Director Tony Scott's "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is the third film version based on John Godey's novel. The first was released in 1974 and didn't score much success at the time, but with the advent of home video it has become a cult classic.
The second version was made for TV in 1998 and was met with mediocre reviews and "why did they remake this?" reactions.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to (sadly) admit that I have never seen either of the previous two versions. So, comparisons will be based on the research I've done while preparing for this review.
By all accounts, the 1974 original was a gritty look at New York City at a time that was not the city's proudest in its long and colorful history. Reviews mention there is a good deal of dark humor in the film playing up to several New York prototypes. It's also noted that the 1974 version has influenced everyone from director Quentin Tarantino, who named his mobsters after colors in "Reservoir Dogs," to hip-hop legends The Beastie Boys, who pay homage in their song "Sure Shot."
Brian Helgeland, the man responsible for such gripping screenplays as "LA Confidential" and "Mystic River," wrote the screenplay for the 2009 version and presents a decidedly post-Sept. 11, 2001, New York City. Scott ("Top Gun," "True Romance," "Crimson Tide") uses all of his trademark visual style that has made him an A-list director of action films. But at heart, his "Pelham," like the novel and previous films, is a psychological suspense drama.
Helgeland's script stays true to the basics of the novel with a few updates. In 1974, a million bucks was a lot of money. That amount has been updated to $10 million, and a few other minor details have been changed. The "colors" names for the four hijackers have been axed, probably because viewers might assume the film was copying Tarantino, instead of the other way around.
John Travolta goes by the name Ryder. He and his three cohorts hijack the NYC subway train known to the people in the transit authority as "Pelham 1 2 3," because of its point of origin and departure time.
Ryder is no nonsense, and when he contacts Walter (Denzel Washington) at the transit authority, he makes his demands simple and clear: The powers that be have one hour to deliver $10 million in cash to him or a hostage (there are 18) will die every minute thereafter. In the novel and the previous films, the person on the other end of the walkie-talkie was a cop. This time around he is transit authority figure demoted to dispatcher status because he is suspected of taking a bribe.
Walter and Ryder have an amiable (if that's possible in a situation such as this) relationship over the radio. So when a police hostage negotiator arrives at the scene to take over for Walter, Ryder shows all concerned he means business.
Any complaints I have about the movie revolve around the fact that we never really get to know the passengers/hostages. It's easy to sympathize - the thought of a hostage incident is something a lot of people have imagined in the past eight years - but knowing the folks on the subway car a little better would make viewers more empathetic.
There's an inventive twist to Travolta's role. In the original, the villain-in-chief was a cold-blooded former mercenary. Here, he's more of a Bernie Madoff-inspired psycho. And that's a smart choice for these times of economic terror.
I tried to find a copy of the 1974 release but wasn't able to locate one before writing this review. Based on what I saw in Scott's remake and what I've read, I'm looking forward to seeing the original.
The new version is good summertime movie viewing. It's not going to change your life, but it will give you a fix of the kind of movie it tries, and succeeds, to be.[[In-content Ad]]
Jim Wunderle owns Wunderle Sound Services and is a Springfield freelance writer and musician. He can be reached at info@wunderlesound.com.
