The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

Director: Tony Scott

Starring: Denzel Washington, John Travolta, John Turturro, James Gandolfini, Luis Guzman

“Oh no, not again.”

That would be the first thoughts I had whilst watching the latest Hollywood remake. Not because it existed at all, but because of Tony Scott's editing “style”. After having made audiences colorblind with Domino, Scott managed to reign in his directorial tics for Deja Vu. Unfortunately, like a drug addict, he appears to be falling back down that slippery slope. The opening title sequence is a full-on assault on the senses. The opening Columbia Pictures logo plays in a small section in the middle of the screen. As it continues, the section expands to fill the screen whilst it fades to New York. That was fairly interesting. Most directors would have left it there. Not Tony Scott. Suddenly a flash, the words “A Tony Scott Film” appears and suddenly loud rock music bellows and a series of frantic edits follow, almost like Scott was unaware that bordered on parody. So we get slowed-down shots (not even significant moments, just random shots), zoom-ins, zoom-outs, flash cuts, shots superimposed on top of each other and credits wiping out from behind objects and people. I've never been a huge fan of Tony Scott's style. I find it bloated and excessive. It looks less impressive and more like he and his editor had a boxing match and the finished product, flecked with blood, is the end result. Just because you can do these things, doesn't mean you should. Its essentially what happens when someone first gets their hands on video editing to chop up their home movies: look, see what I can do!

Thankfully, not all the film is like this, but it still bears the hallmarks of his work: gaudily-coloured filters, excessive violence and Denzel Washington. That said, I will say that the man, despite his compulsion to make his films look like the cinematic equivalent of Jackson Pollock, does know how to make his movies tense and suspensful. This was the man who gave us Crimson Tide and Man on Fire, both tense nail-biters. Whilst there is still the tension (which is more than many directors can achieve in their own thrillers), its certainly not as good as those movies (if anything, its reminiscent of the average Enemy of the State that he directed in 1998). As already mentioned, part of the problem is the flashy-editing and cinematography. Instead of drawing us into the movie, it ends up pulling us out of it. This particularly noticable in the scenes where Denzel Washington and John Travolta are conversing over radio. Now there is a potential to make the movie look a bit boring, since essentially you're shooting two men talking to microphones and walkie-talkies. In trying to avoid this, Scott does the opposite and makes it annoying: he keeps doing circles around Washington. Its okay to do it once or twice, but Scott makes the fatal mistake of constantly using it. The tension now isn't the interplay between the characters, but whether or not member of the audience are going to start blowing chunks.

Then there's the fact that the movie is too long, especially during its protracted final 30 minutes. And yet somehow it still feels oddly truncated: where exactly does the mayor (James Gandolfini) disappear to? Wouldn't it have been nice to at least see him going to where he said he was going? Part of this is the character development that Brian Helgeland (most notable for L.A. Confidential) includes: whilst it gives us nicely fleshed-out characters, it also eats time. Why have two-scenes with the mayor telling him about the situation when one will suffice? When making a thriller, you want it taut. This needed another round in the editing room to tighten it up because it can be as flabby as Washington's added pounds.

The other problem with the script is too much swearing. I'm fine with swearing, but another reason why the opening was not a good omen was because the first line in the movie (given to us by Ramon Rodriguez, at least managing to turn down the teeth-grinding annoyance from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) has five f-words. I'm sure if the MPAA would have allowed, they would have gone for The F***ing Taking of F***ing Pelham 12-F***in'-3 as a title. John Travolta seems to casually add “motherf***er” to a sentence so many times that it might be a good drinking game to keep on the DVD.

And speaking of John Travolta: miscast. He's playing a “villain” which means that you get much of what you saw in Broken Arrow (1996), Face/Off, Battlefield: Earth, Swordfish and The Punisher (2004): screaming, shouting, oddly-quirky and completely off-his-rocker crazy. And it is fun to watch. The problem is that when the revelation of his true nature is revealed, it doesn't convince. And this is also down to his appearance: the gun tattoo on his neck, particularly, does not fit the character. Also, whose idea was it to give him that goatee? He looks like he's leading a renegade division of the Village People.

Thankfully, count on the ever-reliable Denzel Washington. Washington is one of our generations' most watchable and charismatic actors and here is no exception. Adding pounds for his role, Washington looks the part and he makes the film work. James Gandolfini's mayor is also a positive in this version, a proactive and somewhat ambivalent character that Gandolfini really sinks his teeth into. His turn in the movie is somewhat of a scene-stealer, since he does a fair amount without a lot of screentime. John Turturro (what is this? The Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen rehabilitation set?) plays it straight as hostage negotiator who aids Washington during the proceedings, although after being “urinated” on by a robot and being “beneath the enemy's scrotum”, it's hard to take him seriously these days.

The climax is where things take a tumble, as the film's conclusion relies on several contrivances (gee, isn't it great that that vent was in that spot) and excessive stupidity (crucially, a boss who is always wrong, regardless of the situation, one of those annoying character cliches). And the film's additions feel rather cosmetic than something really worth expanding upon. (The ransom money is adjusted for inflation; the film makes a big deal about internet-access in the tunnel, but doesn't do enough with it) Its not a terrible remake, and it is a decent two-hours of entertaiment, but its not really a remarkable one and I don't think fans of the original movie are going to trade up for the modern version anytime soon. A case of close, but no cigar.

3/5