|
|
|
|
|
Every day, a team of dispatchers keeps an eye on the entire New York City subway system, ensuring that every train is safe, sound, and headed in the right direction. It’s a shame that no one did the same for director Tony Scott’s The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.
Dispatcher Walter Garber’s (Denzel Washington) job is a carefully choreographed dance of scheduled comings and goings. But, one afternoon, he notices something out of the ordinary: one of the trains has stopped moving for no apparent reason.
Garber’s calls to the train are returned by a man called Ryder (John Travolta), who explains that he’s hijacked the train—and he’s holding the passengers hostage. Unless the city delivers $10 million within an hour, he’ll start killing passengers one by one—one for each minute that the ransom is late.
Garber’s no hostage negotiator, but Ryder won’t talk to anyone else. And with the clock ticking—and lives at stake—there’s no time to argue; there’s only time to act.
Scott’s remake of the 1974 thriller (which starred Walter Matthau—and was based on the novel by John Godey) is pretty much what you’d expect from the guy who made movies like Déjà Vu and Man on Fire. It’s fast and flashy, with plenty of quick cuts and a handful of car crashes. But there’s one element that’s surprisingly lacking: the thrills.
Sure, there are guys with guns holding hostages on a train, but it’s not nearly as exciting as a summer action movie should be. In fact, it’s all pretty simple and straightforward—just one guy sitting on a train, talking to another guy who’s sitting at his desk. The quick cuts and car crashes are completely superfluous—and, actually, they’re rather pointless. They’re just thrown in to add some action to an otherwise dull film.
Sadly, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is full of missed opportunities. The more viewers learn about Ryder’s plan, the more interesting it is—but we’re given little more than a quick overview of what he’s doing and why. Similarly, both of the main characters have fascinating stories lurking in their pasts—but they’re only hinted at. Unfortunately, the character (and plot) development is just like everything else in the movie: fast and flashy—and disappointingly shallow.
Apparently, the lack of development makes it pretty tough for Travolta, who feels painfully unnatural in his role. But, once again, good ol’ dependable Denzel picks up the slack. His character is nothing new, but, as always, Denzel’s the perfect everyman—the flawed hero for whom audiences can’t help but cheer.
With a cast like Washington, Travolta, and John Turturro (who plays the hostage negotiator who helps Garber)—and with a director like Scott—The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 should have been a thrilling summer blockbuster. Instead, it’s long and surprisingly slow, filled with false starts and cheap distractions. If I were you, I’d pass up this lackluster train ride and take a cab instead.
|
|
|
|
