By Malice Intended
Constructing an action thriller is no easy task. Audiences are increasingly hard to please, and with more people opting to stay home and wait for the DVD, studios and filmmakers are under a tremendous amount of pressure. They are constantly seeking new ways to thrill us. This eagerness to please isn’t always a good thing, and sometimes results in a film that overshoots it mark.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a remake of the 1974 film of the same title, which itself was based on a novel by Morton Freedgood. A group of gunmen hijack a New York City Subway train. The group is lead by eccentric criminal mastermind Bernard Ryder (John Travolta). Ryder quickly gets in touch with MTA dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) at the Rail Control Center. Ryder demands that the city of New York pay him 10 million dollars in ransom money within the next hour or he will start killing passengers. Garber agrees to relay Ryder’s demands. The Mayor (James Gandolfini) is notified, and Lieutenant Cammonetti (John Turturro) of the NYPD Emergency services unit is called in to deal with the situation. Ryder refuses to talk to anyone other than Garber. The two develop a rapport which Lt. Cammonetti tries to capitalize on in an attempt to neutralize Ryder and rescue the hostages.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an exercise in stylistic overkill. This overkill manifests itself in two very important aspects. One is Tony Scott’s frenetic visual style; the other is John Travolta’s cartoonish villain. Both factors conspire to keep Pelham from being the lean, efficient thriller it needs to be.
Tony Scott employs a visual approach that proves both distracting and frustrating. The camera roams and wanders listlessly in even the most mundane of settings. Is Bravura camerawork really called for in scenes that contain nothing but dialogue? Scott feels the need for visual pyrotechnics even in scenes that don’t involve action. One gets the sense that Scott would like to bypass the dialogue and character development altogether and have the film simply be a collection of action set pieces.
The performances of the principles provide an extreme contrast in acting styles. As Walter Garber, Denzel Washington is the embodiment of understatement. Washington has always possessed an uncanny ability to slip into character easily and it serves him well here. Garber is the prototypical everyman, the kind of guy that doesn’t stand out in a crowd. Washington understands this, and tones down his movie star persona accordingly.
At the other end of the spectrum is John Travolta’s performance as Bernard Ryder. Ryder is a comic book villain in every sense of the phrase. The performance reads like a collection of histrionics. Yelling and arm flailing abound. Travolta is clearly acting in a different movie than the rest of the cast, one where such a performance would not seem out of place.
Less is always more when it comes to action thrillers. This rule does not apply so much to the plot as it does the overall approach. No matter how complex the plotting or characterizations, the film itself should click along with efficiency and propulsion. Had Tony Scott and John Travolta kept this in mind, they might have had quite a thrill ride on their hands.
out of 5
Follow Us on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/planetill
Follow Malice Intended on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Renaissance1977
Join Us on the Planet Ill Facebook Group for more discussion
totally completely on point.
You know with re-makes, they always try to take shit to the next level. Like how Abrams did with Trek. So would you recommend this on DVD or skip it all together and watch the original?
Skip it all together and watch the original.
Abrams approach is a bit more economical and efficient than Tony Scott’s. Abrams keeps it basic. Scott throws in everything but the kitchen sink.