The Taking of Pelham 123 (30/08/2009) [Archive]

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

Director - Tony Scott
Starring - Denzel Washington & John Travolta

4 stars

Ahh, the old case of remaking a Hollywood blockbuster. In 1974, Joseph Sargent directed what turned out to be a cinema masterpiece when his movie, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, hit the screens. 35 years on and Tony Scott has decide to remake it. He follows a simple philosophy - nowadays it's quite difficult to come up with a fresh, original and capativating idea so why not just find something that was hotly popular in it's day, grab some big name actors, modernise certain elements and boom, you have another blockbuster.

This is precisely what Scott has done in his version of the 1974 classic and it's fair to say his process has paid dividends. The result is a popular (now modern) heist film that is founded on a solid plot and storyline and aided by some wonderful work by some of Hollywood's finest – most prevalently, Mr Denzel Washington.

What can't this man do? Denzel is absolutely phenomenal in this film - and not for the same reasons he has been in the past. No, he's not the ever assertive and powerfully dominant Coach Boone who made sure that everyone in the western world will remember the Titans for as long as they live, and he's not the dominant and unstoppable father vying to save the life of his dying son that put John Q on the map; he is something different. Denzel plays Walter Garber, the unlucky son of a bitch who happens to be on the other end of the radio when a learned terrorist happens to signal through and outline his demands. Garber is a calculated, yet slightly hesitant and unsure character - a role not often associated with Denzel Washington. This is what highlights his amazing talent and flexible versatility because he plain and simply nails it. For me, Denzel's performance ensures that this movie will be more successful than it should be, simply because of his incredibly believable performance.

In a nutshell (and it's not really a movie that can cope with a nutshell synopsis), an American terrorist who calls himself Ryder (played by John Travolta) intricately and systematically hijacks a train (the Pelham 123 train - hence the title) and demands 10 million dollars from the mayor within the hour or else he will begin to kill hostages one by one. He speaks through the train radio to Walter Garber who finds himself on the work station that is running the Pelham 123 for that day and as a result becomes a hostage negotiator on behalf of New York City.

Travolta is an interesting one. Already known in the cinematic world for his versatility, his job as the short-fused, educated terrorist is a very hit and miss one. His anger-fuelled rants for me are a little bit too over the top and sudden yet his more calculated profound moments are right on the money. His wit also pulls through effectively even though he wasn't aided with great dialogue throughout. It was a serviceable performance from big Johnny who played second fiddle to Washington throughout.

The whole action/heist genre certainly isn't my normal cup of tea but I have been known to get a pleasant surprise throughout my time viewing these types of films. The Taking of Pelham 123 certainly falls into that category. It was a genuinely enjoyable film. I loved how the characters remained constant throughout the story and although there was some development, it was all believable and warranted for the circumstances. I thought it was paced well and unlike a lot of movies where a race against time is involved, the film didn't play around too much with a countdown which maintained an important element of realism which is something that seems to get forgotten too often in these types of flicks. In terms of negatives, I thought there were far too many quick, short camera shots. This can be a good effect sometimes to portray urgency and panic but in this case it was used a) in inappropriate situations where this effect wasn't required, b) far too often which results in the audience straining themselves and working too hard to stay involved in the movie which is NEVER the intention, and c) for too long. There were times when these fast cuts were going on for minutes at a time - that's enough to make someone sick. I was thought that the dialogue could have been better. As a whole it was fine and relevant, but on a few occasions something corny or irrelevant would be said and you would think "wow, really? they just said that" making you wonder why somebody would make a conscious effort to actually put it in the screenplay in the first place.

In its entirety the film is enjoyable. Do I think that Tony Scott has just got a heap of money, some big name actors and a proven storyline and put everything together like that? Yes. Could this movie be more advanced if it was directed differently? Yes. But as a whole, it works, and who am I to go nit-picking about these issues when I got 2 hours of entertainment for my 14 bucks?!