Atomic Popcorn is getting you ready for the winter season with some action to warm up your insides! Denzel, Chris and Rosario erupt in this action packed film from Tony Scott. Unstoppable is invading Baltimore on November 8th and here is your chance to see it before your friends do!

Synopsis:

Oscar-winner Denzel Washington and “Star Trek’s” Chris Pine team with action maestro Tony Scott in this non-stop thriller. A massive unmanned locomotive, nicknamed “The Beast” and loaded with toxic cargo, roars through the countryside, vaporizing anything put in front of it. A veteran engineer (Washington) and a young conductor (Pine), aboard another train in the runaway’s path, devise an incredible plan to try and stop it – and prevent certain disaster in a heavily populated area.

Cast:

Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson.

Trailer Below:

CLICK HERE FOR YOUR PASS:

Secret Code:

ATOMIC6X

Make sure you check out our other free screenings in the Baltimore Area.

He comes striding out of the desert wastelands of the U.S. like a man on a mission. Wearing dark shades, carrying a longbow and a formidable machete, with a single knapsack on his back, that’s exactly what he is. Denzel Washington is the Strong Arm of the Lord and the powerful core of the Hughes Brothers thriller Book of Eli.

We have had more end-of-the-world duress than we can stand lately, but Eli, crowned with excellent and rousing action scenes, evocative cinematography and a refreshing spiritual subtext is the genre’s best entry since they laid Mad Max to rest. Filmgoers looking for a bit of weekend popcorn fun will find themselves surprised by it. This is the apocalypse with a sense of the thought-provoking and the profound. Best of all, it turns out to be a hum-dinger of a samurai film.

When it all ended is never made perfectly clear, because we aren’t ever certain of the current date. Eli, the wandering warrior who evokes the spirit of bushido samurai crossed with an Old Testament prophet, says it’s been 30-plus years since the whole thing broke down. It’s been long enough anyhow for the life expectancy to rapidly drop, rendering most of the current population youngsters who were born after the nuclear apocalypse that ruptured a hole in the Earth’s protective shielding and let in the destructive rays of the sun.

Most of the world is like Solara (Mila Kunis), a feisty young woman living in a wrecked way-station that is learning to be a town again. Solara’s mother (Jennifer Beals) is a blind woman under the forcible control of the town’s leader, the sinister and opportunistic Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Their existence is a stifled and brutal one, but it beats life beyond the protection of the town, where those turned by the sun’s radiation seek out human flesh and the opportunity to waylay passers-by and take their…Wet Naps? Yes, in this moribund future seemingly irrelevant things have become prized possessions.

Enter Eli, who comes into the town carrying with him a book. A book he will protect above all else, and a book that Carnegie needs to get if he ever wants to rule the remainder of the population the way he wants. He pushes, and Eli pushes back, and then the action fireworks fly as Carnegie and his men set out after Eli and Solara, who has bonded with the lone wolf and followed him out of town. Instead of dropping all the film’s most spectacular pieces in one section of the film, the Hughes Brothers have generously spaced the picture’s many battles throughout. The details of a world shattered by war are abundant and specific. One of my favorite scenes involves a hunter stalking game through a forest of snowy white ash and drawing his quarry into his bow’s sights: the menu? Hairless cat.

The acting is top-notch for this kind of thing and the performers don’t look down upon the material or coast on their reputations. Gary Oldman has played bad so many times that his picture is in the dictionary, but he’s never played bad badly and that remains true here where he takes a one-note black hat and transforms him into a dangerously practical man that believes only in power he can wield. I haven’t seen Beals in ages, but she’s radiant and fragile here as Oldman’s downtrodden mate. Mila Kunis as Solara, the acolyte to Washington’s spiritual samurai, shows new facets as an actress that never saw the light during her television days. Michael Gambon plays a crazy farmer who may have eaten more than his fair share of human meat but who’s still willing to help protect Eli and the book he carries. Even Tom Waits shows up as a greaseball engineer. When Waits is the guy recharging your batteries, you know the end is well nigh.

Finally, there is Denzel as Eli. This is one of his best performances. Eli is a man of single-minded determination, carrying what he believes to be hope for all. He is also, when the need arises, capable of swift and violent retribution. Washington understands this and plays his character as a morally righteous man whose faith hasn’t just set him free of the death sentence of this world; it’s also charged him with rescuing it if he can. What he learns along the way is that the secrets housed within his book are more than just words; they have impact he has yet to fully experience. Here is a man who will quote psalms in one breath and blithely decapitate someone with another, and yet he doesn’t come across as a contradiction. This is a magnificent performance in a film that is far better than I would have expected it to be. 2009 was a stellar year for science fiction and if Eli is any indicator, 2010 will give it a run for  its money.

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

Simply judging from the looks of this latest trailer for the Hughes Brothers’ The Book of Eli, we might have our hands on the best post-apocalyptic action film since Mel Gibson took the leather gear off in the 90s.

The Book of Eli, starring Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman and Mila Kunis, centers around Washington’s lone hero Eli, who has in his possession what looks like the biblical book of Genesis, on his quest to reform society. Standing in his way is a small town villain in the form of Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who won’t stop until the book is in his possession.

At this point, The Book of Eli has enough stacked in its favor that I’ll be there opening day. I love this genre, and with Oldman in the villain role, you can do no wrong, and Washington is a proven edgy hero. The Hughes Brothers’ last output was the Alan Moore adaptation From Hell in 2001.

One last, nerdy point — the screenwriting credit caught my eye: Gary Whitta, former Editor-in-Chief for PC Gamer magazine, is making his film debut with this film. Let’s see if his genre knowledge translates to good screenwriting skills. The film is scheduled for release on January 15th, 2010.

Denzel Washington (The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3) strolls his way off of Unstoppable, the film being spewed out of Twentieth Century Fox. Originally negotiating re-teaming yet again with Tony Scott, he jumps ship after the estimated release date and production budget took too long to gather together. 

Currently onboard with the upcoming production is Chris Pine who was set to co-star alongside the actor and Tony Scott possibly sitting along in the director’s chair again. This would have been another pairing between him and Scott, working with him already in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and Deja Vu. Despite all of this, money issues overall prevented continuing this pairing.

Denzel’s latest role will be the title character in The Book of Eli, opening on January 15th, 2010.

I’ve seen a great number of films, and experienced a great deal of villainy. One of the recent villainous greats was Heath Ledger’s interpretation of The Joker in The Dark Knight. Ledger’s version of The Joker gave the character a whole new shade. His take was a whole new voice compared what we’d seen in comics and previous Batman films – literally. But, more importantly, he was a character with depth and emotion. And, he was evil. He created tension and dread amongst the characters in the film and the audience in their seats.

John Travolta’s character, Ryder, the lead villain of our film, certainly does and says things that bad guys should. He yells “motherfucker” every chance he has, has tattoos, and tries to establish a few catchphrases. But acting like a villain, and being a villain are two different things. The Joker created an atmosphere of fear and panic in Gotham City. Ryder, on the other hand, seems to work from his Cliff Notes version of the villain handbook. His henchmen seem interesting, but we’re not given any details on them – they might as well have “Hired Goon #2” signs around their neck. A shame, too, since we’re provided with a former MTA employee who seems defeated and almost regretful he’s involved in the scheme. We have a trigger happy silent killer who effortlessly identifies and murders a non-uniformed police officer. They certainly seemed interesting, but we’re instead left with Travolta’s villain caricature.

Denzel Washington is our hero, Garber, who is surprisingly not a cop – but a subway dispatcher with his own issues. He’s a little pudgy, grayed, and isn’t always sure of the right thing to say. But, beyond that, his character also brings nothing new to the table. Likewise, the hostages seem to be paper-thin personalities as well. A super-cool teenager named George (“Geo” to his friends) seems like he was casted first, and detailed later. I won’t try to figure out why his laptop, with his stripping girlfriend on webcam, was never noticed by the bad guys, but, well, it is a movie, after all. Additional characters (no-nonsense cops, a beleaguered but passionate mayor) bring their personalities to the party, and seem equally hollow.

But that’s Pelham 123 in a nutshell. It’s definitely not a bad film, but I expect a bit more from Tony Scott after a strong thriller like Man on Fire. Examining Pelham seems to suggest that the filmmakers took a known story, and filled in the basic action formula pieces. I hate to say that the film comes off a bit lazy, but I’m not sure how else to see it. A film like this, centered on a heist, depends on its villain, and the relationship between antagonist and protagonist. I never felt that connection between Garber and Ryder was there. They simply spoke into a radio and replied to each other. Furthermore, the film displays a clock to transition scenes – Ryder and his gang have given the city of New York one hour to deliver ten million dollars. But, since we know that heist movies never get the money to the bad guys on time, we don’t even care about the clock. And, later, Garber somehow gets dragged into the confrontation physically, despite him not being a cop – but he’s the star of the film, so of course he has to face off with Ryder. Right?

Again, let me repeat: not a bad movie. But it wants to be so much more. It wants to be a thriller. Blurry editing, sped-up car chases, and bloody gun brawls don’t make a thrilling film. Intensity does. And this movie simply didn’t have it.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

PHILIP BARRETT: Give Tony Scott credit, he’s improved over his career. He went from being his generation’s Michael Bay (see: Top Gun, Days of Thunder) to developing his own style and being a legitimately good filmmaker (see: Man on Fire, Enemy of the State.) One could say he learned a thing or two from brother Ridley about putting his characters and story hand-in-hand with style (you could also make the case for Ridley as well as his films have become more stylized over the years.) The result? Better films from a very talented action director who looks to continue his partnership with The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

PLUS1: When I see the name “Tony Scott” I know that I’m getting an action flick that has a great sense of style and knows where the start, middle, and end should be. Enemy of the State is one of my all time favorite Tony Scott movies and Pelham 1 2 3 has the same action and gritty moments throughout the film. In Pelham 1 2 3, Tony Scott manages to put the characters and the story ahead of the “let’s blow things up” mentality that most directors seem to showcase now-a-days. By doing that, he gives a movie that has a dynamic amount of character and plots that keeps the audience hooked from start to finish.

ERIK BUCKMAN: Fans of Tony Scott’s approach to film will thoroughly enjoy Pelham 1 2 3 for its lavish effects, erratic cinematography and excitement for over-the-top violence. Others may loathe it.

PBAR: Pelham‘s biggest problem is that it truly does feel like a bus ride. When it moves, it’s on fire and accelerates at a very high pace. When it slows down, it moves at a crawl waiting for us to get on so we can advance to the next stop.

BUCKMAN: Once the camera stops moving long enough to spot a discernible image of our characters, we notice that John Travolta and Denzel Washington are actually starring in this. Good thing, because without them and their charm, Scott’s Pelham 1 2 3 would plummet into flames. Instead, it’s a slow burn. Mr. Travolta, who really hasn’t been this fun since Face/Off, is on the verge of bringing depth to his character but is grounded by his character’s unbelievable background and agenda. Thanks to a story focused largely on under-developed characters with desires on paper only, the convenience of the plot advances are staggering.

PBAR: Getting back to Travolta, he’s honestly the best thing on this bus ride. I love me some Denzel and while he’s good here (as always) it’s Travolta who takes the show. His character of “Ryder” (which is a reference to the original) shows that Travolta is having the most fun he’s had in years. Years from now there will probably be a drinking game of how many times he utters the word “fucker.”

Like oh mah gah! I got a gun, oh mah gah!

BUCKMAN: Seemed like 23 “motherfuckers” as well, yet only three working on this review.

PLUS1: To me Travolta and Washington were needed as I could not see anyone else playing these parts. Travolta played “Ryder” with fun, excitement, and mystery in a way that was very reminiscent of the character he played in Swordfish. As a fan, there is something amazing about Travolta and the charm he brings to the characters handed to him. As for Washington, he needed a good movie as the past few he had been in were box office flops. Pelham 1 2 3 gives Washington the vehicle needed to bring him back to the mainstream as a great actor. The trials his character Walter Garber went through from the start of the movie to the end showed that not everyone is perfect but if given the chance you can fix any mistake possible.

BUCKMAN: Aside from Denzel and Travolta, the other star of the film appears to be modern technology. Complete with web cams, Bluetooth earpieces, an insatiable gossip-hungry mainstream media and an all-mighty WI-FI connection, Scott’s Pelham also makes its most telling change yet: the bad guy worked on Wall Street which is now the epitome of evil.

PBAR: My biggest issue with the plot was how it did little to nothing with all the technology Buckman mentioned. The one kid who has the laptop with the webcam was fine and he actually had more depth than any of the other side characters, but Pelham doesn’t do anything with his camera. When the villains do discover it’s on, it’s more of an “Oh, that’s too bad” rather than general anger that they’ve now been identified on national television. Unless I missed something, they were pretty inconspicuous so I’d doubt they wanted to be caught.

BUCKMAN: In this modern tale of the Pelham train, it seems the only aspect (besides the plot) that was kept from the original was its claustrophobic fright. Standing on it’s own, does Pelham 1 2 3 work? It does. When comparing it to the original, it most certainly does not.

PLUS1: The plot was a roller-coaster ride that knew when to peak and valley at the given times keeping everyone on the edge of the seat and wondering what would happen next. For that, I give Tony Scott major props for not making a booring movie and keeping the audience entertained every step of the way.

That one snafu about the web-cam can be overlooked. If you remember, the bad guys heard the beeping of the battery dieing and when they looked at the laptop the screen had just gone blank. Yeah they should have shown some anger toward what happened but in their defense they knew they were getting off the train soon with the money promised to them.  Ok…I helped fix the plot hole…yeah, that was one major mistake that was overlooked. As for the “secondary” cast, it consisted of names that you’ll recognize: James Gandolfini, Luis Guzman, and John Turturro. Each brought their unique acting style to very cookie-cutter characters and managed to give life to characters that could have been used as filler for the plot.

PBAR: The biggest disappointment I had with the secondary cast was how little they used John Turturro. Scott’s not above having colorful characters in his films and Turturro made Mr. Deeds tolerable and was the best human character in Transformers. Turturro doesn’t feel there, like anyone else could have done this role and the movie wouldn’t have suffered any less.

At the end of the day, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 isn’t a terrible movie, it’s just a semi-decent one. Tony Scott does ok work, but his style seems out of place here and Brian Helgeland’s script is pretty bland. But, for those looking for an adult flick as it should entertain.

PLUS1: I liked this movie. I thought the action and suspense were the right formula to make this a good popcorn flick and an enjoyable evening out at the movies.

BUCKMAN: For inconsequential summer features, audiences could do worse than this but for viewers looking for an up-scaled version of the original, you may find that your money has run out

PBAR’S Grade -

Rating: ★★½☆☆