Review: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

OPENING: 06/12/2009

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
"Life is simple. They just have to do what I say."

Opening Statement
Joseph Sargent’s 1974 thriller The Taking of Pelham One Two Three still holds up well as a satisfying motion picture. Featuring crisp direction and strong lead performances from Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, the film is an immensely entertaining if somewhat dated viewing experience. New York City has changed a great deal over the course of 35 years; a fact that Tony Scott’s new take on the story certainly reflects. Though not as memorable its predecessor, this version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (yes, this title uses actual numbers) serves as yet another engaging slice of stylish entertainment from a very reliable director.

Facts of the Case
Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is a low-key train dispatcher just trying to get through another day, finding ways to economize time, making up for losses in train schedules, and attempting to keep everything safe and well-organized from his control room. Suddenly, one of the trains is hijacked by a team of terrorists/criminals/evildoers/bad guys. The team is led by Ryder (John Travolta), a charismatic yet dangerous man demanding to be given 10 million dollars within one hour. If his demands are not met, he will kill one passenger every minute until he gets his money. Despite the attempts of a highly-trained hostage negotiator (John Turturro) and the New York City Mayor (James Gandolfini) to get involved, Ryder refuses to communicate with anyone but Walter, leaving the lives of dozens of people in the hands of a single dispatcher.

The Evidence
I’m generally not a fan of MTV-style action movie editing, but I make an exception for director Tony Scott. His hyperactive energy is tempered by a focused sense of order and a knack for good pacing. Compare one of his 90-cuts-a-minute scenes with a similarly frantic film directed by Michael Bay, and you will see the difference between a man who knows how to stage a coherent action scene and one who doesn’t. His films rarely approach greatness, with the possible exception of the thoughtful thriller Crimson Tide, but I almost always enjoy his efforts. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is no exception.

The screenplay by Brian Helgeland — who also penned Scott’s Man on Fire — manages to fuse high-stakes action with quite a few religious elements, particularly themes of guilt and redemption. Helgeland grants his characters a surprising complexity, by imbuing all the major players with past sins. I won’t reveal the details, but suffice it to say there’s a lot of cross-carrying, condemnation, and salvation weaving through this thing. Scott and Helgeland are a little more savvy about it than they were with Man on Fire, a good film which succumbed to severe overdoses of heavy-handed symbolism. In Pelham 1 2 3, such elements generally seem to enrich the characters rather than burden them. Don’t get me wrong, we’re not dealing with a Bergman film here, but it’s nice to see an action movie that actually has something to say other than, "Bang Bang! You’re dead!"

Not to worry, though. We still get plenty of action and the film maintains an impressive intensity for the vast duration of its run time. During the hour in which Walter and Ryder negotiate their way through a turbulent situation, Pelham 1 2 3 is in top form. Scott eases up just a bit on his distinct visual style, occasionally slowing down for lingering close-ups, whenever the situation calls for it. There are also some unusually effective editing choices, as the camera chooses unexpected focus points. Scott gets a lot of mileage out of something as simple as routine reaction shots, and impressively manages to highlight some of the cast’s subtle (and not-so-subtle) character suggestions. It has been said an actor is only as good as the director allows him to be in the editing room, and Scott knows how to make a performance.

This is the fourth collaboration between Scott and actor Denzel Washington, who have created quite a successful partnership. Washington dispenses with his recent high-volume intensity, in favor of creating a more understated character. Returning to the modest, everyman quality he played so effectively early in his career, his performance contrasts nicely with Travolta’s enjoyably hammy villain. While Robert Shaw played a rather cold and calculated character in the original, Travolta once again plays up the monologuing attention-seeker we saw in Face/Off and Broken Arrow. It’s a savvy intelligence mixed with a somewhat needy childishness, a combination which makes perfect sense when you discover the character’s career background. I also quite liked James Gandolfini as a scandal-plagued mayor who could care less about his reputation or getting re-elected. When an aide suggests the mayor should take advantage of the hostage situation as a way to build up the goodwill of the people, Gandolfini sniffs, "I left my Rudy Giuliani suit at home." John Turturro is refreshingly low-key, while the wonderful Luis Guzman is completely wasted as Travolta’s primary sidekick.




Closing Statement
Hijacking a train in 2009 is a considerably different process than hijacking a train in 1974, as is the filmmaking process. I found it intriguing to consider Pelham 1 2 3‘s prediction of how such a scenario would play out, in contrast to the postulations of the original. Perhaps 35 years from now it will be remade again, to provide us with yet another look at how a changing world and changing tastes affect the crafting of a nuts-and-bolts action thriller. This version isn’t perfect (the final dose of action is a bit too familiar for my tastes, and I’m not entirely sold on Travolta’s ultimate plan), but it gets the job done. In a summer full of giant killer robots, superheroes, and apocalyptic battles, it’s nice to get an action flick that actually seems to take place in the real world.

The Verdict
8/10

• “”>