Review: ‘The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3’

The new Tony Scott-directed remake of ‘The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3’ is an example of well-executed stupidity.   It looks good.   The acting is top-notch.   Even the music behind it all gives the film a thriving beat throughout.   However, there really isn’t much at the heart of it all, and, when contemplated for too long, the entirety of the film’s narrative seems to unravel like an old sweater.

Taking the basic idea behind the original, 1973 novel and 1974 feature film adaptation of that, ‘Pelham 1 2 3’ centers around a group of hijackers.   Led by a man who will only refer to himself as “Ryder,” played with an ever-increasing enthusiasm by John Travolta, the group take the commuters of a New York City subway train.   They demand a ransom of $10 million in 60 minutes or else they will begin killing the hostages one at a time, one every minute past the deadline.   Communicating with Ryder is a low-level dispatcher, played by Denzel Washington, who just wants to go about his day.

The screenplay for the new film was written by Brian Helgeland (‘Payback’ and ‘Man on Fire’), and, after listening to some of the dialogue that comes out of his character’s mouths here, you start to wonder what happened to this once-near-great screenwriter.   Most of the events that stand in the way of Ryder and his money, and putting bullets in passengers, are acts of God.   Nothing that drives the plot forward in terms of the ransom money is connected to the relationship between the two leads.

Why didn’t New York City officials choose to have the money flown to the drop site via helicopter instead of by motorcade?   The mayor, played by James Gandofini, asks this very question to which his handlers just look at him dumbfounded.   It’s a valid question, and one, it appears, Tony Scott asked Helgeland at some point during the film’s production.   Helgeland probably looked at Scott dumbfounded, Scott laughed, and they decided to add the little joke to the script.   It’s a fleeting moment, but it raises the question overall.   Helgeland’s rewriting of much of the film’s plot points could have benefited the film greatly.

At another point, the motorcade is driving the money towards the drop site.   Another car comes out of nowhere, T-boning the police car and forcing it off an overpass.   It’s a nice, little action moment, one of only a handful in this mostly dialogue-driven action film, but it, once again, is just an act of God that really has no connection to the rest of the plot.   It’s melodramatic Murphy’s Law in the most hackneyed of ways.

The dialogue is standard “Let the hostages go or you’re going to be killed” dialogue.   Of course, Helgeland spice it up a bit in the most masculine of ways.   Ryder has a way of ending most of lines of dialogue by calling the person he’s talking to an MF-er.   It would be extremely lame if it weren’t so out-of-place funny.

Much of that, though, stems from Travolta’s performance.   He’s playing psycho Travolta, the only way he seems to be able to play a villain, but it works fine.   Particularly when you consider the subdued approach Washington took in playing his role.   There’s a lot of insane ranting by Travolta, a lot of staring past the camera by Washington.   To his credit, though, Washington knows his character through and through, and, as such, he delivers a certain level of depth not found anywhere else in the film.   His dispatcher character has a sordid past.   He’s not a flawless hero, and Washington does a great job depicting him as an ordinary man who gets caught up in an extraordinary situation.   Travolta’s character has a history, as well, one that is well-defined in the script.   Travolta, unlike Washington, only seems to believe his character is a psycho with a gun.   He never really delves into the intricacies of his character.   The two actors, however, work very well together, and Scott does a fine job juggling both character’s with equal amount of care.

The film, though more talk than action, never seems boring.   It doesn’t even hint at being anything but intense, and that is due in large part to Scott’s style.   This isn’t the high octane approach we’ve seen from him in ‘Man on Fire’ and ‘Domino.’   This, like Washington, is a much more subdued Tony Scott than has been seen in recent years, and it is very welcoming.   There is a definite style to the film, and it is very Tony Scott.   It’s just not seizure-inducing.

The film’s finale, after the deadline has passed and Ryder either has or does not have his money, seems to fall apart in both writing and directing.   Washington’s character makes a choice that doesn’t seem to make sense.   Some of the dialogue tries to make sense of it, but it still doesn’t seem genuine.   It seems thrown in just because Helgeland knew the film needed an ending.   Scott’s directing pulls back at this time, and it is the only time the film borderlines a sense of blandness.

‘The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3’ is a fast-paced, attention deficit updating of a classic thriller.   It’s acting and directing are top-notch, and they almost make up for the lackluster screenplay everyone was working with.   Almost.   Brian Helgeland’s screenplay needed two or three more passes before it was ready to be shot, and the thought that the film went before cameras during the writer’s strike can’t be helped.   It certainly looks good, and, despite its lack of grand action, it really delivers in the suspense department.   This is high-class idiocy, a film that looks great but has absolutely nothing that moves the gears inside other than movie magic.   It doesn’t hold a candle to the Joseph Sargent-directed original.   Tony Scott’s ‘The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3’ is a nicely played action movie that will surely be forgotten long before the ’73 original.

Overall: 3 out of 5