Either I’m getting way too familiar with Tony Scott’s usual style or this movie just doesn’t do much of what I had in mind. THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 for the most part is full of suspense, pulse-pounding and surprisingly dramatic but… it’s got flaws that end up making the experience unsatisfactory. No doubt that Denzel and Travolta are impressive actors in their own rights, but certain aspects hold their characters back. It’s a fun movie that I’ll never watch twice
In “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3,” Denzel Washington stars as New York City subway dispatcher Walter Garber, whose ordinary day is thrown into chaos by an audacious crime: the hijacking of a subway train. John Travolta stars as Ryder, the criminal mastermind who, as leader of a highly-armed gang of four, threatens to execute the train’s passengers unless a large ransom is paid within one hour. As the tension mounts beneath his feet, Garber employs his vast knowledge of the subway system in a battle to outwit Ryder and save the hostages. But there’s one riddle Garber can’t solve: even if the thieves get the money, how can they possibly escape?
I’ve never seen the original movie starring the late great Walter Mathau but now I need to.. for comparison purposes. Director Tony Scott returns and he’s not bringing anything new to the table, it’s the same type of Tony Scott movies we’ve seen for years. I’m not necessarily complaining because I enjoyed DeJa Vu and Man on Fire, but it feels like it’s gotten kinda old. Someone told me once that Scott’s directing is A-D-D directing and he’s right, I couldn’t have said it any better. You’d watch a scene for example and flashes of other scenes would randomly stop by and then it changes to another situation quickly, like a guy who gets easily distracted.. or easily bored at one thing and can’t wait to just move on to the next. But that’s not the only problem.
Tobias A. Schliessler pans the camera around Denzel and pans one around Travolta and then it goes once again around Denzel and again on Travolta and the whole thing gets repetitive. People who get easily amused would find that awesome while the rest of would get dizzy. There’s nothing extraordinary about the action and stunt sequences. Is that all the ammo that Tony Scott’s got?!
It’s based on a book that got turned into a 70s movie and now the remake has scribe Brian Helgeland in charge of the adapted screenplay. Helgeland obviously incorporates today’s problems and New York culture into the dialogue and the motivation between the colliding characters involved. The movie starts out fine, the pace gets faster from then on, of course the character development happens during the course of a series of conversations that Denzel’s character Garber has with Travolta’s character, Ryder.
Helgeland tries inject humor that’s well-executed by Travolta who by the way is great as a bad guy (Broken Arrow, Fac-Off). I think things start to fall apart when Ryder and his gang stepped off the train with Garber. You’d expect Ryder to be this brilliant criminal and yet his exit strategy is weak. It’s as though Helgeland just wants to have that showdown between Denzel and Travolta in the end that he doesn’t care if the set up is too easy. After an hour of mindgame, you would expect something more for the ending.
Once again, Travolta is insanely great as a bad guy. As Ryder, he’s got that cold-blooded stare and diabolical laugh as he tries to get his reasoning across to Garber. But his frequent use of the word ‘motherf*cker’ becomes unintentionally comical. I said before that the movie seems to hold the characters back. There are times when Ryder could be even more psycho by shooting the victim point blank right in the head to give that shock effect but he would lower his gun at the last second and put lots in the chest instead. I begin to wonder that maybe he’s not as crazy as he makes himself to be, which is disappointing because Ryder strikes me an irrational person, then why not just stay in that state of mind, proven by his actions, throughout the entire ordeal?!
Denzel disappears himself into his character once again, that’s what’s so good about his artistry. He adds a few pounds and some facial hair to give the impression of a man who once had a better job but got demoted.
Just like any hostage negotiation movie, the villain and the guy he talked to on the other end of the line become unlikely friends. In this movie screenwriter Helgeland treats it like a confession booth, like it could be the last moment for both men.
Denzel is good at making himself look like he’s never played a cop in his lifetime. You can tell from his nervous expression that Garber never finds himself in this situation, even the way he holds a gun as he’s pointing it at Ryder indicates a man who’s better off working behind a desk than hunting down bad guys.
There’s a comment that Gandolfini’s character as a mayor makes when it finally hits him and he says why can’t they just use a helicopter to send the money. The movie is much like that, you’re gonna watch it and along the way, you’re going to stumble on some scenes and say ‘why can’t they just do this or that instead?!’ or ‘why do they have to go do that, isn’t there a more clever, challenging way?!’
The race against time is in there, you’ll feel it. But the threat is only at orange level, not quite severe enough.
* Place the cursor on the image below to check my grade for this film
