Director
Tony Scott's name has long been synonymous with action films. His CV
lists some of the highs and lows in the genre, Top Gun, Days of Thunder,
The Last Boy Scout, True Romance, The Fan, Domino, etc. His hyperactive
cinematography and lightning-quick editing style are his signature.
What an odd fit British bombast-meister Scott seems to remake the
low-key classic thriller, The Taking of Pelham 123. While Scott, et al,
quickly decry this film being a remake (- A “retooling” how the
director described it to me.), let’s
face it, for anyone who’s seen the 1974 original, comparisons are
inevitable.
The low-down: In the middle
of the bustling Big Apple, the unthinkable occurs; a subway train is
hijacked and its passengers held for ransom by a group of well-organised
thugs led by one Mr. Ryder. Enter working schmoe, Walter Garber, doing
his job dispatching trains and keeping the system running as smoothly as
possible from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s headquarters.
Garber notices the unusual activity with the stopped locomotive (-
the eponymous Pelham 123) but isn’t prepared to be contacted by the
psychopathic Ryder, for whom mind games with the dispatcher are part of
the cost of keeping passengers alive - that and ten million dollars.
Despite the attempts at dissuasion by a hostage negotiator, Ryder
displays his seriousness early on with tragic results and transit and
government officials hurry to comply with his demands, but not before he
drags Garber further into his psychotic web. As Garber and Ryder’s
tense tête-à-têtes reveal more about each other’s identities and a few
dangerous secrets, Garber becomes determined to put an end to Ryder’s
standoff and free the hostages.
As Tony Scott films go, The
Taking of Pelham 123 is relatively low-key. Concentrating most of the
action down in one car in a subway tunnel, or in the glass encased MTA
control center, Scott depends on his stars for most of the fireworks.
Well done then to have Denzel Washington and John Travolta as your main
artillery. As Garber, Washington gives his usual pitch-perfect
rendering of this average Joe; an otherwise honorable family man who
makes one gigantic mistake for which he’s paying with his dignity and
soon with his very career. The sense of responsibility and guilt in
Garber comes through beautifully and Washington elevates this working
stiff into something noble, and because it’s a Tony Scott film,
incredibly badass. Good as Washington is, the show belongs to Travolta,
who is absolutely electric as Ryder, a vengeful nutjob whose appetite
for money put him in prison and now in the cab of this subway car.
More energetic than we’ve seen him since Face/Off, Travolta bring that
same sort of freewheeling mania, the just peeking-over-the-top craziness
that makes his character more interesting than written. Eschewing
vanity for the role, Travolta is shown sans toupee for the first time on
a film with a Village People-worthy Fu-Manchu mustache and sideburns any
Hell’s Angel would envy. Travolta is the real engine behind The Taking
of Pelham 123, and I can’t imagine what the film would have been without
him. James Gandolfini is surprisingly effective as the egocentric mayor
of New York City, who doesn’t appreciate criticism in his brief
conversation with Ryder, or the challenge issued by the terrorist.
Those three performance (- as well as a Luis Guzman appearance!)
are the real reasons to see The Taking of Pelham 123.
Gorier and dumber than the
1974 film, the plot (- written by LA Confidential screenwriter, Brian
Helgeland) has got more holes than a golf course. There’s an
unforgivably wasted opportunity for drama revolving around a commuter’s
laptop, which amazingly can get an outside signal in the middle of the
subway tunnel. This important device which should have been used to
help the good guys get a bead on the hostage takers seems to have been
put there only to provide the Tony Scott’s obligatory scene of some
nubile hottie stripping (- albeit briefly, thankfully). For all
Travolta’s brio, Ryder’s constant whingeing about all the evilness of
New York and how wronged he’s been, the fact is pretty clear that the
only reason for Ryder’s suffering is Ryder. Ryder’s kvetching and
hair-trigger insanity makes him seem more like a spoilt crybaby upset
that he actually had to do time for embezzling millions of dollars from
his job than a criminal mastermind. Poor thing couldn’t get any more
luv from fanny-models when he went to prison – at least not female
ones. I much preferred the original film’s basic monetary motivation;
the colour-coded thieves were after the dosh, plain and simple, no
vendettas, no imagined enemies, just a well-executed heist. The film’s
climax is full of goofiness that is once again lifted solely by the
calibre of the actors. On the plus side is the amazing access Tony
Scott had to the New York Subway system and all around the city
streets. In this homogenised, sterilised era of Bloomberg, it’s almost
comforting to see there are still rats in the subways; but I wish that
Scott had been able to capture more of the caustic New York wit and
personality of the 1974 piece. But for the name of the film, The Taking
of Pelham 123 could’ve taken place anywhere there’s a train and a
tunnel.
There’s still the odd bit of
unnecessary OTT violence thrown in just to make sure you’re awake, but
The Taking of Pelham 123 is rather restrained by Tony Scott’s standards
and the calmer tone suits this piece. Not your average bombs-away
summer blockbuster, this update is still enjoyable if for nothing else,
the muscular efforts of its great cast who seems perfectly aware of the
long shadow of the original classic that looms before them.
~ The Lady Miz Diva
June 12th, 2009
© 2006-2022 The Diva Review.com
|