"THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3" (2009) Review
"THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3" (2009) Review
Director Tony Scott’s 2009 version of John Godey’s 1973 novel, "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" marked the third time Hollywood released a version of the crime drama about the hijacking of a New York City subway train. The first version, directed by Joseph Sargent, featured Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. A television version that starred Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio had aired twenty-four years later. I barely remember the 1974 movie version and I have never seen the 1998 version. But I have seen the 2009 version when it was first released. And since I did a recent re-watch, I might as well give my two-cents on the movie.
"THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3" featured Denzel Washington as a New York City MTA dispatcher named Walter Garber, who is assigned to the Rail Control Center, due to an ongoing investigation. He was accused of taking a bribe to recommend a Japanese car manufacturer for the next subway car contract. Garber ends up as the liaison between the New York Police Department/the Mayor’s Office and a man named "Ryder", who has led three other men to board one of the MTA trains and hijack in exchange for $10 million dollars in ransom money.
Since my memories of the 1974 version are vague, I might as well express my view of the movie. In a nutshell, it was a solid and decent movie that had the good luck to possess a decent script written by Oscar winner, Brian Helgeland ("L.A. CONFIDENTIAL"). Yes, Helgeland made changes not only from the original novel, but also from the 1974 movie. That was to be expected . . . even though I have no idea what the changes are. Wait a minute. I am aware of one particular change. The Walter Garber character portrayed by Walter Matthau was a transit cop. Not that I care, since I have very vague memories of the movie. And for once, Tony Scott’s penchant for MTV style direction did not bother me. I thought it mixed well with the movie's story. However . . . the sequence that featured the NYPD's attempt to deliver the ransom money through the streets of Manhattan struck me as slightly ridiculous and over-the-top . . . especially with the number of car crashes that occurred this scene. As one character had put it - why not deliver the money via helicopter? The audience would have been spared that ridiculous scene. And one last scene annoyed me. It had to do with Garber’s attempts to track down and arrest "Ryder" and recover the ransom money. I thought it was a silly and contrived scene. But I must admit that I enjoyed how Scott captured the kinetic energy of Manhattan and kept the movie’s pace from moving too fast or two slow. "THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3" struck me as a well-paced film.
The movie featured first-rate supporting performances from the likes of Michael Rispoli, John Benjamin Hickey, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Ramón Rodríguez, Aunjanue Ellis, Robert Vataj and Gary Basaraba. However, three supporting performances really caught my eye came from John Turturro as Lieutenant Camonett of the NYPD Emergency Service Unit, who guides Garber into communicating with "Ryder"; Luis Guzmán as Phil Ramos (a.k.a. "Mr. Green"), one of the hijackers; and James Gandolfini as an unpopular mayor of New York City, who is under heavy pressure to address the hostage crisis. I found James Gandolfini’s performance as an unpopular mayor rather sharp and funny, and a nice departure from his some of his heavier past roles - including Tony Soprano. Another amusing performance came from Luis Guzman as one of the hijackers, Phil Ramos. Whereas the other hijackers - including Travolta - projected an over-the-top menace, Guzman gave a restrained and funny performance. John Turturro’s performance as the police hostage negotiator also struck me as restrained, subtle . . . and intelligent.
The two leading men of "THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3" seemed to give very contrasting performances. I was very impressed by Denzel Washington’s performance as the MTA dispatcher who is forced into dealing with an erratic and dangerous hijacker. Like Guzman and Turturro, he gave a very restrained performance and did an excellent job in keeping in character with an ordinary man, dragged into an extraordinary situation. Washington also gave the film's best performance in a scene that featured "Ryder" forcing Garber to confess to the charges of bribery, in order to save the life of one of the hostages. The one performance that troubled me came from John Travolta as "Ryder", leader of the hijackers. Not only did it struck me as a bit over-the-top, it also seemed like the kind of performance he had given several times in the past in movies like "BROKEN ARROW" and "FACE-OFF". Back in the 1990s, I found these performances fun and amusing. In the early 21st century, I found this particular performance a little tiresome. At least Travolta managed to give a convincing performance as an intelligent and dangerous man.
Judging from other comments I have read about this film, many seem quite willing to dismiss "THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3" as a crappy film. I do not agree. As far as I am concerned, the movie did not strike as crap. Granted, I have seen better action films. But I do believe that it is a pretty solid and entertaining movie that should not be dismissed, because it was not exceptional. "THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3" may not have been a masterpiece, but I believe it was a hell of a lot better than many overrated films in recent years.
