Login
What I would like to know is how the hell did they manage to snag the great Michael Caine for this!? Can it really get worse than part three as they say? I'm kind of nervous to find out, but I like to finish what I start. I have never seen anything from Joseph Sargent although he directed the original Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. I have also never heard of the writer for this one. I am not expecting much considering how low this is rated and how people tend to despise this somehow even more than the previous. Let me just go ahead and get this over with.
Well the plot is a bit silly that's for sure. I will admit though I didn't hate this as much as I thought I would. It was actually better than part three by quite a bit. They ditched the stupid animation that made the previous one look extra cheap. The animatronics were much better as well. The death count was extremely low here, but in fact I think the ones that happened were done well. It does have some stuff that makes no sense and it does indeed hit points of stupidity. Other than that I was kind of entertained.
The characters were likable. Of course a few things seem to be illogical given the characters' histories, but they kind of explain it in a sense. Jake was one of my favorite characters although I wish Mario Van Peebles had just used his regular voice. I got a little annoyed with his accent at times because it seemed a bit cheesy and he faltered a few times. Lorraine Gary was one hot grandma lol. On a serious note her character felt a bit corny but understandably so.
Don't hate me for thinking this wasn't so bad. I mean it is, but I really don't think it's the worse of the series. The acting wasn't half bad, but a few characters could use some work. There were some silly ideas and others that worked well. Thank goodness for the practical effects returned. The low death count was fine as they utilized the ones they had well. I guess it was better than I thought because of my extremely low expectations.
