Login
The modern Hollywood remake train continues unabated with The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3; flash-over-substance specialist Tony Scott's reimagining of the crackling 1974 suspenser of the same name. In a sense, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is similar to riding the subway: it moves forward at a decent pace, hitting all anticipated stops before reaching a predetermined destination. In other words, it's a suspense movie without any real surprises, twists or turns. Scott also imposes his signature bag of visual tricks - there's incessant camera movement as well as plenty of random zooms, seizure-inducing edits, bleary slow motion, and other assorted forms of superfluous visual assault. However, to the credit of Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland (whose name appears on about as many good films - Mystic River, L.A. Confidential - as bad ones - Sin Eater, The Postman), the story (essentially a psychological thriller) is not transformed into a brain-dead action film. The preposterous climax notwithstanding, this movie is light on pyrotechnics and special effects, and it's surprisingly low-key. Happily, too, it's an engrossing, enjoyable summer flick.
Just like its 1974 predecessor, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 disposes of anything resembling a setup. By the time the opening credits have elapsed, a sociopath who calls himself Ryder (Travolta) and his gang (Guzmán, Gojcaj, Vataj) have hijacked subway train Pelham 123. They take eighteen hostages in the first carriage (letting loose the inhabitants of the other carriages) before Ryder makes his demands known to the MTA: he wants $10 million in cash in an hour or he'll begin executing hostages. Walter Garber (Washington) is the unlucky dispatcher on duty at the time of the hostage-taking, and Ryder refuses to talk to anyone but him.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is the third cinematic incarnation of John Godey's 1973 novel (Joseph Sargent's 1974 movie being the first, and a 1998 television movie being the second). Suiting up the premise for a big-budget modern realisation is understandable since Helgeland is able to alter the original characters and their motivations, as well as updating the concept with modernised plot points (such as one involving a webcam). It's a shame, then, that Helgeland's script lacks surprises. The story has been bled dry of tension due to repetition, so its rote nature is disappointing.
The main divergence between The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and the 1974 original is that the characters are mined for additional depth here. In the original, Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw played simple roles (a hard-working cop and a bitter ex-military type), and their communications often centred on the transaction at hand. In this remake, Garber is given a wife and back-story, while Ryder has a history which reveals his motives (it's unfortunate that cinematic villains must always be explained so elaborately in this day and age, which detracts from the mystery and consequently most of the menace). In addition, the banter between Garber and Ryder is too draggy here. Their discussions about religion add a nice dimension to their relationship, but it's ultimately a lazy way for the villain to let slip personal information which will only undermine him later. At least Helgeland had the good sense to incorporate a nourishing dosage of wit during these lengthy passages of dialogue.
Meanwhile, Ryder's accomplices unfortunately lack distinctive characterisations and names barely stick (the original film gave them memorable colour-coded names - Mr. Grey, Mr. Blue, etc - which was recycled by Quentin Tarantino for Reservoir Dogs). Depiction of the hostages is slipshod in the film as well - clichés are thick (mother and son, the token black guy, etc) and ideas are inadequately explored (talk of taking control of the situation is limited to a few seconds of cheesy discussion).
Another small annoyance with The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is Scott's trademark visual style. To his credit, Scott has actually dialled down his style to an extent for this project (certainly, it isn't as indecipherably jittery as Domino). Following an almost unbearable opening sequence swarming with stylistic overkill, Scott settles down and shows a bit of restraint for the quieter moments. Harry Gregson-Williams' supplementary score is suitably intense, though it lacks the memorable zing of the theme from the 1974 original.
Much of the movie consists of tense verbal standoffs between Garber and Ryder, but Scott does play up the action when available. Most detrimental is the reworked climax which not only deviates from the simple, effective brilliance of the original's finale, but also employs the tritest of clichés: a chase sequence. Other elements, such as gratuitous car crashes (which are very crashy), are included to maintain some level of excitement, but they're easily spotted as slapdash audience response gimmicks. Worse, characters are usually shot in unrealistic hails of bullets (after being shot ten times, characters are still moving). Also, for no reason at all, Garber eventually morphs from humble civil servant and family man to a gun-waving, car-stealing John McClane emulation.
Where Robert Shaw's performance in the original film was calm and chilling, John Travolta plays Ryder like a bipolar bulldog with rabies. The actor was clearly treasuring the opportunity to depict an unhinged lowlife, but his exuberance borders on camp, with his verbal diarrhoea, overzealous shouting and wild gestures far too over-the-top and theatrical for the character. His utterance of the word "motherfucker" is extremely overdone (he also sounds contrived every time he says it). At the other end of the radio, Denzel Washington (who gained a bit of weight for the role) plays Garber as the quintessential everyman. It's an effective, low-key performance infused with humanity.
In the supporting cast there's James Gandolfini who's amiable as the Major, and John Turturro who submits an above-average performance as a professional hostage negotiator.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is not a bad film by any stretch, but it also isn't the great film it had the potential to be. Compared to the 1974 original, this reimagining is shakier, shootier, shoutier, swearier, crashier, and isn't surprising enough. Yet despite its flaws, it's also enjoyable.
6.2/10
