Atomic Popcorn brings you yet another Top 10 list! This time we are bring you a list of some of the best on-screen duo’s there are! Below is a list of my top 10 on-screen duo’s of coarse you will have your own opinion. I promise to not use the word chemistry more than 4 times also!

If you all have any ideas for a top 10 list or want to see something specific send us an email at top10@atomicpopcorn.net and we will try and get it up here for you.

Without further ado, here is what I think are the top 10 on-screen duo’s of recent memory.

10. Ben Affleck & Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting- This unlikely duo of two kids from Boston making a movie based on something they wrote. Well the movie was a hit and the duo are still just that in Hollywood. Damon and Affleck both have a great career both behind and in front of them.

9. Will Smith and Martin Lawrence in Bad Boys- who can see these guys without at least humming “Bad Boy Bad Boys, whatcha gonna do?” I know I can’t. A great on screen chemistry between these overly large men. The acting is on par with any action flick but these two bring to the table something special. I think they may be channeling a little something from another of our top 10 contenders for Top 10 Duo’s.

8. John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction – These extremely violent yet stupid criminals made a movie and a career for a certain Director. While these two came onto the scene quietly, they left with a very large bang after this film. Such chemistry and great writing lead these guy’s onto our Top 10 list.

7. Sam and Frodo in LOTR Trilogy – This unlikely duo has melted ring’s around the world. All jokes aside about being gay lovers, this on-screen duo shares a lifetime of pain and love throughout these films. This duo was something that I don’t we had seen on screen in a while. A true chemistry between two guys in the midst of uncertain times.

6. Brad Pitt and George Clooney in the Ocean’s franchise – two of Hollywood’s leading men, leading the charge for some awesome bank robbing. What more can you want from two Joe Cool’s. Great acting, great suave, these two ooze cool.

5. Tyler and The Narrator in Fight Club – Didn’t we just mention Joe Cool above this, well he is back along side Edward Norton as number 5 on our list. These two really gave us a run for our money in Fight Club. Writing aside, the acting between these two made the movie what it is today.

4. Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in the Lethal Weapon franchise – oh my, two entirely different people trapped with one another made these two real men of the 80′s. The boys of Lethal Weapon brought to the screen an on-screen chemistry that not many have or will match. The laughs, the tears, the fights, true brothers ended up on screen with these two crazies!

3. Woody and Buzz from the Toy Story franchise – Yes I am well aware that they are artistically enhanced characters. Yes I am also aware I have a animated feature as my number 3. Without a doubt you have to include Tom Hanks and Tim Allen on this list. Starting as fierce rivals for Andy’s love, they have grown into a duo among the best. The interaction and delivery from this duo brings to life what we only know as animated history!

2. Robert Redford and Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Sting – Suave and complete. The acting and everything that follows and it includes these guys had it and brought it to the screen. These movies are classics for two reason and the two reason are the men above and below this blurb. These guys we looked at the men of men and rightfully so.

1. Steve Martin and John Candy in Planes, Trains and Automobiles – the funny men of the 80′s paired together to bring to the screen one of the best on screen duo’s ever. With Candy gone we can only assume what could of been but this was and is still a great movie. Due in large, or in whole, to these two completely crazy comedians.

Meet Charlie Wax. He’s a loud, boorish American whose bald-head, quirky shades and ‘screw you’ attitude suggest Bruce Willis’ midlife crisis. Charlie is also a spy, living in France while working to stop an intricate and dangerous web of Chinese drug dealers and Pakistani terrorists. Spy protocol would suggest dealing with such a complex and seemingly unrelated web of villains evasively and covertly. Not Charlie, who snorts coke, tear-asses through Paris shooting people and gleefully fires a rocket launcher from a bridge during rush hour.

Wax is an action movie creature of habit, all macho swagger and raving lunacy while somehow still playing for the home team, and he is on full display in Pierre Morel’s From Paris With Love. In better days we would get Willis as Charlie, but now must settle for John Travolta in the role. To his credit, he certainly gives it his all. Deliriously unhinged and trying to chew up the rest of the scenery he missed in last year’s Pelham, Travolta behaves as if he’s in a different picture than everyone else.

Unfortunately for everyone else, including Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Wax’s straight laced foil, the movie they are in is a frustratingly erratic affair that can’t decide whether it’s a colorful cartoon of explosions and chase scenes or some sort of serious espionage thriller. News flash to director Pierre Morel, who gave us last year’s Taken (aka Liam Neeson eats Paris); when your material focuses on a bald American biker taking on offensively one-dimensional evil nationalities while being as rude as humanly possible, ‘serious’ is not something you should even consider.

All of this has been envisioned as a kind of buddy movie, and it wants desperately to work. On some level, there’s a fun, go-for-broke, b-flick hidden amongst the over-heated pseudo-drama, but not enough of this irritating onion’s skin gets peeled to make it palatable. The obvious problem out of the starting gate is the same one that really prevented me from just going along for this arson-filled ride; it is painfully obvious that Meyers and Travolta have no chemistry together at all.

Meyer’s James Reece is a government agent with a wonderful girlfriend and a few quickly sketched character quirks who almost immediately finds himself with a target on his head when he meets the reckless Wax. After that, Morel and scripter Luc Besson throw the two through an escalating series of emotional plot hoops that eventually decimate any goodwill that Travolta has earned. Schizophrenic is an understatement and I like to imagine that Besson’s plotting technique involves throwing darts at an open page of the Flammable Materials handbook.

The action scenes have a certain goofy sensibility but they have none of the kinetic energy or playful spirit that Besson’s best films possessed. I’m a huge fan of The Big Blue, Leon: The Professional, The Fifth Element and Morel’s earlier District B-13, but each of those films had the courage of their nutty convictions. They were big stupid events that circumvented dimness by injecting serious doses of wit and irony into their characters. Even less-than-successful later pics like Kiss of the Dragon had the benefit of a strong rapport between the leads. Sadly, Paris has neither and it suffers for that.

But, stodgy critic guy, doesn’t Paris work as a turn-your-brain-off Friday night action flick? Isn’t that all it wants to be? Perhaps, and while I suppose there will be a small audience who buy what it’s trying to sell, it’s safe to say that Love isn’t the kind of thrill ride anyone will remember tomorrow. I had trouble staying connected while it was playing.

It’s rather fortuitous that District 13:Ultimatum, the sequel to Morel’s own 2006 actioner, also opens today because it provides a perfect counterpoint to my argument. That film is no less violent, unhinged or dopey than Paris, but it works because of a single-minded devotion to its mad, mad premise, because it generates a real energy in its action scenes and delivers believable camaraderie between its leads. Paris fails not because of what it is, but because of how poorly it goes about being what it is. The result is a tedious popcorn flick that’s more glaring than Travolta’s hairless noggin.

From the director of Wild Hogs comes Old Dogs, which looks equally awful, but Walt Becker has a good rhyme scheme going for his career, especially considering Wild Hogs 2 is on the horizon.

That’s right, John Travolta is returning for another career thrashing with the director who showed promise with the Ryan Reynolds vehicle Van Wilder but little after that. Robin Williams is also here to squander the good will he’s earned with World’s Greatest Dad. In fact, this is looking like a bad situation for many talented people, including Seth Green, Justin Long, Matt Dillon, Rita Wilson, Dax Shepard and Bernie Mac (!?).

The film, scheduled to be released on November 25, 2009, centers around two friends (Travolta and Williams) who suddenly find themselves taking care of twin 7-year-olds. You wouldn’t be able to guess this from the trailer though, which reveals nothing about the plot and is horribly paced. Seriously, in a world of advertising post-Where the Wild Things Are, this is inexcusable. Still interested? Check it out below.

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☆☆ 

This one is called “Bolt” and features the voice talents of Malcolm McDowell, John Travolta, and Miley Cyrus. Click the link to see the trailer at Empire Online’s website.