shit.

Rating: 2/10

The Taking Of Pelham 123

Tony Scott and Denzel Washington team up again for this 2009 remake of people holding an underground train hostage. Will they get away with it or is it as easy as 123?

I know this film was released last year but I saw it on my Sky + Anytime and thought I'd comment on how bloody awful it is. Not only that but I wanted to use it as an example of how crap Tony Scott is as a director.

For those who don't know, Tony Scott is Ridley's brother and is better known for making stylised action films that would have been better suited in straight-to-video 90's flicks, but because of his name, the stars he's able to get and his budget, they are just on a grander scale. Okay, so the guy might have a couple of aces up his sleeves, he did do a good job on True Romance and people would crucify me for saying that the director of Top Gun is crap, but I have to say out of a great number of films he has made, law of averages means you got to have a couple of good ones right? His mid-shot, sleek, fast cuts with what seems to be exactly the same colour palette and a score that verges on embarrassing feels as if you are watching the action from afar, even when there are close-ups you never feel like you are there living in the action, but that you are a voyeur (which essentially you are) that has no investment in the characters. His cheesy, stale and repetitive directing can be seen a mile off; you know you're watching a Tony Scott film from the opening credits and you know it will be ridiculous. It's completely passive and uninspiring film-making that no-one should be proud of. The Taking Of Pelham 123 is no exception.

Denzel Washington plays a transport worker that has to deal with the Pelham 123 train that has suddenly stopped. What's happened is that Travolta has got some goons together and taken it over asking for a $10 million ransom or he starts killing people. After a while, Travolta's real motive becomes clear as the cops delve into his history but by then Denzel is thick into the action. Kind of.

The problem is that most of the film is either in the transport room or on the train which makes for quite a boring set-up, if the film was a slower, murkier affair then the tension and result would have been far greater. Instead Travolta's OTT hammy bad guy acting makes it feel like you're watching a cartoon. The man can't do a maniac, he couldn't really do it with Swordfish, he couldn't really do it in Face/Off and when he starts swearing and shooting people in this, it feels completely lame and unthreatening. Travolta can't just do any kind of role, he's not that kind of actor, he needs to learn the humility he picked up with Pulp Fiction as what was essentially a bumbling gangster role, he needs to be cast right, not like this.

But then, I feel like Denzel might perhaps be the most overrated actor in Hollywood. You could take him in any part, swap it with another part he's played and get the same result. The man is bland - to the point where he bores me. I can imagine he is just a boring person and I cannot see the appeal at all. So with two leading actors not being very good in a film directed by a poor director, I think you know what you will end up getting.

Even for a film with someone who shoots people indiscrimately and completely irresponsibly, with cars racing around to get the money dropped off in time and tempers flaring, it remains quite a boring heist. There's little nods to the political and social climate of last year, mainly the war and the economy, but really it's just drivvle to put it into the context of today to stop it being a carbon copy of the original.

Overall, it was 90 minutes of action that kept me watching, but really I wasn't bothered about what would happen. It felt lazy and OTT and ridiculous. But then, this is a Tony Scott film. His brother made Alien and Blade Runner don't you know.


Rating: 4/10