HTF REVIEW: "Training Day" - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (1 Viewer)

[Martice]

Great movie and acting. My wife was saying to her self all through the movie that Denzel was breaking her heart with his acting in the film. It was refreshing to see him "out of character" in this film and the film kept me guessing to how it would end.

Nice review Ron.

Will be picking this one up.

 

[EricW]

i thought the movie was only okay, perhaps because i was going in with really high expectations, and the trailer was that good.

the ending left something to be desired; i thought the scene where Washington gets shot by the Russians
was waaaay too Hollywood. something outta Bad Lieutenant
would have been so much better.

 

[Sean Moon]

Ok...so it doesnt spoil anything, so I can rest easy. It is just when you read that a main character is shot in his bathtub that kinda sends the impression of a major spoiler. So sorry I freaked out on that one.

Otherwise, my expectations are even higher now for this disc.

 

[Dave H]

Ethan Hawke was as good as Denzel, if not better.

I know everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but Hawke as good as Washington??!! Actually, I thought Hawke was pretty weak and I would have liked to have seen someone else play his character. I think Denzel stole the entire movie.

I agree with others that this wasn't a great movie - it was decent. But Washington's performance was so good that this is an easy purchase for me.

 

[EricW]

Actually, I thought Hawke was pretty weak and I would have liked to have seen someone else play his character.

well, it's hard to compare. Washington's was a showcase "gimme a nomination" role. it'd be like comparing Chris O'Donnell's part in Scent of a Woman to Pacino's. I thought Hawke was great in Training Day.

 

[Dave H]

Even though they each played different roles, I don't think it's hard to judge or compare who simply *acted* or *performed* better for his role.

I never saw Scent of A Woman.

 

[Tino]

I agree. Ethan Hawke acted, Denzel Washington performed.
Like I said, I look forward to revisiting this title to see if I still feel the same way, and judging by Ron's review, it sounds like they did a very good job with the DVD.

 

[Dave H]

So, Denzel Washington didn't act in Training Day?! Ummm, okay.

 

[Tino]

Ummmm...guess you're still missing my point.
Since this thread is a about the DVD release, I suggest we continue this discussion in the Movies section where I'd be more than happy to explain why I think Ethan Hawkes role was harder and better acted than Denzel's.

 

[Dave H]

Tino,

If I'm missing your point, then you need communicate and identify your terms more clearly. How do you define "acting" and how do you define "performing"?

I never said that Hawkins' role was "easier" than Washington's. My point is was that he wasn't as good. If you want to continue this in "Movies," that's fine.

 

[Jon_B]

Sounds like a good one Ronald. When I read your review I instinctively skipped past the deleted scenes part ( even if you didn't give anything away in it). I look forward to seeing this one.

Jon

 

[Tino]

O.K. Dave, I'll spell it out for you.
****SOME SPOILERS****
In My Opinion, I thought Ethan Hawke,(not Hawkins), gave a better performance than Denzel because as Eric pointed out, and I agree with, Denzel's performance was a by the numbers decent performance. Good but nothing extraordinary.
I thought Ethan Hawke's performance was harder since he had to constantly react to the unbelievable situations unfolding before him and go through a much wider range of emotions than Denzel's character did. Hawke's character was much more interesting to me than Denzel's was and I thought his performance was more heartfelt.
O.K? That's why I thought Ethan Hawke
acted, which is harder than performing, which is what, In My Opinion, Denzel Washington did. Now if YOU want to discuss this further, start up a thread in the Movies section. It's just not that important to me.
And like I said before, Ron's review of the forthcoming DVD of Training Day has piqued my interest in seeing it again. I'm curious to see the deleted scenes which sound very interesting. Nice review Ron.

 

[Dave H]

Tino,

I understand what you are saying, even though I don't necessarily agree entirely.

****SPOILERS******

I do agree that Ethan's role was more difficult being that he was a rookie undercover cop. Obviously, the circumstances were a bit more complex. However, I just felt that Ethan didn't come across as strong as he should have - given the fact that, his character, was ultimately portrayed as being strong, by the end. I understand he was new on the job that day and a little bit timid. But, as the movie went along, I didn't think he was as much of an "impact" as the character should have been or could have been. I'm sure the other actors out there that could have played that role much better.

Washington has never played such a vindictive character before - nothing really close that I can think of right now. I think this showed what tremoundous acting skills he has. I mean I was just shaking my head watching some of his acting during this movie. He was extremely dynamic and powerful - leaving an impact by his actions and words. Just the way he talked with people on the street and the things he would say was so lively (or electrical). Denzel has proven he can act in a variety of different roles and characters.

On any rate, I'll be picking this up the first day it comes out and I'm glad to hear Warner did a great job on this DVD.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It sounds like we need to open another thread in Movies to discuss which acting performance was the most impressive in this film. Just a small hint! Furthermore, here's a thread all prime and ready for such a discussion.
Crawdaddy

 

[Bryant Trew]

This movie was a let down. Denzil was played up, because he is a big hollywood star. Normally the antihero is not given this much precedence.
Anywayz - if you want to see Denzel act, buy Malcolm X. There really is no substitute.

 

[Jussi Tarvainen]

I have never sat and watched a film anticipating
what is going to happen next as the plot gets deeper
and more twisted by every passing moment.

Eh... am I the only one who noticed this slip-up among Ron's hyperbole-filled review?
But seriously, the ending had major problems. It's a shame, really, since the first 3/4 of the movie were so good.

 

[Matt Stone]

I agree...while I didn't like most of the movie, I would have appreciated it a hell of a lot more if the ending wasn't so stupid.

 

[Tino]

Well Dave, after this morning's Oscar nominations, I guess we were both right.

 

[Dave H]

 

[Darrin B]

I got to see this film last night. I can really see why it

came and went in theaters. I don't think it was a bad film,

but it was just missing something. I think Denzel's performance was good. I think he is always good. Was it

worthy of an oscar nomination?....I don't think so. I think

too many people are raving about his performance because of

the type of character he played. It was the first time

people got a chance to see him as a ruthless villian and

as always, he was good. I was a little more impressed with

Ethan Hawke I must admit. I have seen Ethan in a few films

and thought he was always a weak actor. This was the first

time I saw some talent there. And again, was HIS performance

worthy of an oscar nomination....NO. What was up with the

whole russian thing?? Was that was to fill an empty plot

hole? To be truthful, I think that was my biggest problem

with the film. Also, I think Scott Glen was miscast BIG-TIME

in his role.