June 24, 2009: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
Boy, am I glad I watched the inspiration for this, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974), before seeing the remake. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009) updates this story of terrorists taking over a subway train in New York City in demand for ransom for hostages, but this remake would be barely watchable even if it did make sense. The parallels are there, but there’s really no comparison, and it’s not like the original was exactly an all-time five-star classic.
The core narrative of the original film relied heavily on the technology of the time – limited communications abilities and fairly low-tech train hardware and track switching and signalling equipment. When that is updated by 35 years to the present, many of the plot points become irrelevant or nonsensical. One might adapt the new film by changing the paradigm to focus on a different technology as was done between Blow-Up (1966) and Blow Out (1981). The main thrust of the character interplay might be retained but the setting and story appropriately updated to modern times as between the 1968 and 1999 versions of The Thomas Crown Affair. Or, as an intriguing artistic experiment, the original may be updated nearly shot-for-shot but in the present day in order to highlight both the contrasts and the similarities between the two, as between the 1960 and 1998 versions of Psycho.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 instead chooses to retain the bits it likes, even when they don’t always make sense. It completely changes the ending in order to fit the order of the villains’ downfalls into a more conventional mold. It gleefully takes advantage of the R-rating to plaster the movie with wall-to-wall profanity. It serves as a showcase for the style of The New Tony Scott, fondly remembered for directing high-energy 1980s and 1990s films such as Top Gun, Days of Thunder and Crimson Tide, but now completely out of control in recent years as observed in Domino (2005). This is seriously hyperactive filmmaking, apparently just for the sake of it rather than to serve any purpose.
I also need to devote a paragraph to John Travolta. I can’t credit him entirely with the film’s failure, since he’s been given horrible dialogue and a fractured, incoherent plot. But his acting technique when he plays a villain, whether it’s his line delivery or his facial expressions or his childish tantrums, is really not credible. Villains, even the bombastic ones, need to project coldness and intelligence and preparedness and the ability to quickly adapt to change, and he exhibits none of these. It made me feel like it was the mid-1990s all over again, when Broken Arrow (1996) and Face/Off (1997) convinced me, as I thought they did the rest of the world, that Travolta really doesn’t have “villain” in him.
This is a remake with no redeeming value. Definitely see the original if you haven’t, for curiosity’s sake if for nothing else, but skip this one.
Yet another loud and pathetic remake.
Post a Comment