Director Report Card: Tony Scott (2009)

15. The Taking of Pelham 123

In 1973, Morton Freedgood, under his pseudonym John Godey, published the novel “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.” The book became a best-seller and the film rights were quickly purchased. By 1974, the cinematic “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” would unfurl on theater screens across the country. A commercial and critical success at the time,  the film would, over the years, acquired a reputation as one of the most underrated classics of gritty seventies crime cinema. Something about the premise must prove irresistible to filmmakers too. In 1998, the novel would be adapted again for television. In 2007, a big budget remake started to roll into production, with Tony Scott directing. Scott's version of Freedgood's story would depart for theaters in 2009.

Walter Gerber, a New York City subway dispatcher, thinks today is going to be a normal day. Early in the morning, a group of men step onto Pelham 123, a subway car currently containing eighteen people. They quickly take the train hostage. Led by a volatile man who calls himself “Ryder,” the group demands ten million dollars. If the money is not delivered within thirty minutes, he will begin to kill a hostage for every minute the money is late. Gerber, working with a panicked NYC Transit Police and hostage negotiator, attempts to get the ransom delivered as quickly as possible while trying to learn more about the criminal's motives and background. Through the day, Gerber and Ryder form a connection of a sorts.

Joseph Sargent's original adaptation of “The Taking of Pelham 123” is a great movie. It's also, undeniably, a product of its time, depicting the New York City that specifically existed in 1974. This meant a remake could be justified, by finding ways to update the material. The screenplay, which David Koepp did a pass on but Brian Helgeland received final credit for, does bring the premise into the modern day. The way the hostage situation comes about is altered to acknowledge the post-9/11 state of security in the city. Among the train passengers is a man video-chatting with his girlfriend on his laptop, which becomes plot relevant later on. At one point, Ryder Googles Gerber after becoming curious about him. There is an attempt to show how changing technology would affect the way this story would play out.

The biggest difference between the original film and the remake is its focus. Sargent's “Taking of Pelham One Two Three” had more of an ensemble cast. We learned more about the other men taking the train hostage, with the passengers, the mayor, and the cops on the ground being further developed. Scott's version, meanwhile, is more about the relationship between Gerber and Ryder. The two form a dialogue, learning more about each other and discovering they have more in common than they realize. A battle of wits, of sorts, ensues. Gerber attempts to outsmart the criminal, who often counteracts him. Yet he also tries to stay one step ahead of the guy. This recalls “Crimson Tide,” which was also a thriller based around two strong personalities clashing in a tense situation.

As in the original "Taking," one of the criminals is a former employee of the rail company. In that film, part of his motivation for the scheme was that he was screwed out of some pay. That theme, of striking back against an oppressive system, is carried over here. Ryder continuously derides those-in-power. This causes him to relate more with Gerber, who is currently under investigation for taking a bribe to help pay for his kids' tuition. There's definitely this idea, running through the entire movie, that people have been treated unfairly by the structures put in place to help them. The bad guys are punished and order is restored, so neither version is exactly radical. Yet the idea remains present.

After taking it mostly easy in "Deja Vu," Tony Scott returns to the over-the-top visual style he displayed in "Man on Fire" and "Domino." Oh, this movie isn't as unrelentingly obnoxious as those two. Most of the movie is fairly unobtrusive to watch. Yet the remake still starts with a fast-motion montage of trains running with an overly loud soundtrack plays. There's a couple other annoyingly flashy visual tricks sprinkled throughout, like occasional burst of slow or fast motion. Some text appears on-screen, though thankfully only when establishing how much time is left before the deadline. Scott also utilizes 360 degree camera movements countless times, obviously to make scenes of people sitting around and talking seem more cinematic. The movie never becomes painful to watch but it definitely made me roll my eyes a few times.

Presumably because he can't help himself, the director makes sure to add more elaborate action scenes to the story. What was a simple car crash in the original, where police cars collide while on the way to drop off the ransom money, becomes a big stunt here with a cruiser spinning through the air. This is not the only time the movie pulls that gag, as a second car flips off a bridge a little later on, following another acrobatic twirl through the air. There's also a random sequence of a cop on a motorcycle flipping over a hood. The shootouts are also bloodier and more intense, the remake making sure it earns its R rating. I guess if you hire Tony Scott to make a movie, he includes some Tony Scott style stunts in there.

All of these attempts to make the story bigger, bloodier, or more action-packed all feel like deliberate attempts to overcome a simple fact: Scott's "Taking of Pelham 123" simply isn't as good as the original. The tension that ran throughout the original, a result of Robert Shaw's terse villain leaving no room for the state to disobey him, is largely absent here. The additions of plot points about the value of the dollar or making the heroic protagonist more morally ambiguous feels like unnecessary clutter in a straight-forward story that simply didn't need it. The remake also completely ditches the original's brilliant ending, increasingly making this me wonder why Scott and his team choose to remake the movie at all.

Something I especially miss in Scott's "Pelham 123" is the role New York City plays in the story. The original is often regarded as one of the best movies to capture old NYC in its gritty glory for a reason. The passengers treat a subway hijacking as merely an inconvenience, as just another day in the city. Similarly, the police and detectives investigating the crime were nonplussed by the severity of the situation. All of that is gone in Scott's film. In fact, there's almost no focus on the New York setting at all here. Most of the movie takes place on the train or in the metro office. Sets, in other words. That leaves few opportunities for real life New York locations to add any unique color or energy to the proceedings. The remake feels like it could be set in any city. Or, at least, any city that has a major subway system.

The remake also doesn't have Walter Matthau, with his world-weary eyes, sarcastic humor, and laid back charm. But Denzel Washington isn't a pushover either. Washington plays Gerber as largely a regular guy with a keen sense of what's right and what's wrong. He has a worrying wife at home and two unseen kids that he's sacrificed a lot for. The one mistake he's made, taking a bribe for something he was going to do anyway, was done to protect those kids. This makes him a contrast to a villain, who is acting in revenge. In fact, the movie really goes out of its way to make Gerber a good guy who screwed-up one time, which has him bordering dull sometimes. It's not much of a role but Denzel, talent that he is, is able to invest some personality into the part. He seems genuinely worried by what's happening and desperate to make sure it all works okay.

If Denzel is playing a more subdued role, the same can not be said of John Travolta. As Ryder, Travolta hideously overacts. He spews profanity into his phone throughout most of the movie. The rants the character is given, berating a system that he feels has betrayed him, allows Travolta to give in to his worst instincts as an actor. The character thinks he's a cool, slick bad guy – and even though it's eventually revealed that he's just a Wall Street guy that got burned – and the movie seems to agree with him. Travolta is mostly just kind of grating, playing a character that is all flashiness with no inner life at all.

Another thing the original “Taking of Pelham One Two Three” had was a cast made up of some of the finest character actors of its day. The remake doesn't have that though there are some pretty great names in the supporting cast. James Gandolfini goes against type and underplays it as the Mayor of New York City, dragged into a rough situation and forced to make some hard choices. Gandolfini plays up his neurotic side and makes the part memorable. Jon Turturro appears as the NYPD's hostage negotiator, whose attempts to take control of the situation only makes things worst. Turturro is excellent at giving the impression of someone who is both in over-their-head and far too confident in their own abilities. The great Luis Guzman appears in the role originated by Martin Balsim in the original but, sadly, is given very little to do before bluntly exiting the film. 

Scott's “Taking of Pelham 123” would open pretty softly at the box office, ultimately only grossing 150 million worldwide against a 100 budget. Which didn't make it a full-blown bomb but hardly a run-away blockbuster either. While the movie found one or two defenders among critics, the general consensus was that it was vastly inferior to the 1974 original. This is absolutely the case. 2009's version lacks the grit of the original, replacing it with a much more knowingly manufactured type of grit. Moreover, its characters are not as memorable, its pacing not as tight, its tension not as taunt, and its story not as surprising or exciting. Scott and his cast certainly make the material their own but still come up with a pale imitation. [Grade: C]