(Long Island, NY) Yes, yes, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is yet another remake. Actually, it’s a remake of a remake originally based on a book. Confusing? Not really. It all started with a 1973 novel by Morton Freedgood that was adapted into a film in 1974 starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw.
Despite the excellent movie’s status as a classic and the fact that film remakes weren’t really en vogue at the time, Pelham 1 2 3 was remade as a television movie in 1998 starring Edward James Olmos. But apparently, this wasn’t enough, as director Tony Scott felt the need to dust off this tense tale yet again for the 21st century. I was initially prepared to hate The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, but shockingly enough, it wound up being a solid and effective romp through New York’s subway systems. Let’s dissect it, shall we?
By the way, while writing this review, I’m munching on some Kraft Macaroni and Cheese crackers. Yes, crackers. They’re amazing. If you’re at all an aficionado of cheese and crackers, I highly recommend them. No, Kraft isn’t giving me kickbacks.
Now, I’m as sick of Hollywood’s penchant for remaking films that were done perfectly the first time around (if the rumored remake of John Carpenter’s The Thing ever sees the light of day, I’ll REALLY be upset- and YES, I’m aware that the film itself
is already a remake)- it represents a complete creative bankruptcy on their part. Is it really THAT hard to come up with something new and fresh? To take a chance on an unproven concept? There are countless young and talented independent film-makes out there waiting to have their ideas heard. It’s a shame, really.
The only instance where I’ve found remakes to be effective is when the source material is not copied scene-for-scene, but used as a loose framework for a different approach. Good examples of this would be Al Pacino’s Scarface, or the aforementioned The Thing. The 2009 version of The Taking of Pelham
1 2 3 is also such a film. The basic plot is still in place- a NYC subway 6 train and its passengers are being held for ransom by a madman- but it’s given a modern facelift and a direction that deviates from previous incarnations at key points. It works well enough, despite some problems that plague it throughout its running time.
Four armed men hijack a single car of the NYC subway 6 train (aka the Pelham Line) and hold its passengers hostage for a 10 million dollar ransom, to be paid within 60 minutes (with a “one passenger is shot per minute late” penalty- these guys don’t mess around). The leader of the hijackers is Bernard Ryder (John Travolta in full “wacky villain” mode ala Face/Off). After uncoupling the remaining train cars and sending them back to the nearest station, Ryder begins a radio dialogue with the MTA dispatcher in charge of the Pelham Line, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington). Ryder relays his list of demands and insists on communicating only through Garber, having established a rapport of sorts with the civil servant. But just to show that he means business, the cold-blooded Ryder kills the Pelham train operator who was a friend of Garber, giving him a personal stake in the crisis. Despite a top NYPD hostage negotiator (John Turturro) and the Mayor himself (James Gandolfini) getting involved in the situation, Ryder still demands
only to speak with Garber.
It’s eventually revealed that Garber is currently demoted to working the Rail Control Center pending an investigation into a bribery scandal he was allegedly involved in, a fact that was revealed by Ryder, who manages to somehow secure an internet connection in the tunnels and dig up some info on the web about his new friend. This fact coming to light initially sheds some suspicion on Garber’s possible involvement with the hijackers and their plot. Nonetheless, Garber tries to do what he can to prevent innocent people from being killed by the maniacal Ryder, who has made it clear that he’s neither afraid of killing his hostages or dying himself. With time running out, can Garber prevent Ryder from carrying out his nefarious plot (which just may simply be a red herring for an even grander scheme…), even as he himself is personally thrust into harm’s way by the deranged madman?
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a very good, yet flawed movie. At its heart, it’s an intimate tale of two men talking over the airways and figuring out what makes the other tick. Unfortunately, Tony Scott’s flashy and kinetic cinematography lessens the impact of any such scene. Apparently afraid of his actor’s abilities to enthrall an audience by means of their acting alone, Scott’s camera is constantly drawn back, roving around the set, cutting to and fro, never focusing on any one spot or person for more than a second. I feel the radio scenes between Travolta and Washington would have been far more effective if the camera just drew in close and allowed them to take center stage. Still, the dialogue remains tight and effective, and the acting’s there in spades (Washington always delivers the goods, and Travolta, who is normally less consistent, also steps up), but Tony Scott’s ADD-inflicted cameraman tries to do everything in his power to take away from it. Just pull in tight and let your actors act, man!
Actually, the ONLY real flaws of Pelham 1 2 3 are visual. Tony Scott has a thing about fast edits, cutting between sped-up and headache-inducing low-framerate footage, odd color filters, and freeze-frames. His style is overly flashy in a forced way, as if he watched all the stuff hip young filmmakers were doing and tried to cram it all into one movie in a desperate attempt to be “cool.” The rap music-style opening credit sequence is a prime example of this, and it ill-fits the film he was trying to make. At its heart, Pelham 1 2 3 is a tense drama, not a music video. Then there’s the ill-conceived ending, where Denzel Washington’s character suddenly becomes an action-film star. It’s like Scott didn’t know what kind of a movie he wanted to make, so he threw everything into a blender. Weird.
All that aside, Pelham 1 2 3 is still an entertaining and gripping movie, with a lightning-fast pace and characters that are actually fleshed-out, enabling you to actually care for them. As I already stated, Travolta and Washington not only avail themselves individually, but they gel together perfectly as well. It’s an accomplishment considering the majority of their interaction takes place not face-to-face, but over the radio- it invokes memories of the relationship between Bruce Willis’ character and the cop in the first Die Hard movie, although (naturally) more adversarial in nature. It makes the inevitable meeting between the two all the more interesting when it finally happens. The supporting cast
is equally excellent, with Turturro and Gandolfini standing out. Luis Guzmán also shows up as one of Travolta’s gang, and I’m always happy when this underrated actor gets a chance to pop up in a major motion picture like this.
So, the verdict? The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a good flick. Does it reach the lofty heights of the gritty 1974 original? Not quite, but it is a worthy attempt and certainly goes beyond merely being a run-of-the-mill remake in the basest sense of the term. Go check it out.
