The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)

[Groggy]

Crazy talk.

[drinkanddestroy]

The French Connection and The Taking of Pelham 123 are both good movies, but IMO TTOP123 is definitely better. Even if there are some outlandish characters there (eg. the Mayor is just plain fucking ridiculous. He's basically like a cartoon character. And a couple of the subway officials also. But hey, what would a New York movie be like without some ridiculous characters who have ridiculous accents?)

As for The French Connection: the Gene Hackman character is utterly detestable. Do you really root for him more than for the drug dealer? I know I didn't. IMO the whole "war on drugs" is as silly as the war on alcohol once was. Makes me hard to care about narcotic cops. (Same problem with Serpico). But I am glad that in TFC, they made the Hackman character a really detestable guy, and don't pretend like he is any sort of good guy. (And if he'd actually been a successful narc, that wouldn't have made it any better for me).

(Oh, and that train line they use in TFC is right near my house, next time I go there, maybe I can take pics or videos if any of you get a trip over seeing how these NY locations look 40 years later  )

[Groggy]

More crazy talk.

[dave jenkins]

They're both good movies, but IMO TTOP123 is definitely better.

One of the things both these films do well is present fully imagined worlds. Real worlds are well populated and have lots and lots of details, and these films have characters and real-world minutiae in abundance. I think maybe Pelham has the edge here, with more minor characters, some who make very brief appearances but remain vivid nonetheless.

I also notice Pelham's frequent attention to meticulous details. One example: the cops are racing downtown to intercept the train when Matthau suddenly realizes the hijackers have already gotten off. The cops turn the car around and race uptown. As they go they pass the police car that had overturned earlier when it was hurrying with the ransom money. We see that the overturned car is now being put right even as Matthau's car speeds past. There was no necessity for this extra detail--no one would miss it if it weren't there--but its presence give us a sense of a complex world in which many things occur simultaneously; we also get a visual reminder that time is passing quickly. Such touches lend greater authenticity to all the proceedings, making the film truly special.

[drinkanddestroy]

Is "The French Connection" really an appropriate title for that movie? The movie is really about what an asshole the Hackman character really is; the shipment from France is just the latest, biggest, and final incident that bears that out. IMO the title should have focused on that, rather than on the French drug connection.

As for TTOP123, two things prevent it from being perfect: some of the supporting characters are ridiculous and the ending could have had more suspense; I detailed these in a previous post http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7645.msg153973#msg153973

[Groggy]

Is Once Upon a Time in the West really an appropriate title for Once Upon a Time in the West? It's not really about "the West" as a whole, is it? The movie is really about a land squabble in the Southwest with a personal vendetta thrown in. Leone probably should have called it Harmonica's Revenge. Jill's Story, Morton's Railroad or Frank Strikes Back are also options.

[titoli]

The movie is really about what an asshole the Hackman character really is;

This angle does escape me. Can you expand, please?

[drinkanddestroy]

This angle does escape me. Can you expand, please?

Well I think the point of the movie Popeye Doyle is that Popeye Doyle is a real loser, though he may fancy himself a good narc. As his superior officer says, he constantly makes these little arrests of minor offenders, no big splashes, he is not really anything big. He certainly doesn't follow the rules. Eg. he kills the fleeing felon by shooting him in the back, unarmed. An article I saw on wikipedia says that The real NYC cops who were consultants on the film objected to this shooting, cuz it is murder plain and simple, shooting the unarmed man who is running away in the back. But Friedkin said he felt this was something that Eddie Egan (the real cop that Popeye Doyle is based on) would have done. Breaking the rules but being successful like Dirty Harri is fine, but Doyle breaks the rules and really has nothing to show for it. He often has correct instincts but not much to show for it. Eg. he figured out about the big shipment from France but he dd an awful job of tailing Alain Charnier, who easily eluded him in the train station. And when he finally gets what would seem to be his big break -- catching the heroin in the Lincoln - and they track the guys down to the warehouse, he ends up accidentally shooting and killing one of his colleagues, and as the end titles say, Charnier gets away, and Doyle gets kicked out of the police force (or maybe it's just the narcotics unit, I forgot). So Doyle, the main character of the movie, is really a bad cop. Not only in being unconventional and breaking rules, but in having nothing to show for it either. A failure. He may have some good instincts, but almost doesn't count. He is a failure. One of the more detestable main characters in a movie that i have seen in a long time. (of course, many movies are made about "real" bad guys; but this is a diferent sort of thing -- a guy who is officially on the good side but is actually pretty miserable; and in that sense, you hate him much more than you hate a main character who is eg. a "cool" gangster. The guy who is supposedly on the good side but is actually miserable -- Doyle is as detestable as it gets.
 And I felt like that was the main point of the movie; the big shipment from France was just a means of bringing out that point. He may engage in car chases like Bullitt, and make his own rules like Dirty Harry -- but in the end Bullitt and Dirty Harry are successful, and Doyle is not.

I'll readily admit that my opinion of Doyle may be influenced by my personal opinion of Narcs in general, which is no different than the Prohibition cops of the gangster movies of the 30's. I despise them just as much as I despise the bootleggers. (And I hope that one day we will all, as a society, look back at the war on drugs with as much disdain as we now look at the war on alcohol). But set my personal opinions of Vice Wars aside, the fact is that by any measurement, -- even if you are a staunch believer in the drug wars, Popeye Doyle is really a loser. He is this real aggressive Narc but with nothing to show for it, and I think the movie is clearly trying to portray him negatively. And that was my overwhelming feeling from watching the movie -- about how Doyle may act like Dirty Harry but with none of the success -- more than the specific issue of the French heroin connection.

and btw, I think it was a great job by Friedkin and Hackman et al., making a really good movie with a main character that is just plain detestable. The French Connection is definitely a good movie, even if not as good as TTOP123 (I give TFC an 8/10 and TTOP123 a 9/10).

Hope I expanded enough 

[titoli]

Well, I don't know about that. First, I think that "asshole" doesn't equal with "failure" or "loser". Second, they made a FCII which shows Popeye back on the force and operating in France: so he must have not been such a great failure and France must hazve had something to do with the title, at least for the producers. Though I have seen the movie 2 or 3 times (I think twice in the cinema) I can't remember having had an impression of Hackman being a failure, though possibly an asshole: but that is no negative for a NY antidrug cop. I ought to watch it again probably, as last time was probably 30 years ago. As I also have the book on which it was based I'll come back and report.

[drinkanddestroy]

Asshole doesn't necessarily equal failure. But Popeye Doyle is indeed both an asshole and a failure. Whether or not you agree with anything else I wrote, one thing I am certain about is that the movie presents him that way.
Doing things unconventionally may be cool if you end up succeeding. But when you fail, it makes you twice the jerk.

I never saw TFC2 and don't know anything about it, but I don't know if that disproves anything I said about TFC. TFC was very successful, so  it's certainly understandable that they'd wanna cash in again on it; does it necessarily mean that they were thinking of it at the time they made TFC, or that any of my comments on TFC are wrong? (I can't answer these questions without seeing or knowing anything about TFC2).


btw, this thread is for TTOP123, not TFC. So maybe a moderator can break off the last few posts which have been entirely about TFC, into a new thread for TFC.

[drinkanddestroy]

Is Once Upon a Time in the West really an appropriate title for Once Upon a Time in the West? It's not really about "the West" as a whole, is it? The movie is really about a land squabble in the Southwest with a personal vendetta thrown in. Leone probably should have called it Harmonica's Revenge. Jill's Story, Morton's Railroad or Frank Strikes Back are also options.

you're absolutely correct. I was about to ask that when you stole my thunder 

[Groggy]

Popeye makes several busts over the course of the film. It's not his fault the courts can't prosecute. Hardly a failure on his part.

[drinkanddestroy]

Yes, but his superior officer has this speech where he severely criticizes him: although he makes more busts than perhaps any other Narc, they are all small ones and he never gets anything big. This French shipment is supposed to be his break, where he finally comes through with the big arrest. And he ultimately fails at it. Sure, he figures out all about it, and although he screws up the tail on Charnier terribly, he ultimately does figure out when and where the sale will take place -- but once he gets there, he accidentally (or perhaps recklessly) shoots his colleague, and Charnier gets away, and Popeye is finished as a Narc. I took that to mean that at the end, Popeye has not surmounted the criticiosms that his superior officer had; he is the same failure he has been all along-- a guy who will make all sorts of little busts, has some good instincts and almost gets there, but never actually makes the big bust, and is terribly reckless with a gun, killing a fellow cop.

I really thought that Popeye was unambiguously portrayed in a negative manner, though it's not thoroughly clear until the end. And that's part of the genius of the film -- the guy you think is the hero and will finally take that "big step" at the end, winds up as just the same loser he's been all along, perhaps even more so. (And breaking the rules and failing while doing so makes you double the asshole and loser. We will only forgive -- heck, we will LOVE! -- a guy who breaks the rules if he is ultimately successful in his methods, like Dirty Harry).

[dave jenkins]

Yes, but his superior officer has this speech where he severely criticizes him: although he makes more busts than perhaps any other Narc, they are all small ones and he never gets anything big. This French shipment is supposed to be his break, where he finally comes through with the big arrest. And he ultimately fails at it. Sure, he figures out all about it, and although he screws up the tail on Charnier terribly, he ultimately does figure out when and where the sale will take place -- but once he gets there, he accidentally (or perhaps recklessly) shoots his colleague, and Charnier gets away, and Popeye is finished as a Narc. I took that to mean that at the end, Popeye has not surmounted the criticiosms that his superior officer had; he is the same failure he has been all along-- a guy who will make all sorts of little busts, has some good instincts and almost gets there, but never actually makes the big bust, and is terribly reckless with a gun, killing a fellow cop.

This is an accurate assessment. In fact, the fed that Popeye kills had it in for Popeye because once upon a time Popeye got another cop killed . . . .

Where I differ with Drink is that I think making an asshole the hero of the picture is a brilliant stroke. Harry Calahans don't exist, couldn't possibly exist, but a Popeye Doyle could. That doesn't mean all cops are like him; far from it. But Popeye could be a real guy. The fact that he is presented the way he is makes the film unpredictable and so produces in the film a sense of greater verisimilitude than in any American picture up to that time. That's quite an achievement.

[drinkanddestroy]

This is an accurate assessment. In fact, the fed that Popeye kills had it in for Popeye because once upon a time Popeye got another cop killed . . . .

Where I differ with Drink is that I think making an asshole the hero of the picture is a brilliant stroke. Harry Calahans don't exist, couldn't possibly exist, but a Popeye Doyle could. That doesn't mean all cops are like him; far from it. But Popeye could be a real guy. The fact that he is presented the way he is makes the film unpredictable and so produces in the film a sense of greater verisimilitude than in any American picture up to that time. That's quite an achievement.

I believe I did say that I thought it was brilliant how they had such an asshole for the main character, both in the last paragraph this post
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=9853.msg157123#msg157123 and in the last paragraph of this post http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=9853.msg157129#msg157129