Customer Reviews: Read 11 more reviews...
 OK, but unnecessary. Buy the original. July 4, 2009
Claudio Di Gregorio (Argentina)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Having watched both the 1974 and this version I have little to add to what some other 3 star reviewers intelligently pointed out. If the idea was to improve on the original (tough proposition) it is not done. Original performances (the chilling Shaw and Elizondo, the disheveled Matthau, the milketoast Balsam) were better or better developed than here (with the exceptions of Gandolfini's and Turturro's characters -in particular the latter, which seems multidimensional and appropriately underplayed).
Judging from the way Travolta overplays his character -which, unlike Shaw's, scares nobody- they could have hired Jim Carrey instead.
*Spoiler Alert* The insertion of subplots (Garber is under suspicion of bribery, Ryder is a Wall Street investor) add very little to the basic premise of Godey's book (which is so good that it keeps the film running in itself) nor change the outcome in any meaningful way.
A great chance of doing something with the view of the scene provided by a hidden web connected laptop is wasted.
The original ending is much better, symbolically shocking (pun intended) and, at the very end, funny. Here, why Garber -a head of a family- risks his life and runs tenaciously after Ryder, who is escaping anyway? He owes the city exactly what?
Frantic editing does not necessarily add suspense to a film, so Scott decides to get some by any means: at the end Garber is forced to fire because the approaching policemen are apparently running on a treadmill. *-*
In a nutshell: Scott spent a lot more money than Sargent (the original director) to do somehow worse.
If you missed the original you will enjoy this. Otherwise, comparisons are inevitable.
Washington and Travolta spar. And they spar effectively. June 28, 2009
thornhillatthemovies.com (Venice, CA United States)
"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3", Tony Scott's ("Deja Vu", "Crimson Tide") new film starring Denzel Washington, John Travolta and James Gandolfini, is a remake of a very popular early 70s film starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw in the same roles. I haven't seen the original, but I enjoyed the new version, a surprise considering I am not a huge fan of the director's MTV style of editing. In fact, Scott's editing style makes the cable network look like television from the 50s.
Walter Garber (Washington), a supervisor for the New York Subway system is under investigation for taking a bribe; he has effectively been demoted and now sits at a desk making sure the system is running smoothly. Ryder (Travolta) and his crew, including Phil Ramos (Luis Guzman) jump on the Pelham 123 and quickly take control of the train, moving the passenger vehicle into a tunnel with a good vantage point. They disconnect the bulk of the train, saving the front car and it's passengers as their hostages. Ryder calls the command center and starts talking to Walter. He wants $10 million dollars for the dozen or so hostages he has on the train. They have one hour. Walter calls the police and the Mayor's (Gandolfini) office. And everyone descends on the command center. A professional New York Police Hostage negotiator (John Turturro) tries to take over, but Ryder has built a relationship with Walter, wants him back and won't talk with anyone else.
Tony Scott has made his career with films that include impossibly quick editing, jarring camera moves and a frenetic pace. He almost seems to think two seconds is 1.5 seconds too long for any shot. He makes Michael Bay look like a silent film director. Why can't he let our eye, our mind spend any time on a shot trying to comprehend what is going on? If he were able to let us take in the action, our mind would help to fill in information and make everything more interesting, more dramatic, and more exciting. Because he is moving everything so quickly, it almost seems as though he doesn't want to give us that power, to think about what is going on in the film. Is he that much of an egomaniac? I think it is a little evil when a filmmaker can't let the viewer interpret anything in a film. Tony Scott is evil.
In "Pelham", Scott keeps the pace fast, jumbles a mixture of techniques together and creates a film that is suspenseful and keeps you engaged. Okay, so maybe he isn't evil. Actually, his style seems to help this film, to a degree. For instance, when the gunmen are taking over the subway car, he spends a few moments lingering on one of the thugs and slows the film down, letting them take a few steps in slow motion. After he tires of this, he jumps the action forward and the characters are taking over the car, everything orchestrated and highly planned. This mixture of techniques helps to show us how difficult it is to get anything done in New York.
Washington is good. Let's face it, he always is, it's the films that usually let him down. As Garber, he seems a little chubby, wearing a mustard yellow button down shirt and an old-fashioned tie. This is a man who has spent a lot of his career sitting down. And as we meet Garber, we realize he knows how to do his job. He moves the trains fluidly through various obstacles. He knows what to look for. He knows how to solve the problems that come up. He is a good man to have on the job when a hostage situation breaks out. But given the nature of his standing, his boss doesn't have any confidence in him. As soon as the police arrive, Walter is sent home.
As soon as Ryder finds this out, he makes it known that he will only deal with Walter. This scene is probably the most effective, establishing Ryder's power and Walter's commitment to his job.
Throughout the film, the two actors have to give their characters personality and build a relationship, even though they don't see each other and aren't in the same room. Washington reveals things about his character in a subtle fashion. He is a career executive and has a wife, a mortgage and two kids who are in college. Much of this is revealed as he and Ryder talk, as Ryder tries to get to know the man. Gradually, as they get to know more about each other, Ryder escalates the conversation and begins to exert control on his new friend, forcing him to reveal personal information he doesn't want to let other people know, especially his co-workers, the police and the mayor, all of whom are an audience. But he does relent because Ryder makes it impossible for him to say no.
As the day progresses, we see that Walter is ultra professional and has worked his way up through the ranks. This helps him figure out what he has to do to get as many hostages to safety as possible. And he clearly has a lot invested in the workplace, making it necessary for him to do everything he can to ensure the safety of the people on the train.
Travolta plays Ryder, the leader of this mission. Ryder and his men take over the train with the utmost precision. They move it to a place where they have the advantage, they keep only one car (easier to control) and do many other things which show they have an inside man. As the time ticks away, Ryder slowly becomes a little more anxious, but he never loses control. He has clearly planned every detail of this mission for months and months.
As he and Walter talk, Ryder reveals more and more about his life. Travolta has played the sociopath, the flashy, over the top killer before, in roles great, amusing and way over the top ("Face/Off"), and in roles that just don't work ("Domestic Disturbance", "The Punisher"). He even seems to play them with relish, delighting in their more theatrical attributes. In "Pelham", he dials it back quite a bit which is a good thing. There is no doubt that Ryder is a sociopath because he kills a few people, but he also seems collected and clearly has a course worked out in his head. He seems to be a religious man, talking about confessionals, various passages in the bible and the like. And he seems to take a liking to Walter, insisting that the beleaguered subway official stay involved with him throughout the day, remain his contact with the outside world.
It is a good performance from Travolta and compliments Washington very well.
James Gandolfini plays the mayor of New York. As soon as his aides find out about the situation, they rush to a subway station and meet the Mayor's train at the platform. He gripes about taking the train, but he knows it is the quickest way to get around town. His aides quickly advise him of the situation and they take the train to the command center. Gandolfini makes a believable mayor of New York and he has a few funny lines about Rudolph Giuliani and the people of New York.
John Turturro plays a hostage negotiator. It is the first of two films Turturro is featured in released three weeks apart. And both are about as different as one can get. In "Pelham", he is very serious, no nonsense and very matter of fact. He could easily be an actual negotiator. It's a nice performance and works well within the context of the film. In "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", well... not so much.
Luis Guzman plays Ryder's second in command and he seems to have a lot of good, useful knowledge about the subway system. As we spend more time with him, it becomes clear he is a nervous guy and not used to this sort of thing.
I was convinced there would be a "big, surprising twist" at the end of "Pelham". When this didn't happen, I was happy because Scott and his writer, Brian Helgeland didn't resort to this kind of cheap storytelling trick. But on the other hand, I was a bit let down because Scott and Helgeland end the film on a more naturalistic note, a bit of a whimper rather than a bang.
Scott manages to keep the tension ratcheted up and doesn't let it up until the very end. In my book, that makes for a successful thriller.
ORIGINAL STILL THE BEST--- ENTERTAINS BUT DISAPPOINTING June 28, 2009
Francisco Santoni (USA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Just saw this in the theater. The original clearly still superior. I was looking forward to the talented Travolta [as Ryder "with a Y"] playing Robert Shaw's orig leader-of-the pack role but his performance ran hot and cold. Early on his F-word led tirades seemed forced and his acting a bit spastic. Only later did he appear to approximate the wonderfully cool & clever, even funny, villain that we all loved in FACE OFF [1997]. Unlike the original, the members of the gang and the kidnapped passengers were poorly characterized. John Turturro, who played the police hostage negotiator, appeared miscast and looked attired more for a day at the Museum of Art than for planning to save any lives. Tony Soprano, I mean James Gandolfini, plays the Mayor of NYC and looks like he'd rather be back in Jersey at the Badda-Bing. A few nice tension-racked scenes here including Ryders's' count-down execution of a motorman and his near capping of a teen. Overall, the movie appears spastic, superficial and the main actors mechanical and in a hurry to wrap this up. The exception is Denzel Washington who plays Walter Garber, the dispatcher. Garber is a former MTA big-wig who is demoted to his current role while the Feds investigate him for bribery. Bad-guy Travolta develops a rapport with Garber and will only negotiate with him and not the cops. Great tense scene when Ryder questions Garber about his possible guilt in his alleged bribery and threatens to execute a frozen teen [barrel to forehead and all] if he does not admit and promulgate his guilt. Later Ryder insists the ransom be delivered personally by Garber. Touching scene as Garber calls his wife just before going off on his potentially fatal mission and speaks as if he ain't gonna be home tomorrow. Wife, though, insists to bring back a large gallon of milk when he returns. Washington is wonderful, underplaying his role, being thoroughly endearing and engendering sympathy throughout---copper glasses, graying sides, thick-belly, and all. This is the great actor that almost tanked his promising career with the laughable abomination RICOCHET [1991]. The thankless teen with the computer on the train--and his cyber exhibitionist gal pal--were annoying throughout. Too bad Ryder didn't cap him anyway. The climax was not very imaginative. I didn't think you could walk right through the kitchen of the Waldorf-Astoria like these guys did without raising an eyebrow---I'm taking an unannounced tour tomorrow. How about Ryder escaping by walking across the Manhattan Bridge. As in the awesome COLLATERAL [2004], the working Joe [Garber] who knows nothing about guns stops the bad guy. Boy, it took those cops on the footbridge an eternity to get there to help Denzel. They must'of had stubs for legs. The ending pan of the pensive Washington going home [on the train] and walking up to his stoop, gallon of milk and all, was evocative. This one manages three stars only because of Washington's wonderful performance and the likeable Travolta---they did manage to generate some chemistry together. But, like its fancy GPS-like scene-to-scene NYC translocations, this remake appeared rushed and cursory, probably still intimidated by the original. Recommended only for die-hard Washington and Travolta fans only. You must watch the original
 Next Stop: A Hostage Situation June 24, 2009
Chris Pandolfi (Los Angeles, CA)
Yes, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" works as an action film. But what interested me more was the dynamic between subway dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) and a criminal mastermind who calls himself Ryder (John Travolta). They share such fascinating scenes that I'm disappointed there weren't more of them. It's a classic psychological scenario: Ryder, who hijacks a New York City subway train and holds passengers hostage, begins communicating with Garber over the intercom and comes to identify with him. Would he consider Garber a friend? Possibly, although I think a more accurate way of putting it is that he considers Garber as an equal, someone who knows just how terrible the city of New York can be. To elaborate would give too much away, but I will say that Garber has his own problems to deal with.
Tony Scott's remake of the 1974 film starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw (itself based on the novel by John Godey) isn't at pains to transcend its genre, and it definitely steers clear of the subtleties that make psychological thrillers appealing. Still, it achieves everything it wanted to achieve. Much of its success, of course, is the result of the performances by Washington and Travolta; despite the fact that they aren't physically seen together for most of the film, they still share natural onscreen chemistry, the back and forth conversations over the intercom flowing with seemingly no effort. Travolta in particular is especially good, effectively conveying his character's irrational state of mind. Ryder is a psychopath, but he's not without some depth--one can tell that his rage has been building for quite some time, quite possibly for very good reasons.
Whereas the original film was focused on satirically portraying the people of New York reacting to an extraordinary situation, this new film focuses more on the situation itself, and it plays up the psychological drama convincingly. What Ryder and Garber share is much more personal, which is to say that it's not merely about trying to stop the bad guy. It's about trying to understand the bad guy, getting to the heart of why he's doing what he's doing. There are some interesting things to consider, most notably the fact that he continuously monitors the state of the stock market on a laptop as he sits in the driver's compartment. This most certainly has something to do with his demands: Garber must contact the Mayor of New York and have $10 million delivered in exactly one hour. Should the delivery be late, Ryder will execute a hostage for every additional minute.
There are other nicely developed characters. For one, there's Camonetti (John Turturro), a professional hostage negotiator who guides Garber as he attempt to placate Ryder. Camonetti is level-headed and calm, a man who has clearly been through tough situations before. He's well aware of the urgency, but he never loses himself to panic, and he's capable of thinking things through, even when Ryder showers him with a litany of ethnic slurs. At the same time, he's well aware that time is running out for the hostages, as is the NYPD, who have the unfortunate responsibility of collecting Ryder's money and getting it to the subway.
There's also Garber's wife, Therese (Aunjanue Ellis). While not given very much screen time, her brief phone conversations with her husband suggest fascinating things about their relationship. Why, for instance, would she ask him to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home from delivering the money to Ryder? Better yet, why would Garber immediately start talking about only getting a quart? Do they genuinely believe that everything will be all right, or is it just their way to distract themselves so as not to panic? I would imagine it's a little bit of both.
And then there's the Mayor of New York (James Gandolfini). I was pleasantly surprised by him. He's introduced as yet another political stereotype--an unpopular man with no connection to the people in the middle of a scandal. But then comes his final scene with Garber, and while I won't reveal what he says, I will say that it makes him seem much more convincing as a real person. This didn't quite apply to the original version of "Pelham," which depicted the Mayor, played by Lee Wallace, as an opportunistic phony. Maybe it helped that Gandolfini's take on this character didn't involve him being sick with the flu.
All in all, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is adequate entertainment, which is to say that it's everything it wants to be and no more. It delivers as a tense action picture, but it achieves more with the psychological components, helped immensely by the onscreen chemistry between Washington and Travolta. In spite of the less-than-original plot, they were able to convince me that they were two men on opposite sides of the law in a desperate situation. Travolta is especially effective, not a clone of the cold and calculating Mr. Blue from the original "Pelham" but rather an enhancement--an intense man with a grudge against the city of New York. You believe that he's capable of anything, including murder. Believing in a character is always the hallmark of a decent movie.
 The Taking of Pelham 123, get on board for a great ride June 22, 2009
J. Hernandez (CA)
This movie is full of Oscar nominations. The writing is smart and witty, something that has been missing in movies for a long time. Denzel Washington and John Travolta both give Best actor nominations performances. James Gandolfini and John Turturro also give great performances. The full cast adds to this wonderful movie. Tony Scott direction keeps the movie on a fast pace that you hope will never end and I hope he will get best director. The Cinematography by Tobias A. Schliessler and the film editing by Chris Lebenzon should both be up for an Oscar as well. This has been a great year for great movies and The Taking of Pelham 123 leads the pack. A must see.
|
![The Taking of Pelham 123 [Theatrical Release]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519rmfWr28L._SL500_.jpg)
