The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
(C+ or 2.5/4 stars)
Armed men hijack a NYC subway train in 'The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3', directed by Tony Scott, & re-made from a popular 1974 film of the same name. The plot kicks off with Ryder (John Travolta), a criminal mastermind, taking over control of the Pelham train. Aided by 4 highly-armed conspirators, he holds 18 passengers hostage, & makes some lofty monetary demands. After this dizzying, energetic opening montage, the film settles on control room dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), an MTA civil servant who is facing suspension for suspicion of taking a bribe. Still, he's a nice, normal guy trying to hush his critics by performing an honest day's work. And when badass Ryder decides to make his demands solely to Walter, the movie really starts to take-off.
Ryder's request is simple: $10,000,000 in 60 minutes, or he'll kill 1 hostage for every minute that the money is not in his hands. For some reason, Ryder trusts Walter; so not even a hostage negotiator (John Turturro) or NYC's mayor (James Gandolfini) can make headway in the situation. Garber's vast knowledge of the subway system makes it easier to negotiate with Ryder. Ryder gets a kick out of Garber. The 2 of them trade wits. And Garber hopes that this will all result in the saving of the 18 terrified hostages. But things go from bad-to-worse when Ryder insists that Garber, himself, drop off the $$. Is Walter mentally & physically equipped to handle this dangerous situation? Will the thieves get their money? How can the hostages escape? It all culminates in one crazy, crazy climax.
I recently saw the 1974 version of this film. And while this '09 version is fine, it actually is not as good as its predecessor. One improvement in this film, however, is the actual relationship btwn. Walter & Ryder (Walter Matthau & Robert Shaw never had the deep dialogues that Denzel & Travolta have). This version also does well to remain loyal to the overall spirit of the '74 film. And obviously, this film offers a bit of a fresh perspective; especially on the technological front (cell phones, satellite systems, laptops, etc.). I liked how the character of Walter is an average Joe who is put in a position to do something heroic. It's just a nice idea. The film moves briskly & with enthusiasm. And Tony Scott's editing style borders on choppy, but is more successful than not.
The acting varies, here. Denzel Washington is as steady as ever. It's just extremely difficult to fault the man's thespian capabilities. And the fact that he plays Walter as low-key, & as underplayed as he does, makes the preposterous things that he has to do (late in the movie) somewhat acceptable. Denzel's Walter is a mild-mannered man who harbors a couple of secrets of his own. And the gravitas he brings to the film is essential to it working at all. Counter that with Travolta's Ryder. John looks the part. And he's creepy enough. But you never fully believe him to be this evil maniac. Travolta is too light-of-voice & boisterous for this role. But he & Denzel were cast to rake in some $$ at the box office. It's shallow, but it's also a certainty. John Turturro is solid as the negotiator who's in over his head. And James Gandolfini makes for a humorous Mayor; one who is ever-so-close to a welcomed retirement.
Now, what brings down the level of this film from something worthwhile to something barely recommendable is its descent into thriller/action/chase movie mayhem in the last 10-15 min. 'The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3', is stellar until its absurd ending. Not only is the re-worked climax somewhat implausible, but it pales thoroughly to the fantastically simple, highly effective ending of the '74 version. The difference is that much more noticeable. Overall, though, I give a very mild thumbs up to this movie. Sure it's predictable, and lacks something special, but it's slick, virtuous, suspenseful (in fits & starts), & big on star charisma.
Ryder's request is simple: $10,000,000 in 60 minutes, or he'll kill 1 hostage for every minute that the money is not in his hands. For some reason, Ryder trusts Walter; so not even a hostage negotiator (John Turturro) or NYC's mayor (James Gandolfini) can make headway in the situation. Garber's vast knowledge of the subway system makes it easier to negotiate with Ryder. Ryder gets a kick out of Garber. The 2 of them trade wits. And Garber hopes that this will all result in the saving of the 18 terrified hostages. But things go from bad-to-worse when Ryder insists that Garber, himself, drop off the $$. Is Walter mentally & physically equipped to handle this dangerous situation? Will the thieves get their money? How can the hostages escape? It all culminates in one crazy, crazy climax.
I recently saw the 1974 version of this film. And while this '09 version is fine, it actually is not as good as its predecessor. One improvement in this film, however, is the actual relationship btwn. Walter & Ryder (Walter Matthau & Robert Shaw never had the deep dialogues that Denzel & Travolta have). This version also does well to remain loyal to the overall spirit of the '74 film. And obviously, this film offers a bit of a fresh perspective; especially on the technological front (cell phones, satellite systems, laptops, etc.). I liked how the character of Walter is an average Joe who is put in a position to do something heroic. It's just a nice idea. The film moves briskly & with enthusiasm. And Tony Scott's editing style borders on choppy, but is more successful than not.
The acting varies, here. Denzel Washington is as steady as ever. It's just extremely difficult to fault the man's thespian capabilities. And the fact that he plays Walter as low-key, & as underplayed as he does, makes the preposterous things that he has to do (late in the movie) somewhat acceptable. Denzel's Walter is a mild-mannered man who harbors a couple of secrets of his own. And the gravitas he brings to the film is essential to it working at all. Counter that with Travolta's Ryder. John looks the part. And he's creepy enough. But you never fully believe him to be this evil maniac. Travolta is too light-of-voice & boisterous for this role. But he & Denzel were cast to rake in some $$ at the box office. It's shallow, but it's also a certainty. John Turturro is solid as the negotiator who's in over his head. And James Gandolfini makes for a humorous Mayor; one who is ever-so-close to a welcomed retirement.
Now, what brings down the level of this film from something worthwhile to something barely recommendable is its descent into thriller/action/chase movie mayhem in the last 10-15 min. 'The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3', is stellar until its absurd ending. Not only is the re-worked climax somewhat implausible, but it pales thoroughly to the fantastically simple, highly effective ending of the '74 version. The difference is that much more noticeable. Overall, though, I give a very mild thumbs up to this movie. Sure it's predictable, and lacks something special, but it's slick, virtuous, suspenseful (in fits & starts), & big on star charisma.