The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an unnecessary film that pales in comparison to the excellent 1974 film and yet it still manages to mildly entertain. Tony Scott delivers his usual shtick of overstylizing and placing characters in preposterously contrived situations, but here, he actually makes some of those aspects work.
The film follows Walter Garber, a subway dispatcher who’s average day turns bad after the hijacking of a subway train. The train has been taken under control by Ryder who has a pack of armed gun men with him. Garber soon makes contact with Ryder who puts up a ransom on the passengers. If Ryder doesn’t get the money he requests in an hours time he will soon kill one passenger by the minute. Garber must continue to buy more time as he keeps a cat and mouse game going with Ryder over a radio.
Nothing in the film comes off as surprising and it’s much more of a by-the-number thriller. It’s predictable by all accounts, but it’s lucky enough to have some elevating factors that keep it from being completely mediocre. The first two acts is where the film works best. It’s set up with Denzel Washington and John Tavolta is well executed. Their banter is fun and also engaging. They may not make for the most interesting characters, but they at least feel genuine– even though Travolta is practically a cartoon. The third act is where the film tumbles. It becomes a long action chase that has Washington becoming the cliche hero at the end of the day. From the laughably bad ending to Travolta’s character’s stock market scheme the film completely jumps the shark while still trying to actually hold onto any sort of realism. Washington’s character in particular makes the most preposterously stupid decisions possible, the freeze frame ending is quite hilarious too.
The kinetic, fast-paced director Tony Scott has always been hit and miss and that is well represented in the film. At times, his flashy fast cutting style works, but it also feels gimmicky and distracting during other scenes. It becomes such a bother that it pulls you completely out of the film. This is mainly apparent during the action scenes where it cuts every second. Scott definitely has his own visual stamp that he brings to films and it’s in full force here, for better and worse. One thing Scott gets right, as usual, is pacing. The film moves a long at a brisk pace with very few dull moments. The first two acts flow perfectly and are actually quite entertaining. While this pro gets lost in the final act, it’s difficult to deny that it loses watchability.
The most compelling and redeeming aspect are the performances. Washington is genuinely likable lead who is always easy to cheer for. He’s easy to connect to as the average joe, but Washington can’t quite handle the heroics during the third act since it doesn’t quite fit in with the persona establish. It’s still none the less a good performance. The big surprise here is that Travolta isn’t terrible which all the trailers implied. Travolta actually makes fur an extremely fun and menacing antagonist due to his extremely over-the-top performance. Travolta is constantly cracking jokes that are all funny even if some of the laughs are obviously unintentional. He’s cheesy, hilarious, and Travolta is self-aware of this. He’s chewing the scenery in an un-wordly manor in the best way possible. An other real scene stealer here is James Gandolfini who plays the mayor. Gandolfini is comical and even convincing as a mayor. Many onscreen mayors fall into cliches nowadays and make terrible decisions consistently, Glandolfini never allows this.
This is a generic thriller that is elevated to being a mildly entertaining piece of B-movie shlock due to the campy performances and the rapid fast pacing. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is still useless considering the best version of this premise has already been made with the original film, but it works just fine on its own merit as a dumb fun thriller.
6 out of 10
What did you think of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3?