The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

Though Scott's uniquely frenetic editing has been toned down from his previous films, his unmistakable style still frequents the action and accentuates the tension-filled premise. Denzel Washington's quick-witted and moderately corrupt dispatcher plays off of John Travolta's Wall Street savvy sociopath with plenty of clever exchanges, and the dark humor and suspense that find its way into the bloodshed culminates in an engaging game of cat and mouse. Not quite as slick as the original, and perhaps a little too conspicuous in its efforts at exuding cool, this latest take on the subway heist story still accomplishes entertainment at break-neck speed.

When a New York City subway train is hijacked, Rail Control Center dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) becomes an unwitting negotiator for the ruthless criminals aboard. Led by the uncontainable Ryder (John Travolta), the hijackers demand ten million dollars in exchange for the seventeen hostages and offer only one hour to deliver the ransom. As minutes quickly count down, Garber must utilize his cunning and resourcefulness to buy time and catch the mercenary off guard as the situation goes from bad to catastrophic.

The unusual, highly stylized, frenzied editing is assuredly a now permanent technique for Tony Scott films - it's a signature method that he ceaselessly experiments with, frequently going overboard, and only occasionally able to harness. In Pelham it looks familiar but doesn't detract from the story, even if some moments of suspense are dulled by the blurred colors of slow-motion and missing frames. The remaining stunt sequences are exciting and tense, but hardly necessary. The car chases are never about catching someone, but rather beating the clock. It's action for action's sake, and while enjoyably destructive, it's entirely apparent.

Most audiences will not know that The Taking of Pelham 123 is based on a John Godey novel, or that it's been adapted into a movie twice before with the same name. While Scott's version stands on its own as a big-budget action movie, the purpose of specifically remaking this story is puzzling. Shouldn't the reasoning behind the revisiting of a popular plot be to improve upon some outstanding aspect? The use of the internet, cell phones, snipers, bloodshed, crude language and more give this new vision a sparklingly modernized feel, but when the movie draws to a close, it just can't compete with the 1974 version. Washington and Travolta have an intriguing chemistry, but even that can't outdo the cat-and-mouse mindgames between Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, who played their counterparts in the first feature adaptation. Perhaps a title change could have appropriately distanced Scott's take from being endlessly compared to an infinitely superior film.

- The Massie Twins

I'm a big fan of the original version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. It was a snapshot in time of New York City in the seventies; a cynical, bloated, bureaucratic mess that was entirely unprepared for a terrorist attack. In fact, there were actually concerns that the movie would inspire real terrorists to take a subway train hostage. The original featured everything from undercover cops to hippies, a crisp military professional turned terrorist to the random accidents of people in stressful situations. It even invented the "color codenames" later used in Reservoir Dogs.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is catnip to movie directors in the same way that single stage sets are to theatrical directors - be it a subway or a stage with just two chairs, this is a film about two men facing off in a battle of wits. The majority of the movie takes place over an intercom between a terrorist and a dispatcher, with occasional cuts to the havoc their conversation causes throughout New York City. And if the terrorist represents the international Other that is a threat to our national security, the dispatcher represents the everyman of New York, our hardworking servicemen and women who lost their lives on September 11. With material like that, it's no wonder the film has been remade twice.

Director Tony Scott updates the film to modern day sensibilities. The villain, Ryder (John Travolta in full crazy mode), isn't a mercenary applying crisp military precision to the art of extortion; he's a (SPOILER ALERT) former Wall Street tycoon - slightly lower on the villain totem pole than industrialists who pollute the environment. The undercover cop moves into action immediately rather than later in the film, because of course New York's finest would respond quickly to a terrorist attack. And the dispatcher, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington, looking appropriately puffy and slouched) has a more complicated past and a bigger role.

Unfortunately, the film suffers as a result. In the original, military precision was entirely the point. The trains never ran on time, so challenging New York to meet a deadline was both a delicious irony and a sticking point with a former military officer who expects nothing less than perfection from his men and from the negotiators. Here, that point is muddled by a sort of "we're all into this together" blue collar ethic that Ryder projects into Garber. Their dialogue still crackles, but this simple change dilutes the force of the film.

The four-man team of bad guys is reduced to two speaking parts, with the other two generic thugs. The emphasis is clearly on Travolta and Washington, and it's refreshing to have a movie that's not afraid to spend some time letting actors just act. There's a lot of talking in this film and that's not a bad thing.

The movie struggles with the modern updates. A live wireless webcam feed gets broadcast to the Internet without government interference (yeah, right). Even though the laptop's battery dies, it's mysteriously back on a moment later. And the two teens on either side of the webcam come off as self-absorbed morons.

Because this is a big budget action film, the quiet subtlety of the original version is glossed over in favor of an MTA agent handling a hostage negotiation, wielding a gun, and ultimately engaging in a showdown with the bad guy. Since Ryder has no principles to speak of, the conclusion is particularly unsatisfying.

Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a serviceable action film but not a particularly good update of the original. The seventies version was more of a drama with an ensemble cast that was comfortable playing second fiddle to the biggest character of all: New York City.

I enjoyed watching this suspense/action film from one of my favorite directors - but when it was all done I actually liked the Blu better as a whole than the movie itself. It seems as though lovers and haters here already know the story of a hijacked subway train in NY, but either way I think everyone should give this BD a chance.

The picture clarity was outstanding throughout and very little drag gets noticed even with all of the dark sequences in the tunnels. The DTS rocks consistently and I am glad they went this way for being a train film, but Tony Scott is a big DTS guy anyway so I expected not to be disappointed. The special features are what make this package and include:

* 30 minute making-of that covers all aspects of production sans the additional documentaries. Plenty of background regarding Tony's vision - filled with plenty of unbleeped expletives from cast and crew alike (always prefer things to be uncensored). Love the story about the Albanian cousins who ended up being in the film, one right out of prison to fill his needed authenticity.
* 15 minute "Third Rail". Awesome informative piece about the aspects of working underground in the MTA property. Really good material about what it took for this film to be made like no other before it (usage and cooperation with NYC and the MTA).
* 6 minute Stylizing. Interesting plug for the hair styling crew behind this film (Lab Salon).
* 7 minute marketing Pelham. Like a long music video/trailer - would loved to have seen one with Man on Fire.
* Descriptive audio track in English - I loved this. Had not heard one before and it actually had customers mesmerized with how accurate and fast this narrator was regarding everything happening on screen - recommend giving it a try.
*CineChat and MovieIQ - your BD player has to be tuned up for handling these guys. The MovieIQ is more fun if you are into the trivia thing and have time.

Overall - a fun film on a solid BD. Enjoy.

Without the presence of the star Denzel Washington, Tony Scott's crime thriller "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" would have been a terrible disaster. Actually, the film is already a disaster in a sense, with its impossible story, numerous plot holes, gratuitous violence, showy camera works and John Travolta's hammy, almost campy acting, but the star power of Denzel Washington makes this potboiler barely watchable.

Armed men led by John Travolta's "Ryder" hijack a New York subway train and demand the Mayor (James Gandolfini) pay them 10 million dollars in cash within an hour. The man at a subway dispatch desk happens to be recently demoted Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), who is of course no hostage negotiator. The film's premise is interesting. Everything starts off good, and then it goes terribly wrong.

For flashy visuals and busy camera works (frenetic editing, 360-degree circling, etc.) keep annoying us, never letting us enjoy the actions. The busy camera follows the actions using subtitles and maps, but what we get is only dizziness. Some of the talented actors like John Turturro are sadly underused (and where is Luis Guzmán?), and most of all, as the story goes on (script by Brian Helgeland), the heist and hostage situation itself, which should be tense, start to look even silly. In the film's impossible climax the ordinary subway dispatcher has to act like John McClain.

I still remember the original 1974 film (based on John Godey's novel) "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. It is an effective thriller with a good story and a very clever ending. (You may forget the weak 1998 made-for-TV production) Joseph Sargent may not be the greatest film director, but he surely knows how to make a good use of the tight story and some nice ideas of the film that would later become the obvious inspiration of such films as "Die Hard" and "Reservoir Dogs."

It looks as if Tony Scott's latest version is trying to betray the expectations of those who have seen the 1974 version. One character sneezes, but he meets a different fate. Japan is mentioned, but in a totally different context. All these changes are amusing at first, but ultimately add up to nothing.

For all the dizzying visuals and loud noises, Tony Scott's "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is an underwhelming experience.

I initially read John Godey's novel back when it came out in the 1970's. This book got me interested in the thriller-suspense genre and in many ways is one of my comparisons for most thrillers I read now.

Of course, I followed up with the initial film adaptation starring Walter Matthau a few years later. This film was taut, suspenseful and kept me on the edge of my seat throughout.

Yes, I came to the theatre with preconceived notions and for the most part, director Scott and the cast lived up to them. This version of "Pelham" is darker, dirtier, and more up to date than the last. The story's entered into the age of cellular phones and Internet.

Story in brief: Walter Garber (Washington) is a NYC transit authority official under suspicion of a bribery charge who's been demoted to serving as a railway dispatcher while his court case is adjudicated. He just happens to be on duty when the Pelham 123 train is taken by Ryder (John Travolta). Ryder's got 17 hostages and if the city doesn't pay him 10M in an hour, he's going to start killing people for every minute they're late.

Garber's actually the perfect man to conduct the negotiations. He's worked his way up the ranks of the subway system and he knows those tunnels like the back of his hand. And yes, he understands the darker side of human nature and he's not the kind of man to fall under pressure.

Ryder's a mystery at first, but as Garber questions him, he reveals facets of his nature that both intrigue and repel us. Ryder's motivation is a devious plan within a plan that unfolds as news broadcasts update us on what's going on in the city as the hostage situation comes to a head.

The plot moves forward at almost breakneck speed. Violence and police chases are very real--almost too real in places. An interesting side note is the addition of the Internet in this scenario. One of the passengers was engaged in an online chat with his girlfriend when the train was taken and the events inside the rail car are broadcast over the world wide web.

Warning: If you have issues with fast, blurring pans that denote speed, don't go see this film. If blurring of the film gives you either a headache or makes you dizzy, this film's got a lot of cinematography from that school of thought.

Rebecca Kyle, June 2009

Just saw this in the theater. The original clearly still superior. I was looking forward to the talented Travolta [as Ryder "with a Y"] playing Robert Shaw's orig leader-of-the pack role but his performance ran hot and cold. Early on his F-word led tirades seemed forced and his acting a bit spastic. Only later did he appear to approximate the wonderfully cool & clever, even funny, villain that we all loved in FACE OFF [1997]. Unlike the original, the members of the gang and the kidnapped passengers were poorly characterized. John Turturro, who played the police hostage negotiator, appeared miscast and looked attired more for a day at the Museum of Art than for planning to save any lives. Tony Soprano, I mean James Gandolfini, plays the Mayor of NYC and looks like he'd rather be back in Jersey at the Badda-Bing. A few nice tension-racked scenes here including Ryders's' count-down execution of a motorman and his near capping of a teen. Overall, the movie appears spastic, superficial and the main actors mechanical and in a hurry to wrap this up. The exception is Denzel Washington who plays Walter Garber, the dispatcher. Garber is a former MTA big-wig who is demoted to his current role while the Feds investigate him for bribery. Bad-guy Travolta develops a rapport with Garber and will only negotiate with him and not the cops. Great tense scene when Ryder questions Garber about his possible guilt in his alleged bribery and threatens to execute a frozen teen [barrel to forehead and all] if he does not admit and promulgate his guilt. Later Ryder insists the ransom be delivered personally by Garber. Touching scene as Garber calls his wife just before going off on his potentially fatal mission and speaks as if he ain't gonna be home tomorrow. Wife, though, insists to bring back a large gallon of milk when he returns. Washington is wonderful, underplaying his role, being thoroughly endearing and engendering sympathy throughout---copper glasses, graying sides, thick-belly, and all. This is the great actor that almost tanked his promising career with the laughable abomination RICOCHET [1991]. The thankless teen with the computer on the train--and his cyber exhibitionist gal pal--were annoying throughout. Too bad Ryder didn't cap him anyway. The climax was not very imaginative. I didn't think you could walk right through the kitchen of the Waldorf-Astoria like these guys did without raising an eyebrow---I'm taking an unannounced tour tomorrow. How about Ryder escaping by walking across the Manhattan Bridge. As in the awesome COLLATERAL [2004], the working Joe [Garber] who knows nothing about guns stops the bad guy. Boy, it took those cops on the footbridge an eternity to get there to help Denzel. They must'of had stubs for legs. The ending pan of the pensive Washington going home [on the train] and walking up to his stoop, gallon of milk and all, was evocative. This one manages three stars only because of Washington's wonderful performance and the likeable Travolta---they did manage to generate some chemistry together. But, like its fancy GPS-like scene-to-scene NYC translocations, this remake appeared rushed and cursory, probably still intimidated by the original. Recommended for die-hard Washington and Travolta fans only. You must watch the original

By and large, the types of films that Denzel Washington sticks his name on provide viewers with incredible acting, great character development, and a plot that sucks you in and makes you really care about what is going on. Unfortunately, "The Taking of Pelham 123" does absolutely none of those things.

Acting: The film focuses on Washington's "good guy" (a New York subway line coordinator) matching wits with John Travolta's "bad guy" (who hijacks a subway car in exchange for a large ransom). However, neither of them are able to act anywhere near their full potential. Whereas Denzel is at his best when his passions/convictions get the best of him, in this movie he is not once allowed to emote wildly. Instead, he turns in a ho-hum performance where he stays cool, calm, and in control the entire time. While that may have been the character that was written on the page, it didn't suit Washington at all and thus should have been cast differently. As for Travolta, he is too busy dropping F-bombs and maniacally raving to really be allowed any sort of acting maneuvering. His character is the same from the first time that we see him until the last.

Plot: Though hyped up to be an incredible, fast-paced film, the plot really is no different than anything that has been done a thousand times before. Crime, hostages, ransom, banter, rescue attempt. That's all it really boiled down to, and those same themes were covered in much more riveting fashion in mere minutes of, say, "The Siege" (another, much better, Washington film).

Character Development: This area was easily the biggest weakness of the film. Though it seems as if, in the beginning, the film is moving towards some interesting developments for both the Washington and Travolta characters, the "revelations" come and go in seconds and are never touched upon again. It's as if the writers had some good ideas in mind, but never really got everything ironed out.

Also odd was the strange dialogues throughout the film. At times, in the middle of what should have been a tense hostage crisis, Washington (or his co-workers/superiors) were often seen laughing or joking with each other in a fashion that didn't at all seem to fit the tense mood of the film. I kept expecting the tension to pick up as the minutes ticked by, but before I knew it the movie was over and it seemed as if nothing substantial had happened.

Thus, despite my liking of most films starring Denzel Washington, I would have to steer other viewers clear of this one. The plot is shallow, the acting isn't anywhere near fully realized, and the character development/dialogues are just plain stupid or non-existent. I have not seen the original version of "Pelham", but I'm willing to bet that this remake didn't live up to it.

TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 will be forgotten in a matter of a few weeks. Then it'll come out on DVD, have a brief burst of activity, and then fade forever from the cultural landscape. It is such a tremendously disposable movie, evaporating from the mind even as the closing credits roll behind you as you walk out of the theatre.

This is not to say that it isn't diverting and mildly entertaining...it's just ultimately so unremarkable.

And this is too bad, because the original movie from the `70s still sticks with me to this day. In the `70s, the story was actually somewhat unique. We have a humble, aging, unambitious transit cop who through just sheer bad luck ends up on the intercom with a cold, ruthless killer who has hijacked an NYC subway car purely for the chance to make a pile of money. Will this working-stiff be able to outlast & outwit the dangerous sociopath? The film came out in a time when ruthless sociopaths were relatively new to the movie screen (the looney in DIRTY HARRY also springs to mind). Very few people had played the kind of super-smart, cold-blooded mastermind that Robert Shaw pulled off so well in PELHAM. And few actors had the "schlubby" looks and ordinary common-sense (and public goodwill) of Walter Matthau, who pulled off this unusual role (for him) with effortlessness. These two stars were ably supported by a nice supporting cast, including Martin Balsam as Shaw's mild-mannered associate in crime and a chilling Hector Elizondo as Shaw's trigger man, a criminal more interested in killing than making money.

So when the bad guys demand their million dollars, and then put an impossible deadline on receiving the money: "have it here in one hour or I will kill one hostage for every minute you're late," the tension level was sky-high. This was a grimy, crime-ridden NYC...and it was a low tech time.

In Tony Scott's update, NYC is shiny and clean & high-tech is all over the place. Heck, one of the hostages inadvertently streams the entire even to the world through his laptop. Walter Matthau's mismatched clothes and weary demeanor are replaced by Denzel Washington's crisp intelligence. (This actually works okay. It's a very different character, but Washington gives one of his more credible performances of late.) And Robert Shaw's trenchcoat wearing, ultra-calm madman is replaced by a tattooed, bug-eyed, wildly laughing and foul-mouthed John Travolta. Worst of all, the well-thought-out supporting cast of criminals is replaced by some very generic "guys with machine guns" and a very underused Luis Guzman, who is barely asked to give a performance.

Both films have the same ticking clock, and that is the part of the story that always works. Tension IS created, as the two adversaries bond via their old-school CB radios. John Torturro is a welcome addition as a hostage negotiator. And a subplot is created to give some added complexity to Washington's character. This sub-plot is not really needed, but it does add a little moral texturing...as though it is no longer acceptable to have a good guy against a bad guy. Nowadays, even the good guys need to have some questionable events in their past.

James Gandolfini is amusing as New York's mayor...but honestly, I think that was mostly because it was amusing to think of Tony Soprano as the mayor of NYC. The part is sketchily written...although Gandolfini is clearly having a lot of fun with it, even when the part gets hokey at the end.

Tony Scott is NOT a director I admire. Knowing he was at the helm almost kept me out of the theater. His super-saturated colors and jumpy, flashing editing style tend to annoy the heck out of me. It's all style that doesn't contribute one bit to substance. He makes us aware that we're watching a movie when we should actually be absorbed by it. (MAN OF FIRE is the most egregious example of this...but most of his movies are "over directed.") And Scott is guilty here again. His way of showing us how much time is left on the clock is, frankly, hugely distracting. And he actually uses something akin to Google Maps to show us the progress of a car through NYC. It flashes by too fast to be useful, yet is there long enough to annoy.

But worst of all is John Travolta's horrific performance. It seems as though he really just doesn't know how to give a modulated performance anymore. In PELHAM, he yells, cusses (boy, does he cuss!!), giggles, grimaces and scowls. All in the service of a thoroughly unconvincing performance. Apparently, he's never learned that less can sometimes be more. He's acting in the style that Tony Scott directs. He succeeds in creating the most unmenacing psycho-killer in quite some time.

The film also suffers from a very anti-climactic ending. It assumes that you've grown to care a lot about the "moral gray area" in Washington's character...which we have not. Thus, the end doesn't work too well, and when the closing credits roll, we dutifully walk out of the theatre, wondering where to go eat or if anything good is on TV.

One of the worst movies I have ever experienced. Doesn't even pretend to make sense. Warning: spoilers...

Revolta blathers endlessly about nothing, zero character development. Oh, wait, hes Catholic and served food... that's a character? If you randomly scrambled Revolta's villain dialogue from Broken Arrow and Punisher, it would sound exactly the same in tone as this movie and have twice the content.

Most of the action consists of police cars and motorycles, completely unopposed, unable to get from uptown to midtown without crashing themselves to bits. Why does a motorcycle randomly crash into a stationary object every 15 minutes in this movie? Why do all the helicopters fly in uncalled-for slow motion, repeatedly using the same footage? Why, when the cops are in the helicopters, does the city scroll by so fast in the window that the copter must be going at least 1000 mph? How does taking a single subway car hostage cause international gold prices to spike several thousand percent when 9/11 caused what, a 2% spike?? Why can't Denzel select a decent script, and why can't Revolta retire back to the obscurity that he so richly deserves?? Why why why?

For a movie that "moves" so much, there isn't much action here. There's a lot of loud music, rapid fire editing, maps and time markers popping up on screen every six minutes, but that's about it. Take away these attempts by director Scott to make it APPEAR as though a lot of action is taking place, and you're really left with a movie about some guys sitting in a subway.

The main one of those guys is John Travolta, in another performance so bad that I'm actually starting to think he's taken an oath to suck. Never has a movie "villian" been so poorly written and acted as Travolta's "Ryder" in this film. The dialogue he has to deliver is awful to begin with, but Travolta seemed determined to hammer this point home. I've never heard someone scream "mother***ker" with such a lack of conviction.

As for the other actors, they seem to accept their roles as plot devices, and decide to phone in their performances.

The only other problems I couldn't get past were how people had Internet service in the subway tunnel. Or why the MTA dispatch center was so grandiose it would be the envy of NASA. Or why the police were such bad drivers. Or why they didn't use the helicopter to deliver the ransom money. Or why Travolta's character and his crew didn't just "stage" a terrorist attack instead, which would've still gotten them hundreds of millions of dollars, with the added bonus of not putting their lives in any danger.