May i have your comments please.

Last night i saw the US movie Unstoppable on Dutch TV for the first time.
I sat down in front of the TV with great expectations,hardly ever do we see trainmovies on our TV.
All in all i was dissapointed,getting to sleep with the feeling "i should have known better".
Why?
Surely,the movie is full of action and music to go with it.
But how do you make a spectacular movie about something not very spectacular in general?

Some European observations on my part:

1.The driver who made the error of letting his train escape is being bullished by his colleagues in harsh terms,are errors not allowed in the USA?
2.The hero loco driver is in constant argument with his helper,why,are they not colleagues?
3.The traffic controller is a pretty female but did she have any railroad experience before she got the job?
4.The hero loco driver skips a siding because there is not enough length there to park his train,so what for heavens sake?
5.Even during moments of trying to survive,the hero loco driver and his helper are having complete conversations about what to do,as if everything requires an userguide.
6.The tracks on which the trains run are in a very poor state,huge locomotives on poor track,oh dear.

And one or two more which on this forum are considered "political".

Your votes please.

That's funny. I really like the movie. Yes it has some overdramatized parts, but all in all I really like it.



It is hardly an error to set aside security practices "just because". He deliberately left the driver's seat of a running engine to run ahead and change a turnout. This cannot be excused as an error. When they realized that the engine was under power, it left the yard faster than they could manage to stop it. The guys is fired, which is appropiate for this sort of neglect. The bullying by the colleages is probably just to picture the rough nature of working at a railroad.


The "helper" is union. He comes from a pool of workers that threatens the jobs of the old dogs. The hero driver is an old dog, he just got fired before the movie starts, because the railroad has discovered that they can save money by hiring new employees. So basically he has no reason to like his helper, as he took his job.


Why is this relevant? Being a pretty female does not exclude being a good traffic controller...


He is an old dog. He knows his railroad. He makes the decision to avoid a collision. The scene is probably there to emphasize who knows best. Disaster movies always has a character that no one believes in but turns out to be the best after all. Movies like this also has a character that everybody hates (the guy at the train company HQ) in this case.


Would you NOT disqus this with your colleague in a situation like this? I don't see why this is wrong.


Have you ever seen an American railroad? Off the main line, this is the way it looks. I think the setting is spot on realistic for this kind of railroad.

Just my 10... :-)

Also,in a frontal collission,the two speeds add up.
So if two trains collide head on each having a speed of say 50 miles/h,the impact speed is 100 miles/h.
If the train with the hero driver would simply stop,impact speed is only half,with crew running from the spot of course.
I do realise this does not make an exciting movie.

Perhaps good to remember same principle applies to car driving.
Recently there was a frontal car collission in The Netherlands with both cars driving at 80 km/h on a two lane road.
For both cars,the complete motor section was ripped off upto the windscreen,airbags in action,total 3 people killed,no survivors.
One of them was a Dutch Marine who survived two direct vehicle attacks in Afghanistan.
Makes one even more cautious on the road.

And what about the absortion of the impact energy?

What i am trying to say is that the impact force of a moving object needs to be absorbed in some sort of way,the impact energy does not evaporate into the blue sky.

If a single train would run into a massive concrete block,the impact energy will be passed to the concrete without too much visible damage.
If however a moving train would run into another train,the impact energy will be partly passed to the other object,right?

If two cars collide head on,and one car is having zero speed,i suppose damage is less as compared to two cars having both a speed,right?
Because of this braking firmly is always the best option when another car comes straight at you,correct?

I am trying to understand Newton in easy language.
I have seen a picture of a frontal car collission with three people dead on the spot,not nice,the absorbtion zones of both cars flattended upto the windscreens,so that is where the impact energy got into,i think.

From the carfront:

My two cents:
The Movie Sucks.
And the FD tells me that I'm too critical .

Mikey

I thought it was an awesome movie. Just don't take it too seriously.

It's far too easy to sit and shout at the screen "do this", or "don't do that" (referring to their efforts to catch the runaway Loco)

Thankfully, I have a copy, I now I feel like watching it. And maybe The Cassandra Crossing.......

I'm easily entertained.

Edited by user 06 June 2018 08:59:11(UTC)  | Reason: Typos

And,Stephen,some like women with pale skin,others like women with dark skin,i like both!
I refer to political aspects of the movie for which discussion on this forum is a no go.

Denzel Washington may be a good actor to some,but in this movie he acts like a robot,hardly any real emotions,having full control all the time,knowing all the right answers,a typical American hero.

Edited by user 06 June 2018 11:27:55(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I must admit that it has been a good remedy for the morning....

Thank you Paul...

I liked the film, despite the mentioned issues.
Remember that a motion picture is first and foremost an economic endeavor to make money through entertainment.
To that end, they have to engage and appeal to a wide audience, and that includes the non-enthusiasts as well as the below average intellect (which is 1/2 the population). To that end, films in the US have a lot of explanatory dialog in them that is totally unrealistic and unnecessary in reality, but is there to inform the audience about facts or background. Then there is the flashy effects that are not realistic (notice how most every explosion tends to be a gasoline explosion with a bright yellow fireball?). It is about entertaining a wide audience and keeping them engaged. Heck in many films I'm always remarking about how unrealistic the street scenes are because in the real world there wold be a LOT of cars and trucks and the actors would spend a lot of the film stuck in traffic going less than 20mph.

I have the best of both worlds.

My lovely wife has a 100% English Father, and a high-percentage Maori (native / indigenous) Mother, who I have to say, was an absolute stunner in her own day.

The result?, a perfect blend. What's not to like!

Generally I like Denzel Washington, and personally I felt he played the role very well, but I fully accept and respect your alternate view also.

I rarely set my expectations very high, and therefore am very rarely disappointed too much with a movie.

We have a saying., "Under-promise, and Over-deliver" (customer satisfaction) - so I take a movie approach, "Under-expect, and Over enjoy"

There are actors I cannot stand, that other people seem to foam at the mouth to get more of (but I'm not naming names)

Movies are very much a question of personal taste. I like some older movies and some new ones, and many in between. I judge each movie on my own viewing of it, and acknowledge that sometimes you have to see a film more than once to "get it".

I dislike many films from the 1950s because I find them long winded and very slow paced. They seem to take forever to develop the plot, and they rarely have clever twists to them. I prefer the fast paced action of more recent movies, even though some have taken it to extremes!

One development in movie technology that was simply not possible 50 years ago is the use of CGI. You can now represent objects or locations that no longer exist in ways that are totally realistic! It has even been extended to people recently. I was shocked when I saw Peter Cushing in one of the latest Star Wars films, years after his death!

Seing that curve at the beginning of the movie, knowing it is a movie about a runaway train, would you have expected anything else?

A non movie train would simply depart from the track and go down,nothing like a roller coaster ride with the right side wheels in the air.

Thanks,Peter,that is a relief to me.