Great NYPost Blog Movie Remakes Comment

Who would play Maximillian/Preacher Pauly/Guido? All were played by Eddie Murphy hahaha. Terrible movie. Click the image if its hard to read.

Throwback - Arnold on Smackdown

Go to 1:55.

MOTHERF***ER: THE MOVIE (Celebrity Outhouse Review of Taking of Pelham 1 2 3)

Revolta (rev-olta): A John Travolta villain role that requires him to screams a lot, clench his teeth while talking, (usually through a cellphone or a walkie-talkie), and perform sudden acts of violence.

Somebody call John Travolta's agent and tell him to get him more of these roles. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is his best villain role.

I'll admit, John Travolta has played the villain well in one movie - Face Off . That movie had a well-rounded story and a good cast (sans Cage) and his outbursts weren't really Travolta, they were Travolta playing Cage's character. But if you put John Travolta in crap (Swordfish, the upcoming Old Dogs), he'll be crap. He's not one of those actors who can act himself out of a bad movie (Michael, Lucky Numbers...). Travolta's take on the villain is that he can go over the top. But he literally goes over the top. He plays the role so seriously that you can't help but laugh. Check out Broken Arrow and even certain scenes of Face Off. I've embraced the fact that his villain roles are unintentionally funny because he tries too hard to be unlikable and vicious. He clenches his teeth, screams a lot (usually through a cellphone or a walkie-talkie), and performs sudden acts of violence.

When I first heard last year that John Travolta was cast as the villain in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, I chuckled to myself. Was this going to be another "Revolta" role or something different? The movie's a remake and Denzel's going through the motions. But when I heard Adrenaline Maestro Tony Scott was going to direct it (also known as the older Michael Bay) my chuckled turned into a belly laugh. Scott doesn't know how to hit the pause button. Everything has to be fast paced and ready to explode, so like a mean guy with a pitbull who bites kids, he let him loose.

The movie doesn't waste any time in introducing characters - it happens almost in real time (this is Tony Scott we're talking about, so we get a countdown clock to heighten tension the movie wants to create). The first person we see onscreen is Travolta with his hipster sunglasses, his tattooed neck, and handlebar mustache, because mustaches are always menacing.

It's not until he starts his dialogue with Denzel that the movie really starts to crackle and causes the audience to cackle. This is Revolta if he drank 100 cups of espresso. It's his classic villain role magnified. It's almost like Tony Scott laughed at all his performances and told him to do a greatest hits with an exclusive special edition song. And that special edition song is called Motherfucker. Yes, Travolta uses this curse word excessively in this movie. If Hollywood had ever wanted to make a Motherfucker Movie, they already did with this.


Not only does he end almost every conversation with John Tuturro (unconvincingly playing a cop) with "motherfucker", he even uses it twice in a sentence ("Motherfuckers, motherfucker!") It's like writer Brian Hegland and Tony Scott had the same take on Travolta as we do here at Celebrity Outhouse.

The movie itself is paint-by-numbers. It was remade because Hollywood ran out of original ideas. Tony Scott doesn't even try to bring anything new to the movie - the passengers have little exchanges with each other and there's even a 9/11 reference ("We have to do something!" suggested by a passenger). Luckily, they didn't make the little boy on the train annoying. But they could have killed him just to be edgy. Instead Travolta says he'd make Denzel his bitch in prison.

The rest of the cast is dispensable. James Gandolfini wants us to believe he's versatile as the 'Mayor of New York' (with obvious nods to Guliani). Luis Guzman as 'Ramos' shows him slowly slipping into very minor roles. Denzel sits on his ass and gets paid millions (he gained 20-30 pounds of fat for the role, maybe he hung around Travolta).

The movie runs 96 minutes but Scott jam packs so much footage during the first 10 minutes that it feels like you've spent 2 hrs. in the theater by the time you get to Act 3. Are there twists? Nope. Does Revolta have ulterior motives? Yes. Does Denzel eventually leave the MTA control center and face Revolta? Yes. Should you run out and pay $11.50 to see Travolta do his greatest hits as a villain? Absolutely. The audience I was with was laughing their asses off throughout the movie. I think a large donation of this weekend's profits should go to the MTA to help lower our Metrocard rate next month. Otherwise all of us New York City motherfuckers are fucked, motherfucker!


"Motherfucker!"

Burt Reynolds Website

This site has to be visited, but check out the screenshot of the homepage...



Mustache in all of the pics! Classic Burt.

Travolta might have topped himself already with "Paris"

Here's the trailer for the John Travolta Jonathan Rys-Meyers flick, "From Paris With Love", which looks even funnier than "Pelham 123"

Me Thinks Revolta Is Carving Another Classic Hamfisted Performance...

"Land of the Lost" first bomb of the summer

I love being right. Audiences would rather take a Hangover instead of Will Ferrell getting chased by dinosaurs. Land Of The Lost opened Friday a distant 3rd with just $6.8M from 3,521 runs and a projected $20M weekend. The movie cost $100 million to make. No wonder Ferrell's called a meeting with the gang from Anchorman to make a sequel. Anytime you throw a dinosaur in a summer movie, you've painted a big red X on yourself. And it's hit or miss.

Damien Chapa Will Not Be Remembered in Cinematic History

It kind of sucks when people remember you for one role in a movie that totally sucked, and that would be 'Ken' from Street Fighter. Damien Chapa should be dead by now from the outrage of thousands of geeks worldwide for bastardizing 'Ken.'


Instead he was subjected to minor roles for the next 10+ yrs, most memorably as a stereotypical Italian gangster (he's actually Mexican) in "Money Talks" with Chris Tucker. And if you didn't know he played Roman Polanski in a movie that no one saw. Soon he'll be in a movie called Mexican Vampire (way to go Damien) and Bobby Fischer Live (I wonder how he got ahold of writing, producing, directing and starring as the legendary chess player).

Gung Ho aka Brendan Fraser Interview

Something wrong with this guy. He might have to stop doing the Cocaine. He doesnt even know the character Gung Ho! How can you request to be in this movie and not know one of the popular Joes.

Keep Billy Crystal Away From His Own Movies...

The original City Slickers was a pretty damn good movie (especially since it made Bruno Kirby tolerable for more than one minute with that mustache of his) but they had to go and ruin it by making a sequel after the first made $124 million (not an easy feat in the early '90's) and won Palance the Oscar (and a bunch of one-armed pushups)


This time, they took out Bruno Kirby and replaced him with Jon Lovitz (not such a good thing) and brought back Jack Palance's Curly as a twin that he never mentioned in the first movie.


"Hats off to a bigger paycheck!" - Billy Crystal

Yeah, it's the contrived sequel - bring back what everyone loved - Jack Palance - and make it about the search for Curly's gold. Really? In retrospect Crystal knew he fucked up with a crappy movie and chased the money on this one because it shows. And he made the same mistake with Analyze That because nobody saw that sequel either.



Keep Billy Crystal away from his own movies - he'll make sequels and fail at the box office. People will show up and make his first film a success, then less than a quarter of them will show up for the sequel.

City Slickers (1991): 124 million (USA)
City Slickers 2 (1994): $43 million (USA) Opening: $11 million (USA)
Analyze This (1999): $106 million (USA)
Analyze That (2002): $32,122,249 (USA) Opening $11 million (USA)

Not surprisingly, Hollywood made an unofficial remake of City Slickers with Wild Hogs, which made over $160 million.

You Can Always Tell When John Travolta Is Playing The Villain...

In celebration of the next great John Travolta villain movie, The Taking of Pelham 123, check out Celebrity Outhouse's original mashup of Revolta...

Yahoo Answers Roundup - Bad Actors?

I was on Yahoo Answers and someone posted the question...

WORST ACTOR?

Here are some of the classic responses...

"Kenau Reeves comes to mind. . .he's quite a wooden actor, isn't he. I also think that Tom Cruise isn't "all that". He just has a great marketing team."-kobacker59

"i agree chuck norris and keanu reeves both suck and are bad actors and they can't even act"-Skitty

"I agree with Keanu Reeves, but my personal pick is Mr. Monotone himself, Kevin Costner. He had the same accent in JFK as he did in Robin Hood. In Message In a Bottle, Robin Wright Penn tried so hard to be emotional and old Kevin was as monotone and unemotional as ever."-Patti S

"Truly, I believe Brad Pitt has zero acting skills. His character portrails are never ones that I feel he is getting across."-Fitchurg Girl

"Dan Radcliffe sucks!"-galalae_godess

"There are hardly any good actors out there now-a-days. Hollywood isn't about acting anymore, it's about partying, who's sleeping with who, and their personal lives. Honestly who can say more about someone's acting career then their personal lives. Who's the worst actor?? Take your pick..."-Kajasue123


Skitty posted my favorite response - "...bad actors that can't even act". Have to agree with Galalae too.