It’s clear from the second the opening credits roll, that director Tony Scott is on a mission. That mission isn’t to deliver on a thrilling heist film, instead it is to pollute an otherwise passable movie. Despite solid performances and a compelling story, Scott’s increasing persistence in experimenting is what derails The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a heist film and a remake. In this version, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a subway dispatcher, tries to talk down Ryder (John Travolta), a man whose crew of thieves has taken a loaded subway car hostage.
Hats off to Denzel Washington for both turning down the “sexy” role and trying something different. This is the first time in the last two decades that Washington has played something other than Mr. Expert-Veteran-In-Control. As Walter Garber, he’s a typical, flawed, subway dispatcher. He has vulnerability, but also a willingness to carry out his orders. Washington really shows his range.
Across the line from Washington is Travolta. He has the vulgar tongued role which actors these days desire. Travolta’s performance as Ryder is coarse and sophisticated, something of a flaw in the writing, which allows him to blurt out obvious clues to his identity. Does it really matter who he is? A guy on a subway car with a gun, super-genius or elementary, is still a man in the same location. The fact that the police spend so much time investigating him, and trying to assume control, showcases the bureaucracy that Ryder references in his motive. I have to say that his scheme is not as brilliant as the screenplay wants you to believe, nor is it possible.
Nothing puts a more apparent dent into the film that Scott’s now signature over-the-top stylization. This isn’t the wretched Domino, but it’s nonetheless abrasive. To call the editing MTV style, is a discredit to MTV. I swear, there is a reliance on a Google Earth effect which looks stolen from the local weather forecast.
Thus far it seems that I’ve ridden this one quite harshly. To it’s credit, there were times where I felt that many of the gimmicks were successful. The questionable techniques of Scott did separate it from made-for-TV fare. By and large, the selling point is Washington and how he shines through this is a testament.
There are mistakes beyond those of Scott. For example, Garber gets himself in a situation where he no longer has an investment, yet a switch comes on in his mind that transforms him into John McClane. That made the last act rather hard to believe. It wasn’t until after watching this version, did I catch the original ’74 film. I suggest you skip the first half of my foray with The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and opt for the original. That original features Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau, less convoluted plot as well as editing, and moves at a better pace. If you have to see a more adult film in theatres, and some effects heavy editing doesn’t get you down, then come for the performances. **½
Loading ...
Recent Comments