The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Five years ago, Denzel Washington and director Tony Scott collaborated onMan on Fire, a movie I loved for the way it blended brutal violence and heartfelt emotion. It was also one of the most stylistically original movies I have ever seen. Scott first implemented this style on his contribution to The Hire series (a really bad-ass compilation of short films starring Clive Owen by John Woo, Joe Carnahan, Ang Lee, Guy Ritchie, Inarritu, and others), but it wasn’t done on the big screen until Man on Fire (more on the style later). The two reunited a few years later on Deja Vu, a movie that I found quite entertaining despite it’s difficult plot (maybe I was one of the few people who actually “got it”), but it was still a massive step down from MoF. With one great film and one good film under their belt, I went into the newest Washington/Scott movie with high expectations, and although it doesn’t attain aMan on Fire level of greatness (most movies don’t), I thoroughly enjoyed The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

The title of the movie pretty much lets you in on the plot. Four gunmen hijack a train and demand ransom for the passengers. A train dispatcher must keep communication with them and try to control the situation. Simple enough, and the movie does not waste time with exposition. After the opening credits, which shows the various gunmen getting on board the train and the dispatcher doing what dispatchers do, the train is hijacked and we’re off to the races. I didn’t time it out, but the events in the movie unfold in close to real time.

The movie is just dripping in Scott’s style, which to me is a good thing, but I know people who are very turned off by it. For those who don’t know, Scott’s style consists of slow-motion, rapid motion, changing color hues, taking the film out of focus, double vision, white flashes, circular shots, over laying frames, and re-showing frames. I certainly would not want all of my movies to look like this, but it’s a nice change, similar to what JJ Abrahms did with Star Trek. I’d go nuts if I had to put up with lens flaring in every movie I went to, but I thought it added to the sleek feel of Trek. I kinda went off on a tangent there, but I do have a point. Go into this movie knowing it is going to have a very different look and feel, and try not to be turned off by it.

Pelham 1 2 3 relies heavily on the dynamic between its stars, John Travolta and Denzel Washington. They have that thing where despite one being good and the other bad, there’s some level of respect and connection between them. Think Heat. Washington is one of the best actors in Hollywood and people seem to be forgetting that fact now that he’s getting older and taking mellower roles. Just because he no longer chooses as many Oscar caliber parts, the fact remains that he’s an Oscar winner and can do pretty much anything he’s asked to do (watch Glory, Training Day, and Malcolm X if you need a refresher course in his talent). This role is no different from Washington’s recent choices in that he isn’t asked to do much (he spends much of the movie seated behind a desk talking into a microphone), but he has moments (one scene in particular) in which he truly shines.

Travolta’s Ryder is the meatier part and sadly, he does not deliver. The movie hinges on Ryder being completely crazy and volatile and Travolta delivers this at times, but given what the script has him doing in those scenes, it would be hard for anyone not to come off as crazy. I was excited to see Travolta play a bad guy. He does a really good crazy in both Face/Off and Broken Arrow, but that is just not the case here. Most of the time, it feels like Travolta playing a crazy person than an actual crazy person. It’s not all Travolta’s fault though. There are times when his character is played more for laughs than terror and whoever wrote the script seemed to think that the more someone says “mother fucker”, the crazier they are. I think the big problem is that Travolta is just too big for the part (I’m talking his persona, not his head). A lesser star, or an unknown, could have added more mystery and terror to the part, therefore making the character more menacing.

Hopefully, no one is going to see this thinking they’re in for an action film. If I had to, I’d characterize this movie as a thriller. There are a very sequences that could be construed as action, but I’d say its real-world violence and events. On the subject of violence, it is brutal and realistic (sometimes to the point of being uber-realistic). The movie earns its R-rating for sure. All of the visuals in the movie are done using practical effects and they look fantastic. Scott has always done driving scenes well and this movie is no exception.

In terms of the plot, Pelham 123 has to take some silly steps and there are coincidences to assure that the crisis is not resolved too quickly. Cops are stupid. A simple plan where nothing can go wrong has things that go wrong. Just be aware that this devices will be used and try not to judge the movie to hard on it. It’s a thriller, not an Oscar contender (like a said, Denzel doesn’t do those anymore). At times it can be very predictable and the ending is nothing original, but there are a few aspects of the story that I did not expect that were real pluses. Rather than make the audience wade through opening exposition, they deliver it all through dialogue later on. This can feel heavy handed at time, but the main story of the film never stops moving, so it’s tough to care too much.

I feel like I’ve been saying this a lot (and I’ll be saying it even more as the season rolls on), but this is an entertaining summer movie. I’m not sure I want to say that it’s fun, given the subject and all, but it’s certainly not depressing and never too serious. Despite it’s faults, The Taking of Pelham 123 stays afloat and delivers an enjoyable movie watching experience.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot to mention that Scott and Denzel did Crimson Tide together. That was before Scott’s new style, so it didn’t really fit the intro, but Crimson Tide is awesome.