PDA

View Full Version : THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 (Tony Scott 2009)



Chris Knipp
06-15-2009, 11:18 AM
THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 (Tony Scott 2009)

Review by Chris Knipp

Trouble on the line

Tony Scott's lively, moderately engaging new blockbuster starring John Travolta as the villain and Denzel Washington as the tarnished hero is a remake of Joseph Sargent's 1974 actioner featuring Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau. Both concern a group of ex-cons who commandeer a New York subway train car on the Number 6 (Lexington Avenue) line, holding the passengers hostage for ransom money. In both cases it's a calm MTA hub dispatcher who negotiates with the lead hijacker. The city is supposed to cough up a large sum, a million then and ten million now, and the chief bad guy proves himself willing to carry out his threat to kill a hostage for every minute the delivery's past the 60-minute deadline. If Sargent's movie is a relic of a grimier New York and dated Seventies film-making, Scott's, with its pumped up visual style, obsession with money and financial markets, and somewhat tacky exploitation of the idea of a terrorist scare, is very likely to read in future as an artifact of our era.

Scott has a tendency to get too kinetic and he threatens to go over the top right away in a blurry, over-edited opening sequence that, however, serves narrative purposes efficiently as it cleverly sets up the hijacking and establishes the personalities of the two principals before the opening credits are even done. Not surprising if you've been to the movies in the past decade or so that here everything is more gonzo -- bigger, louder, faster, more expensive and more technologically complicated, with helicopters buzzing overhead, computer screens large and small flashing a mile a minute, and hundreds of cops and cop cars with a Death Race style rush to get the cash across town from a Federal Reserve building to the track where Travolta's holding his victims. As so often in today's actioners, all-out efforts to get the bad guys are so violent they could easily cause more casualties (and, as in Will Smith's boorish superhero derring-do in Hitchcock) more property damage than the actual crime. The modern complexity of the NY subway control hub is accurately portrayed, however.

This is a different bad guy. While Shaw was a cool, calculating Brit, Travolta is a very loose canon from Jersey with a prison-tattooed neck and volleys of obscenity-laced anger whose origins, while obscure, seem to trace back to a great and deviously satiated lust for Wall Street wealth. It's an explosive performance full of disturbing and inexplicable venom but little nuance. The dispatch man, however, is cool and collected this time too, as in 1974. Somebody's got to be. Political updating requires a market-savvy rich-guy New York mayor (James Gandolfini, in a good suit), and this one, who disavows doing a Giuliani, gets taken a tiny bit more seriously than the old Pelham mayor, who was stuck at home with a cold.

Sargent 's Pelham captured the tarnished down-and-dirty of its era's NYC, fitting it on an honorable shelf with the likes of The French Connection, Klute, Born to Win, Dog Day Afternoon, The Warriors, and Taxi Driver. It's blaxploitation-style score reminds us this is the area of Quentin Tarantino's inspiration: the crooks' anonymous monikers as Messers Blue, Gray, Green and Brown can't be reused in Brian Helgeland's new script because the device is too famous from the way it was exploited in Reservoir Dogs. These violent wretches wouldn't have time for such niceties anyway. Anyway in the hi-tech era you can't hide and an accidental video feed and free use of databases allows the good guys to identify the two main perps while the crime is in progress.

For all its references to the city and to Brooklyn and Jersey, this reincarnation, by Brit Tony Scott, doesn't do much to capture the feel of New York as the old Pelham does. Much time is spent instead on updated technology. Travolta manages to make wi-fi available down under, and before the heist begins a young passenger called Geo (Alex Kaluzhsky) has already been (somewhat implausibly) engaged in intimate online audio-visual chatting with his girlfriend on his laptop.

Helgeland clunkily injects complexity into the role of Garber (Washington) by making him a self-made man from admin who's been demoted on suspicion of taking a bribe from Japanese train car manufacturers, and there's stagey praying and talk of Catholicism and confessionals. This is (in both versions) a story about a humble operative who manages to save the day when top level guys might have failed. Italian-American Travolta ironically addresses hostage negotiator John Turturro only as "Greaseball," refusing to talk to him. Turturro's supercilious manner makes him impossible to believe as a negotiator; there are plenty more implausibilities added into this more frantic version, along with obtrusive product placements. Nonetheless, perhaps surprisingly, the new movie follows through the basic action plot line to the same finale as the original's.

Compare this to Dog Day Afternoon (for example), that superb vehicle for Al Pacino at his most virtuosic, and you'll see a basic shortcoming of both versions, which goes back to John Godey's source novel. Despite information about hijacker and negotiator, they remain essentially generic, without complex back stories. Above all Travolta's motivation remains unclear. What is he really trying to do? And for all his vitriolic verbiage, does he even care?

Scott is best known for loud fast action movies like Top Gun and blockbuster star vehicles like Crimson Tide (Gene Hackman) and Enemy of the State (Will Smith). But his best job was to shoot faithfully and with panache Tarantino's terrifically enjoyable extravaganza True Romance, including a pre-"Sopranos" Gandolfini in a memorable cameo, not to mention classic turns by Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper, Gary Oldman, even Brad Pitt. For once Scott had a great screenplay and didn't get in its way. Neither writing nor directing in this Pelham remake remotely approaches that level.

Johann
06-15-2009, 01:16 PM
Tony Scott can be an amazing filmmaker.
True Romance is Masterful.
I could watch that one over and over.
An extravaganza indeed.

I like your description of the original as a tarnished, down-and-dirty actioner that had a "blaxploitation style". Because it did. It does.
I much prefer the original just by seeing the trailer.
Thanks to your review you've confirmed why I don't want to see it. If it's unclear as to why Travolta does what he does or even if he cares about why he's doing it, then why should the audience?

He tragically lost his son this year and that's something that can take you out of the game. I wish his family the best. Life is certainly not fair.


I hate to say it but I'm not too interested in seeing this Pelham.
It's got too many unfortunate clouds over it.

Chris Knipp
06-15-2009, 01:45 PM
Well, I'm not recommending that anyone see this Pelham. Why should there be a remake? Only because the studio can't think of or dare to risk anything new? I don't really agree that Scott can be amazing. He can be very slick. There is only one time he made a movie worth watching "over and over." And everybody agrees on what it is: True Romance. Plus Top Dog for it's "homoerotic" sequence. But that's a novelty and a page in a celebrity's rise, not an artistic accomplishment.

I don't know if Travolta did the film before the death of their son, probably before though. I have frankly not seen some of Travolta's "dramatic" blockbusters, but Bret McCabe of The Baltimore City Paper refers to "John Travolta in his Pomeranian-on-crank overacting mode to convey criminal lunacy; see also: Swordfish, The Punisher." Some of the big-name NY reviewers differ on the point that just watching Washington and Travolta chew up the rug onscreen but in separate venues makes the whole thing worth watching. I'm not sure what else would. Walter Chaw (Film Freak Central) doesn't agree "That if you get Travolta to do his psycho thing and Washington to do his soothing thing, there will be neither need, nor room, for developing their characters." Tony Scott's work is slick, but it lacks the soul of more committed mainstream directors like Michael Mann.

Johann
06-15-2009, 01:51 PM
True, the only amazing film he made was True Romance.
(And I really liked The Last Boy Scout).

I'm not the biggest Top Gun fan. Not at all.
But I do admit that it is a really entertaining movie and I know exactly why it was such a huge hit. The boys AND the girls liked what Top Gun had to offer. The boys liked the jets and the flying scenes, and the girls liked the romance (what little there was!)

But it is a little limp. (wristed). ha ha


And speaking of The Warriors, that's Scott's latest remake.
Go figure.

Chris Knipp
06-15-2009, 02:22 PM
I haven't seen THE LAST BOY SCOUT. TOP GUN is propagandistic, jingoistic, macho (but homoerotic) crap. Of course it's got lots of zing. It wows you. That's the trouble. His work is very slick but it has no soul. It's just slick and entertaining. Give him a script and he runs with, but adds nothing to, it. But TRUE ROMANCE gave him wonderful material to work with, he got a great cast (maybe with prodding from Quentin, I don't know the story of the project) and then didn't get in the way. The one possible exception is the final shootout scene. Tarantino himself might have done that a bit differently. But Scott knows how to keep action clean. He just pumps it up too much, and nowadays increasingly has too much camera movement and too much ADD editing.

I haven't seen his remake of THE WARRIORS. I would not want to see a remake of that. Another Seventies camp classic you don't want to mess with. That walk. Those Afros. The naked men with the leather vests. The dank, dark look. It was all fresh and sexy then. It was schlock but it had soul nonetheless. Maybe Tarantino could remake it. Or Robert Rodriguez. For a remake to justify itself you need somebody with a persona style and a real new angle.

Johann
06-15-2009, 02:23 PM
Well, The Warriors is currently in-production.
Nobody's seen it yet.
I have no idea why he'd remake that one either.
The original is a cult classic.
Speaking of Tarantino, he's the one who should have done these remakes, if they were to be done at all.
Imagine if QT did Pelham! or Warriors! I'd be jazzed to see those.
But Tony Scott?
I agree with you in that he doesn't give these films enough juice.
He seems too worried about making a mistake.
But everything seemed to fall into place with True Romance.
Everything clicked on that one.

Johann
06-15-2009, 02:29 PM
The Last Boy Scout is a script by Shane Black, who wrote the original Lethal Weapon.
Stars Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans and it wasn't earth-shakingly great, but I really enjoyed it.
It had enough to hold my interest.
Haven't seen it in years, though.

I don't know what's going on with all of these 70's gritty film remakes. Next we'll see Dirty Harry with Jerry Stiller! or Rocky Horror with ruPaul!

Chris Knipp
06-15-2009, 02:36 PM
I added in that thought of Tarantino doing a remake before I saw your post, so we're on the same page. I think he's more for WARRIORS than for PELHAM though. PELHAM is too much of a formulaic actioner thing. That's my thought, anyway. Anyway the thing is that Tarantino would really transform it, and yet revel in period flavor too.

I don't want to get off the track, to coin a phrase, but I almost think TRUE ROMANCE is better than the Tarantino he himself directed. Maye haveng another director do his script toned him down a bit. All the great dialogue is there, but the scenes are not played out so long and hence serve the action nicely. I would say TR is from QT's great period as a writer. Maybe I like TR also because it's a cleaner, sweeter story than RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION. It's a. . .romance.