Reviewed by Lamar Kukuk
6/17/09
Some movies expand in your
brain like a wet sponge after the credits roll: you make connections,
process themes, rewatch favorite scenes in your mind and generally absorb
the film, resulting in an experience that's richer and more satisfying
24 hours after it ends. Other movies would be better walled off and
not considered even once after the final shot: they get the job done
while they're going on but start to sputter and lose luster upon further
consideration. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, the third film
version of John Godley's 1973 best-seller, falls under the later category.
It's 105 slickly-made minutes of escapism with Denzel Washington and John
Travolta effectively occupying roles they could play in their sleep.
It's got problems, does it ever, but old pros Tony Scott and Brian Helgeland
keep the plates spinning long enough to send the people home happy.
How happy they'll be by the time they get home will vary...
It's just another day at
New York's MTA transit system, with Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) working
as a dispatcher for trains including the 1:23 out of Pelham Bay.
Something's not right about that train, which has cut off communication
and separated in two. A hijacker named Ryder (John Travolta) has
ordered the passengers evacuated from the rear nine cars, but holds the
front car and all aboard hostage. He makes contact with Garber, and
makes his demand: in one hour, he wants ten million dollars to be
delivered to the car or he will begin shooting a passenger every minute
until they're all dead. Using a handy Internet connection on the
car, Ryder learns a little something about his counterpart: Garber
has been demoted pending investigation of charges that he took a bribe
from a Japanese train manufacturer. Seeing him as a kindred spirit,
the hijacker won't talk to anyone else, and that goes double for Camonetti
(John Turtorro), the hostage negotiator sent by the police. The Mayor
(James Gandolfini) is whisked to the MTA headquarters while his underlings
try to get the ransom together. There's clearly history between Ryder
and the city, and he's got a lot more than ten million dollars on his mind.
I haven't seen the 1974 Pelham
with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, but I did enjoy the 1998 TV remake
with Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio. But this particular
project just oozed potential because of all the talent involved, and it's
mostly unfulfilled. Oh, Helgeland's reimagined the characters in
some interesting directions, with Washington's Garber a morally compromised
dispatcher rather than a cop, and Ryder's secret background fits nicely
with our modern sense that to be a true criminal genius, you've got to
be carrying a briefcase to go with your gun. And when he pits the
two characters against each other, with Ryder's loose cannon combination
of rage and empathy for his adversary, they do strike sparks. Sadly,
the character-driven aspects of their confrontation are minimal, and far
too much screentime is devoted to the wonders of playing for time.
And for all that the movie wants us to think about the duality of each
man, we see very little of the Garber who took that bribe or the Ryder
who's more than just a gun-toting thug. There's history aplenty between
the crook and the Mayor, but one only realizes who the other is AFTER their
only scene together. Once it all plays out (in a climax where one
character seems absurdly indifferent to whether he prevails or not), missed
opportunities will start multiplying in your brain like bunnies.
This is also the odd movie
that's got entirely too much action, not because it's got a lot, but because
it's two big action setpieces have nothing to do with any of the mail characters.
A breakneck race by the police to get the ransom to the train is so faithfully
lifted from the original that the movie's got to make a running joke of
wondering why no one thought to use a helicopter. And at the climax,
Ryder's plan to cover his tracks leads to a ridiculous little round of
sound and fury that signifies nothing because ultimately no one was in
any danger.
The movie's other big problem
is the passengers: all but one (a troubled veteran skillfully played
in just a few brief scenes by Gbenga Akinnagbe) are cyphers or worse.
In an uncharacteristic and unwise bow to modern technology, one passenger
(Alex Kaluzhsky) is connected to his girlfriend (Alice Kremelberg) by a
webcam which remains on during the hostage crisis. Upon learning
the connection is still live, the kid advises his girl to “post this on
our website and call the press.” Uh, the cops maybe? Doesn't
matter, they notice the feed on the news; something Ryder, masterfully
playing all the angles from his perch in the conductor's seat, NEVER DOES.
Ugh!
But for all these issues,
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 still manages to entertain because it's
just assembled too much talent to fail. Travolta's as good a villain
as his generation of actors has produced, and he tweaks his standard fruity
madman to add a real streak of bitterness that makes Ryder seem motivated
even when he's not. The movie rests almost entirely on his performance
because to keep the suspense going, we need to believe he's a loose cannon
capable of killing anyone at any time, and it certainly plays that way.
Washington, carrying about 30 extra pounds, makes a solid everyman, and
that defiant self-confidence he wears like a glove is ideal for a man with
a secret. Gandolfini is outstanding in his tiny role, so much so
I wish he'd had more to do. His Mayor is an amalgam of recent NYC
politicians, but more entertaining than any of them since it's ALL he can
do to keep his “I love New York” grin on because he's not particularly
keen on the subway, the Yankees or any of that stuff. Turtorro is
solid in a thankless role as the hostage negotiator no one wants to talk
to.
And there is a fundamental
appeal to this sort of hostage crisis story, which is why we see them over
and over. The notion that a lone hero has only his voice and his
wits to try and defeat the machinations of a villain he can neither see
or touch with multiple lives at stake is a natural grabber. It would
be really easy for The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 to be great, because
between the concept and the cast, the deck is stacked so strongly in its'
favor. Instead, it coughs and wheezes its' way to “pretty good”.
Just don't think about it too much and you'll be fine. |
