Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?
Re "Is that a joke?"
Ahh, yes--it doesn't surprise me that that parenthetical draws a response (likely from a Ridley partisan). No, to answer your (mildly condescending) question, I'm not joking. Neither should either of us be interested in having an off-topic argument (which I think is where this would head based on your tone) in a thread with Ron and Crawdaddy present!
Re "Apart from the fact that they both have the word "Man" in the title I can't see any connection or "intertextuality" between these two movies. Totally different in every respect."
I disagree but am disinclined to argue my perspective if you already feel they are "totally different." I was reminded of the debt/homage to
Dog Day Afternoon that Nick Cassavetes acknowledges in his
John Q commentary. Similarly for me, IM's storyline is broadly informed by MM. Both are New York-set thrillers that involve ill-gotten gains (diamonds) and retribution against a Nazi war criminal. IIRC Spike even mentions MM on his IM commentary.
Perhaps my punctuation was misleading, but the more important point was less what I and other critics see those two films broadly having in common with each other than what came to mind about both while watching
Pelham: they, too, are either set in or have a flavor of 1970s New York, its ethnicities and tensions. In the case of IM, a hostage crisis is involved wherein the perps' initial intentions are for no one to get hurt despite their disingenuous threats to the contrary. I like Todd McCarthy's comment in his IM review and find it relevant (but not as applicable) WRT Sargent's work on
Pelham: ". . . the substance of the film consists as much in its texture and details as its plot."
