Dir.
Tony Scott, UK, 2009, 106 mins
Cast:
John Travolta, Denzel Washington, James Gandolfini, John Turturro
Review by
Martyn Bamber
The new film from director Tony Scott is another in a seemingly never-ending line of remakes, this one being a new version of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974). While the original is considered a classic by some film fans, it's possibly unfamiliar to many contemporary cinemagoers. Those who are familiar with the original Walter Matthau/Robert Shaw film may not like this update for a number of reasons, one being that they may feel it's pointless to remake a well liked film, but the new version is a loose adaptation of the original and deviates from it in a number of ways, the most obvious being the style in which it's told.
New York subway dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is having another ordinary, uneventful day at work but that all changes, when a subway train is hijacked by a mysterious man named Ryder (John Travolta). Ryder holds the train's passengers hostage and threatens to kill them unless his ransom demands are met. With time running out and bickering officials complicating matters (as well as Garber's competence and past conduct being called into question), the scene is set for a tension filled day, as the likeable, reasonable Garber tries to outwit the uncompromising, villainous Ryder and save the hostages.
Anyone familiar with Tony Scott's films will probably know what to expect here. The usual rapid edits and extreme close-ups reveal the hand of Scott at the helm (even though this style has become the norm in action cinema today), but like or hate his style, it's less intense than the over the top visuals of Man on Fire (2004) or Domino (2005). Scott told a similar story to Pelham with Crimson Tide (1995), which like this new film was essentially a faceoff between two men. In Crimson Tide, the power struggle was between Gene Hackman's traditional, hard-line submarine captain and Washington's more liberal, open-minded second in command. But whereas in Crimson Tide the tension was amplified and Scott's direction more focussed by the film being mostly confined to the sub, here the myriad locations and multiple characters make this feel disorganised and unfocussed.
As the flawed but heroic Garber, Washington is as dependable and likeable as ever, but strangely he doesn't quite convince as the put-upon and troubled train employee. Perhaps his star persona is so big and his image so strong that it's difficult for an audience to believe that he won't win in the end. Then again, this may be unfair, as it's difficult for any major male star to completely convince as a so-called ordinary man in the street. Strangely, Washington was far more effective playing the traumatised, vulnerable soldier in The Manchurian Candidate (2004), which was a good example of a remake that managed to retain the essence of the original, while updating the material and making it fresh and relevant.
Travolta again relishes the chance to play another larger than life villain, who almost seems to crave the respect and approval of the hero and enjoy testing him, as did his bad guy turns in Broken Arrow (1996), and Swordfish (2001) and while he's clearly enjoying himself, his performance is often so exaggerated that he doesn't come across as a frightening or threatening antagonist. As the mayor of New York, Gandolfini arguably plays the most interesting character in the film; a man who doesn't seem to like being a man of the people. His mayor doesn't hate his fellow citizens; he just can't seem to relate to them or even convincingly pretend that he cares about them.
Scott effectively ratchets up the tension and pumps up the action in some sequences (for example, an OTT sequence with numerous vehicles racing through the streets of New York in an attempt to meet the bad guys' ransom deadline) and he finds time to include some effective moments of humour at the expense of the bureaucratic city officials, particularly the mayor. But while some of the comedy is effective, other bits of humour (for instance, Travolta's admittedly amusing histrionics in some scenes) feel misplaced and dissipate much of the tension. Also the screenplay doesn't give Washington or Travolta the sort of meaty dramatic moments or gripping dialogue exchanges that raised Crimson Tide from a potentially run-of-the-mill blockbuster to a memorable edge of your seat thriller, where a war of words was just as thrilling as any action sequence.
This update of the original Pelham may not induce the affection that the fondly remembered 1970s version has engendered but it's still an effective action thriller. More often than not though it passes muster more due to the efforts of its spirited and talented cast than because of the way the potentially gripping premise has been presented. Audiences may feel like they've seen this sort of thriller, or at the very least parts of it, countless times before (for example, elements of the 1998 film The Negotiator s pring to mind), but this new version of The Taking of Pelham 123 is nevertheless still an intermittently gripping and occasionally amusing thriller.
|
