His Take/Her Take: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
Posted June 12, 2009 1:00 am.
This article is more than 5 years old.
Worth the price of admission, or a waste of time? Brian McKechnie and Suzanne Ellis offer you their take on the latest movies hitting screens. Read their reviews every week, exclusively on CityNews.ca.
Let Brian and Suzanne know what you think of His Take/Her Take via email at brian.mckechnie@citynews.ca or suzanne.ellis@citynews.ca.
THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3
Rated R
Cast: Denzel Washington, John Travolta
Directed by: Tony Scott
Official Site IMDB
Dispatcher Walter Garber must try to keep control of a hostage situation after a New York City subway train is hijacked.
Brian’s Take
** out of 5 stars
All flash and no substance. That’s what the unnecessary remake of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is. Everything good about the 1974 version has been stripped out and we’re left with lots of yelling and pointless explosions (even the title has been simplified from One Two Three to the numerical 1 2 3).
Both films are based on the book by John Godey and both films have the same underlying story; a New York City subway train has been hijacked by a group of men who want a large sum of money or they’re going to start killing hostages. The difference is the new film is barely worth two stars and the original is close to five.
Where the original was suspenseful and smart the remake is plain stupid. Ryder (John Travolta), the mastermind behind the hijacking is unintentionally comical. Compared to Robert Shaw (who played the mastermind role in ’74) Travolta looks and sounds like a clown. His dialogue is reduced to ending every sentence with an obscenity that starts with the word mother. I smell a Golden Razzberry for this mess. The always reliable Denzel Washington is no better as dispatcher Walter Garber. We’ve seen him do this role at least five times in his career. When you should feel sorry for him you’re laughing it’s so ridiculous.
I also didn’t care about any of the other characters like I did with the original. The hijackers had personality the first time round (especially the sniffling Martin Balsam and wild Hector Elizondo). Here we get a line or two from Luis Guzmán’s character Phill and the rest are nameless, speechless nothings. I do give them credit for handling the Mayor (James Gandolfini) better. If the Sopranos had continued and Tony got into politics this would be him.
Most of the blame for this failing is on director Tony Scott. Unlike his brother Ridley, Tony is all about blowing stuff up for the sake of looking cool (the Michael Bay syndrome as I call it). There was no police cruisers racing through the streets causing havoc in the original and they weren’t needed in this. God help us all if the NYPD are really this dumb. The addition of unreal technology is also very lame. I’d like to know what router they were using to get Internet in the tunnel? If it’s that easy why don’t we have it on our subway system yet? Also, having a kid’s laptop keep a video chat running was flat-out cheesy.
Given the ’74 version has inspired many of our young filmmakers (including Quentin Tarantino, who paid homage to it with the colour-coded names in Reservoir Dogs) this is a real blow. A remake can either improve on the previous material or make you long for that material. In this case I’d rather stay home and watch the original again.
Suzanne’s Take
* out of four stars
I can’t remember how old I was when my dad rented The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three, insisting it was a worthwhile addition to my sister’s and my film education. What I do remember is how much I enjoyed the 1974 thriller about the hijacking of a New York subway train, and seeing it again on television recently I gained an even deeper appreciation for it.
Based on John Godey’s novel, Pelham was gritty, and the acting top notch, from Walter Matthau as sarcastic transit dispatcher Lt. Garber to Robert Shaw as Blue, the leader of the train-robbing thugs who refer to one another using colours in lieu of names (Quentin Tarantino borrowed this idea for Reservoir Dogs). Adhering to New York transit guidelines while shooting was so challenging that they almost had to shoot in Toronto’s subway system instead, an interesting factoid I learned on the recent broadcast. Fortunately they were able to keep the project on the rails in the Big Apple, and the production is better for it – a film that epitomizes New York.
After 35 years, you had to know that a remake of this classic thriller was inevitable, and while I couldn’t imagine any film bettering the original, it’s equally hard to conceive of just how awful a remake could be. Director Tony Scott’s The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is exactly that: awful. An insult to its predecessor in every imaginable way, this update is loud, obnoxious, and poorly executed.
A noticeably doughy Denzel Washington, who really should stop working with Tony Scott (they also worked together in Man on Fire and Déjà Vu), takes on the Matthau role, with a bit of a twist. While Matthau’s Garber was in all respects the working class hero, there are hints of deeper flaws in Washington’s Walter Garber – we learn he’s been demoted over allegations he took a bribe from a Japanese transit manufacturing company. When one of the trains on his watch is hijacked by a man who goes by the name Ryder (John Travolta sporting bad facial hair and a ridiculous-looking tattoo on his neck), Garber has the chance to make up for whatever sins he may or may not have committed.
Much of the film involves the calm and collected Garber trying to negotiate with the furious, expletive-spewing Ryder, who of course has a deeper, more profound and moral reason for doing what he’s doing. Why can’t thugs just be thugs anymore? Why do we have to hear them going on tirades about what’s wrong with the world today? Can’t it ever just be about the money? Travolta is no Robert Shaw, evidenced in pretty much ever scene he’s in – one menacing look from Shaw was enough to send chills up the spine. Travolta’s character just swears a lot. Subtle, this film is not (but what did I really expect from Tony Scott?).
Another major complaint I have with the new Pelham 1 2 3 (there are simply too many to name in one review) is that the other villains have zero personality – they’re just hired guns following orders. At least in the original, the henchmen (Hector Elizondo, Martin Balsam, Earl Hindman) had distinct personalities. Luis Guzman, who plays a disgruntled former transit employee and one of Ryder’s crew, comes close, but isn’t in enough of the film to make a real impression. No, where the original Pelham had a strong cast throughout, this is a two-name film, as evidenced by the poster: Washington and Travolta. Everyone else need not show up. If there is one credible performance that rises above the material, it’s James Gandolfini as the Mayor of New York. He’s altogether convincing as the self-serving politician who gets involved in the situation more for the benefit of his approval rating than for any sense of doing the right thing for his constituents. There are other talented actors in this film, John Turturro among them, but they’re completely wasted.
Do yourself a favour and skip this terrible excuse for a thriller – I guarantee you that tracking down the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three is far worthier of your time.
ALSO OPENING THIS WEEK: Away We Go, Imagine That, Departures