THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 (2009) - **1/2

The 1974 original movie THE TAKING OF PEHAM ONE TWO THREE from director Joseph Sargent is one of the great 1970s thrillers (a rich decade for that breed), and frankly one of my personal favorites within the genre. It's hard to describe with justice why it's so great, akin to dancing about architecture. I would say that it's the sort of popcorn thriller I would aspire to emulate if I actually was a director instead of reviewing cheesy actioneers starring Dolph Lundgren. TAKING is such a lean and goddamn mean action narrative, with barely any script fat to distract from its nail-biting suspense, frantic electricity, and escalating energetic pace much like the runaway subway train in the hectic climax. It's what most thrillers want to be when they grow up.

As with other great ass-kicking 70s cinema, TAKING has no time to fuck around. As a bonus, we get some terrific and surprisingly appropriate New Yorker cynical humor that both lightens up the mood, while simultaneously unnerving the audience, and David Shire's great soundtrack. You know, back when even action-thrillers had memorable rockin' scores instead of the same generic-bland compositions we get stuck with these days. In fact, after the release of the movie (and Morton Freedgood's source-novel), no #6 train in the New York City Subway has ever been scheduled to leave Pelham Bay Park at either 01:23 or 13:23 (the exact time of the fictional crime.) Also later Quentin Tarantino's RESERVOIR DOGS "lifted" the color-codenames from TAKING, and shit even the movie was cited in a song by the New York City-native Beastie Boys. Now that's pop culture impact that you can't fucking buy.

So the point is that before I begin, I want to say that I wasn't necessarily against a remake of TAKING, I just didn't give a shit. The very basic plot dynamics of gun-wielding criminals hijacking a NYC train and demanding a rich ransom from the city within a hour before they start executing the passengers could be told in any decade. But any possible interest waned when director Tony Scott was hired, and the last movie of his I liked was back in President Clinton's first term. Then I see the trailer, with Scott, Travolta, Denzel....I had a sneaking suspicion that this might be pretty routine and forgettable.

Yup.

I had a good laugh when in press junket interviews Scott, Denzel, and scripter Brian Helgeland kept emphasizing how "analog" the original PELHAM was, and how they "digital" updated with the remake. See they replaced ONE TWO THREE with 1 2 3. That's how modern they are. Cute and all, I bet they pat themselves on the back with pride...except it was already been done. What people are forgetting is that PELHAM 1 2 3 is actually the third cinematic version of the same story. A decade or so ago, there was the television movie with Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio which included computer technology and shit. To be fair, the new PELHAM now includes Wi-Fi, which technically counts as an upgrade.

It's unfair to repeatedly compare a remake with its father. A remake has got to stand on its own, right? Yet two aspects kept bugging the hell out of me with the Scott retake. In the original when Robert Shaw and his military disciplined deameanor seized the train, he was a no bullshit sort of enigmatic villain. He's legitimate, lethal if necessary, and quite believable. John Travolta with 1 2 3, he's your typical movie hostage-taker baddie. He chews up the scenery, his arrogance leads to his downfall, trying to buddy up with hero Denzel, making goddamn speeches, you know all that usual nonsense. Think of this as DIE HARD on a train.

Second, 1 2 3 falls into the quicksand trap that suffocated Peter Hyams' SUDDEN DEATH, which is when the filmmakers lack the confidence in their story and audience and thus try to overcompensate with junk plotting, i.e. "Fat." Guess what? Dispatcher-turned-hero Denzel Washington has a beef with his obstacle-for-the-screenplay's-sake superior. He's also under investigation for allegedly taking a bribe from a Japanese train company, which is why poor Denzel is stuck at that crummy demoted gig when the shit goes down. His wife is also worried about him. I guess Tony Scott thought criminals hijacking a subway train of passengers at gunpoint wasn't dramatic enough.

Man, I can't believe Brian Helgeland has come to this crap. A long time ago, Helgeland won an Oscar for penning the adaptation of the classic masterpiece L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. He later directed the wholly satisfying and unrepented badass revenger PAYBACK, before Mel Gibson took it away and castrated. Apparently something similar also happened to his THE ORDER with Heath Ledger, so Helgeland's career amounts to now scribbling such vanilla wafers and tap water like 1 2 3. Poor guy.

Then I realized something. 1 2 3 is for those people who thought Spike Lee's INSIDE MAN was too arty, too political-conscious, and too memorable. I'm certain quite a few of the same people who trash INSIDE MAN's plot twist will embrace the logic and mental gaps of both cops and criminals. The same types who will pay to see Michael Bay's new film this weekend, and then claim a decade later that they didn't. Also, anyone notice that both 1 2 3 and INSIDE MAN have Denzel as a hero under investigation by their higher-ups?

I'm reminded too of Hyams' NARROW MARGIN another remake of a supposed classic thriller which I sorta liked, but just barely over 1 2 3. The difference was that while I saw the first PELHAM, I haven't seen THE NARROW MARGIN. If I had seen that, would I have still given a passing grade to the Hyams' remake? I really don't know. But as you can see, I'm trying to be fair here and not be too righteous.

I must admit, at times I was involved and somewhat even entertained with Scott's 1 2 3. With it's comfortable big budget to buy an actual (or at least looks like) an authentic shoot in New York and a respectable supporting cast (John Turturro, Luiz Guzman, James Gandolfini), it's certainly not a bad movie per say. But that's about it. In fact it's probably Tony Scott calms down from his mid-life crisis Avid-machine abuse that marked MAN ON FIRE, DOMINO, and DEJA VU. He still insists on that awful kind of slow motion I despise, which I've blasted before. Not smooth dreamlike Brian DePalma slow motion, but the sort that's supposed to emulate "time stopping" but instead comes off as looking into a beer bootle while drunk.

This is Tony's watchable work since perhaps CRIMSON TIDE or ENEMY OF THE STATE, but considering Tony's filmography this decade, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. I'm afraid I must still wait for the return of old school Tony Scott, who made TRUE ROMANCE, REVENGE, THE HUNGER, THE LAST BOY SCOUT. You know, back when one could give a fuck about Tony Scott.

Also, I like how Gandolfini the inept and outgoing Mayor is the one who figures out Travolta's endgame scheme. Not the cops or even Denzel, but the Mayor, an authority part in such tales that usually is relegated to punchline (like the original PELHAM) or useless figurehead (think most disaster pictures). Also he asks a relevant question that I've asked about all three PELHAM flicks: Instead of rushing traffic by squad car or motorcycle to deliver the money, why not just use the faster and less hazardous helicopter? The answer why of course is self-evident.

(BTW, if you want a good laugh, check out the hilarious and dead-on review of this remake in the AD forums by Blue Velvet Bayou. http://www.awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?t=15940)