The Taking of Pelham 123

On the New York City Subway, four men armed men lead by Ryder (John Travolta) hijack a train car of 19 passengers from train Pelham 123 (so named because of its departure time and origin station). As the train car is stopped in the subway tunnel it wreaks havoc upon the rest of the subway system. Train Dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) makes contact with Ryder who demands $10 million ransom in exchange for the passengers.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is the third adaptation of the novel of the same name by John Godey following the classic Joseph Sargent directed 1974 film and a mostly forgotten 1998 TV movie. The film was Denzel Washington's fourth collaboration with Tony Scott following their work on Crimson Tide, Man on Fire, and Déjà vu and as such was positioned as a blockbuster for the 2009 Summer movie season. Opening in third place behind holdovers of hit films Up and The Hangover, The Taking of Pelham 123 was seen as a "soft" opener for the $100 million project but eventually legged out to $150 million worldwide which while not great was far from terrible. The movie received mixed reviews with critics praising the technical aspects of the film as well as the performances, but also feeling that Tony Scott's frenetic direction didn't really mesh with the material and it was inferior to the 1974 original film. In the end this update of Pelham 123 does try to do something different, but it doesn't do so all that successfully.

Much like the original 1974 film, this version of Pelham 123 also serves as a time capsule of New York City substituting the 70s recession era atmosphere of the original for a New York City that has been redefined in the aftermath of 9/11 and of course the then recent financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. With Scott's direction having a few too many flourishes that his audience will be all too familiar with, sometimes it feels like New York City's identity isn't as well established as it could be and it feels like there's more focus on "how" it's being shot in place of "what's" being shot. In particular I felt as though the boarding sequence in the first act was overly truncated and I felt like the hijackers with the exception of Travolta's Ryder felt greatly diminished as characters with none of them allowed to leave much of an impression. Denzel Washington plays our substitute for Zachary Garber from the original film in Walter Garber who unlike the original transit cop character is a train dispatcher so he's out of his element and there's also an added subplot involving how he got moved from a higher level position down to dispatch. In principal I like the idea of where they take the Garber character but the execution is where I feel it stumbles because they try to make Ryder and Garber parallels of each other in a "we're not so different, you and me" that leads to a very overwrought standoff moment serving as the climax that I just feel doesn't work. This incarnation of the film takes itself much more seriously, and while there are shades of humor such as with James Gandolfini's performance as the mayor of New York or the occasional exchanges among the passengers the movie feels like it has excised a good amount of the original film's humor which was a key appeal of its identity including its stinger ending involving a sneeze.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is perfectly serviceable as a time killer and Travolta and Denzel do solid work but I think Tony Scott's direction isn't all that conducive to what is mostly a chamber piece and it feels like Scott has tried to "energize" his direction to compensate for the contained nature of the story. If you want to see a Tony Scott train movie that works with his style instead of against it I'd recommend 2010's Unstoppable because the story of a runaway train meshed better with Scott's directorial style.

I went to the this most recent remake of Pelham 1-2-3 (most don't even recall the made-for-TV version filmed in Toronto - with good reason) with an open mind. I was weened on Godey's book when 8, and saw the original film when it was released a few years later. I've committed practically every line and scene to memory. I'll admit.... I'm biased. I felt the original could not be successfully remade... the gritty feel, the outstanding David Shire soundtrack, the believable performances of the ensemble cast..... and I was right. I did not go into the theater hoping to hate the remake, but instead to like it. I REALLY wanted to like it. I have always enjoyed both Denzel Washington and John Travolta in their various endeavors and thought the chemistry might work fine here. While entertaining, it became almost tiresome after a while. I felt no tension, no "edge of the seat" sensation that the original brought, I found myself disliking most of the characters and really not caring what happened to them. It passed the time, had some thrills, but that was about it for me.

The '09 version is entertaining, with some excellent action scenes and more than a few decent dialog exchanges between characters, but it is nothing more than a Tony Scott action movie dressed up as "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". While starting off liking Washington's character (now disgraced MTA administrator-turned dispatcher Walter Garber, as opposed to Detective Zachary Garber in the book and original screen incarnation), I found, as the movie progressed, that he went from believable to just another two-dimensional action movie hero who, if he was what as he really started out as being, would not have ended up doing what he did in the film. Sorry, no spoilers here gang. You'll have to go judge for yourselves.

Travolta was dynamic, putting in a great performance, but I found his manic characterization not befitting as the supposed master-mind of the criminal plot involved. Remarkably, there were three other hijackers in the movie. I don't know why Scott even bothered including them. They were not only ineffectual characters with lackluster performances, but totally lacked the dynamic presence and interplay between the hijackers of the original film so much so that you barely even noticed them - or cared. Oh well, I guess it would not have been practical with only one hijacker....

The dizzy camera-work and stylized production were tedious at times and distracting. The soundtrack was, IMHO pure garbage.

Like I said, I found it entertaining, but despite some opinions that the "updated" and "freshened" plot was exhilarating and an improvement on the '74 incarnation, I honestly don't think the Matthau/Shaw/Balsam version need worry about being eclipsed by this remake. Go see it though, as it is fun summer fare and if you have no ties to the original, you'll probably find it relevant. Afterward, do yourself a favor and rent the original. You'll see the way the story was meant to be done.

A surprisingly enjoyable and tense thriller. While it does have a good bit of the kind of silly excess that ruins most summer blockbuster movies anymore, those flaws are overshadowed by the tightly-wound script and a couple of good performances from Denzel Washington and John Travolta. Director Tony Scott seems to have spent a good bit of effort trying to channel the spirit of 1970's American movies, and often this pays dividends as the focus on grittiness over spectacular action sequences ups the suspense. It's interesting that as the movie approaches the end you can feel the director's 21st century comic-book instincts straining against the genre he's working in as the story becomes increasingly less believable and more "heroic."

Nevertheless I can recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a suspenseful action movie that doesn't beat you over the head with histrionics from beginning to end. Admittedly I've never seen the original, and I can easily imagine those who love it might be substantially less enthusiastic about this remake.

It started like any ordinary day; that's likely what N.Y.C. subway dispatcher Walter Garber, an employee of questionable character, was thinking when he got up and went to work in the morning. Little did he know that he'd become the confidant and "stand-in" hostage negotiator for a prickly criminal mastermind who takes over the Pelham subway train and demands money in exchange for the lives of its passengers. Hearing the names Washington, Travolta, and Scott creates a lot of anticipation, but unfortunately what wants to be a slick combination of suspense thriller and character study instead results in a ponderous film with a weak setup, predictable plot twists, shallow characters, and little tension. It's easy to watch with actors of Washington and Travolta's caliber at work, but Scott's direction is pretentious and throws out some obligatory action scenes that seem to exist for the sole purpose of padding the time on the way to an expected climax. The leads do what they can with the strained material but really deserve better. **

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 is Tony Scott's flashy and expensive remake of a stone-cold classic of 1970s cinema. The original had Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as hero and villain respectively, while this remake sees Scott regular Denzel Washington and bad-guy-for-hire John Travolta stepping into those lofty shoes. And, unsurprisingly enough, this turns out to be a redundant remake that can't hope to better - or, indeed, even come close - to the quality of the original.

I'm not a hater of remakes per se. Occasionally certain films will be flawed or dated and the remake works better than the original; I found this with THE HILLS HAVE EYES. However, the original PELHAM is a great film and anyone who's seen it will end up just watching this version and criticising it by comparison. I'm sure if the original didn't exist I would have enjoyed the updated PELHAM a lot more, but as it stands it's a waste of time.

It's not all bad. Washington is the slick master of professionalism as always and never disappoints this viewer. Travolta gives another fun villainous turn, following on from FACE/OFF and BROKEN ARROW. Scott certainly knows how to make a fast-paced movie and this is a thriller that's never dull. But compared to the original, it's vapid, shallow, and way too superficial.