Problem is you can't do a big-budget thriller nowadays and LEAVE OUT all the tedious backstory. The studios simply won't allow it and, more importantly, the stars themselves seem to dig it, too.

Alas...

Hmm. Okay, I am beginning to understand your screen name now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well, one of the definitions of the term "movie star" is someone who is enormously charismatic, but is always (or almost always) playing some variation of themselves. James Stewart, Cary Grant, John Wayne were protean talents but c'mon folks, let's not kid ourselves, they weren't "chameleons" in the sense that, for example, the unbelievably brilliant but somewhat LESS charismatic Alec Guiness was. Nor did we want them to be. We wanted them to be who they were.

So saying that a particular actor has a "limited range" does not necessarily signify a lack of talent or charisma or make them any less great, since so many of America's favorite iconic stars (once again, Stewart, Grant, Eastwood, Wayne, McQueen, Bogart, Cagney, Woody Allen) are almost always (they would OCCASIONALLY try to "stretch" by doing a character part) playing variations of themselves.

Sure it does. High profile media types will as a matter of course single out Catholicism and "right wing Christianity" for rebuke and condemnation. (Michael Moore was doing that very thing three days ago).

But do they ever -- and I mean EVER -- single out Islam for IT'S oppressive policies?

You should live so long.

Nope. Sorry. Strongly disagree. That wasn't a "hole in the script." Any hack writer could have contrived a by-the-numbers shoot-out (or the equivalent) where Robert Shaw gets his comeuppance in utterly predictable fashion.

But the way they did it was smarter. And cooler. And a helluva lot more unexpected.

And it was oddly true to the character.

And yeah to me it was every bit as satisfying.

Kudos to screenwriter Peter Stone for coming up with it (it wasn't in the book -- neither was the absolutely brilliant "gezzundeit" ending!)

Disagree. Travolta is enormously talented and boasts star quality to burn (especially in middle age, just watch GET SHORTY again if you don't believe me)... but...

The remake of PELHAM 1 2 3 pales in comparison to the original.

Love Travolta in BLOW OUT, SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, PULP FICTION, GET SHORTY, PRIMARY COLORS, etc. He just has more bad films on his resume than good ones.

He needs to pick his roles better.

A nearly perfect movie, and the ending is glorious.

Agreed. Its cool and interesting to see what it looked and felt like ON FILM... not in real life.

Totally agree with your love for this movie (not to mention GUNGA DIN) but don't kid yourself about Walter Matthau. Although he was a tremendous talent -- one of the finest, most distinctive actors of his generation -- he still made his share of clunkers just like anyone. Just watch BUDDY BUDDY or THE SURVIVORS or OUT TO SEA or GRUMPIER OLD MEN or THE ODD COUPLE 2 if you don't believe me.

Still, the guy was wonderful and made a ton of great movies, including this one, CHARADE, CHARLEY VARRICK, HOPSCOTCH and so many more.

Agree with everything you just said -- and passionately too -- except your dissing of PERSON OF INTEREST which, at least in the first 6 or 7 episodes (the only onesl I've seen) went out of its way to AVOID many of the traps you mentioned. Indeed in many ways it was a throwback to the "classic" era of TV storytelling, with no boring B and C-stories being dwelled on, but instead just a good, tough, twisty -- occasionally violent -- thriller each week.

But maybe POI has changed since October, I just don't know.

But yeah, I really miss the days before B, C and D stories and labored "backstory" became the norm.