Unstoppable (D)

The misleadingly titled ‘Unstoppable’ tells the story of two ordinary working men’s brave attempt to stop a runaway train before it crashes into small town America. It’s hard to talk about ‘Unstoppable’ without drawing comparisons with Tony Scott and Denzel Washington’s last collaboration, ‘The Taking of Pelham 123’. That was a remake, and a lacklustre one at that. Well for some reason, Scott decided to remake it again and call it ‘Unstoppable’. OK, so their both about trains, it’s an easy dig to take, but the similarities between the two films don’t end there. As with ‘Pelham 123’, ‘Unstoppable’ is built around the relationship between two men. In the earlier film, the manic and not particularly menacing John Travolta plays off of Denzel Washington’s strong and noble working man whose job is in jeopardy. In ‘Unstoppable’, Denzel Washington plays a strong and noble man whose job is in jeopardy. Frank Barnes (Washington) is a veteran railroad engineer who has recently received a letter saying that his employment will end imminently. This film’s integral relationship is between Barnes and Will Colson (Chris Pine), an uppity young buck who’s new on the job. From when they first meet, there is tension between the old and the new. However, the men soon bond through discussion of their problems and must work together if they are to prevent disaster when a feckless rail worker accidently lets loose an unmanned train carrying explosive chemicals .

The dynamic between Washington and Pine is good, they make a likable if clichéd odd couple. But their relationship seems forced and rushed as they leap from the mistrustful/ argumentative stage to the mutual respect/friendship stage in the blink of an eye. Like Colson and Barnes, all the other characters are 2D cut-outs from the genre handbook and none of them are given chance to flourish. Rosario Dawson has a central role as the person responsible for running the day to day management of the trains and spends the film relaying information to our two heroes from a control room which, yet again, is reminiscent of ‘Pelham 123’. Lew Temple’s character Ned, meant to fill the obligatory role of comic relief, seems like he fell foul of the editing process as he appears at the start and the end but not much in between. Character development is not top of Tony Scott’s list of priorities. He’s more interested in his train. It’s almost like the little boy grew up and bought himself a life-size train set. And we see the train from every conceivable angle, a lot! Yes, Scott’s trademark use of frantic editing is back and more nauseating than ever. Scott’s camera is always in motion but not in a Martin Scorsese type way. It is artless and gives the impression that the director doesn’t know what he’s doing. Worrying, considering he’s been making movie for over 30 years. Scott has also developed an annoying directorial tick of zooming into, what seems like, almost every shot. The director is obviously under the impression that such techniques are effective ways of creating exciting action or of building tension. Unfortunately they’re more headache inducing than adrenaline pumping.

What’s also frustrating about ‘Unstoppable’ is that Scott attempts to ground it in the real world with his reminder that it is based on a true story and the research which has gone into train terminology and slang. But the actions of the characters just wouldn’t make sense in reality. Scott’s universe is one very much like our own at first glance. But on closer inspection we notice that everything is slightly different. Characters make strange decisions and cars have a habit of crashing and somersaulting through the air with only the slightest provocation. I noticed this first in ‘Pelham 123’ and cursed the stupidity of it then. Much to my annoyance, Tony Scott continues his use of automobile acrobatics in ‘Unstoppable’. It’s the perfect example of Scott forcing action the films where it just doesn’t fit. The reason he feels the need to do this is because the premise just doesn’t actually allow for much exciting action and in fact, the real life event on which it is based was a much milder affair than Scott’s vision of it. The whole idea of the film should have been dismissed within 5 minutes of it being thought up. Instead, it was made into $100million movie.

It needs a villain, a human villain. Had this been an out and out rip-off of ‘Speed’ then it might have been a little more enjoyable. But because there is no terrorist, master thief or general lunatic, the action is manufactured by the numerous bizarre decisions made by various characters. Even the motivations of the two heroes are unclear and unrealistic. Why do they decide it is worth risking their lives to stop this ‘unstoppable’ train? It would make sense if they were doing it to save others but it is never established that anyone else is in danger- the train has no passengers and the towns it is set to pass through have been evacuated. Oh, but the loss of the train and its cargo will be of massive financial cost to the rail company. Well that’s sure to put us on the edge of our seat! What also makes their decision bizarre is that both have families. Barnes’s daughters watch the news coverage of the chase from the Hooters in which they work, surrounded by punters and fellow busty barmaids. Colson’s estranged wife and child watch from their living room horrified at the possibility that daddy might die before their very eyes. The film relies on us caring about the fate of the two protagonists, but how can we when they have voluntarily and unnecessarily put themselves in a high risk situation which could leave their children fatherless. Maybe the characters themselves are as aware as we are that everything will be alright in the end.

Because of its many shortcomings, ‘Unstoppable’ feels like a small film, a B-movie almost, despite the explosions, crashes and A-list leads. But this is $100 million movie! It’s big budget stuff, albeit at the lower end of big budget in comparison with the $200million plus monsters such as ‘Inception’ and ‘Avatar’. It’s badly paced and badly directed- relying on cheap tricks whilst prioritising action over storytelling. It never even approaches the levels of white knuckle excitement to which it aspires. Its only redeeming quality is the acting of its three leads; Dawson, Pine and Washington, but even so, the characters they portray are poorly developed and we are never given reason to care about their fate.

When Denzel Washington was asked recently why he keeps making movies with Tony Scott (it’s their 5th), his response was simple "We make good movies together - period,”. On recent evidence, I’m afraid I can’t concur. ‘Unstoppable’ is a train wreck- period

D

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	Unstoppable Happens Your Topics / Personal Lives	Sheridan Passell	2	593	August 13, 2010, 05:54:51 PM by dnwilliams