
Stand Clear of the Cinema DoorsThe Taking of Pelham 123, reviewed.
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 11:56 AM ET
Attention moviegoers: The people at Columbia Pictures would like to clear something up. Apparently there's a rumor going around that Tony Scott's new film, The Taking of Pelham 123, is a remake of Joseph Sargent's 1974 movie The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. This is false. Scott's film is an adaptation of John Godey's 1973 pulp novel, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (on which Sargent's movie was also based). This is plainly stated in the film's opening credits. Are we clear?
It's easy to imagine why Pelham's producers wouldn't want Scott's professional but dull picture to be compared with the 1974 classic. The original Pelham is an economical, well-acted thriller about a subway hijacking. And it's also a wickedly funny portrait of 1970s New York as the city teetered on the edge of solvency and governability. In Sargent's film, when the city's ineffectual mayor is informed that four heavily armed men are holding 19 New Yorkers hostage for a $1 million ransom, his honor complains of flu symptoms and goes back to bed. The MTA's cranky dispatcher is no more sympathetic. "What do they expect for their lousy 35 cents, to live forever?"
It thus falls to one Lt. Garber (a wonderfully put-upon Walter Matthau) of the transit police to sort out how to rescue the hostages—a cross section of New Yorkers that includes a hippie, a suit, two bratty kids, a white hooker, a black pimp, a Latina who doesn't speak English, a crotchety old man who finds the hijackers' ransom demand insultingly low, and a drunk who sleeps through the entire ordeal. Joseph Sargent had clearly spent some quality time on the New York City subway.
Tony Scott, by contrast, admitted to the Times that prior to working on Pelham, he'd actually never been on the subway before. "Well, when I say never, I mean maybe once or twice quite drunk at night, when I couldn't find a taxi." For a movie ostensibly set in the city's bowels, he frequently contrives to take his camera on helicopter rides.
Scott's focus is on his blue-chip stars, humble MTA dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington, bespectacled) and mercurial hijacking mastermind "Ryder" (John Travolta, mustachioed). Washington, who chunked up a bit for the role of civil servant, does his work in a high-tech command center that looks more like NASA than MTA. But the brazen crime that unfolds before him hasn't changed much since 1974. Four heavily armed men hijack a southbound 6 train—the titular Pelham 123, so called because it originated at the Pelham Bay Park Station at 1:23 p.m.—and hold 19 hostages for ransom. Only this time they're asking for $10 million. And they have a Wi-Fi connection.
The WiFi—conjured, somehow, by Ryder henchman Phil Ramos (a criminally squandered Luis Guzmán)—is important because Ryder isn't actually interested in the $10 million ransom. That's just a diversion, something to keep Garber, an NYPD hostage negotiator (John Turturro), and the mayor (James Gandolfini, always excellent) busy. The big score will come when the stock market tanks—and precious-metal prices spike—on news of a possible terrorist attack on the New York City subway. Ryder's got all his money in gold, you see. This is established by several shots of him laughing maniacally as he refreshes CNBC.com on his laptop.
Ryder, we learn, is a former Wall Street high roller, the kind of guy who would weekend in Iceland with an "ass model" (like a hand model, he proudly explains to Garber, but for asses). When we meet him, however, he's fresh from a nine-year stint in prison for embezzling money from a city pension fund, which perhaps explains why his colorful taunts—"Lick my bunghole, motherfucker!"—are so charmingly antiquated. It's presumably also the reason Ryder went from being a cutthroat Wall Street trader to being an inked-up thug who blithely guns down innocent civilians on the Lexington Avenue local.
Washington's Garber happens to be watching over the Lexington line when Ryder radios in his demands, and he becomes the city's point man in trying to keep Ryder from killing hostages and later, improbably, in trying to bring him to justice. Does Denzel pull it off? I shouldn't say—I wouldn't want to spoil it for folks who haven't yet finished the novel.
Here's my question: Why did Tony Scott make this movie? He isn't a straphanger. He isn't paying Tarantino-like homage to a film he grew up on. And any implication in Scott's film that New York in 2009 might be in danger of slipping into a 1970s-style malaise is purely incidental. So why did he bother?
The issue only becomes more perplexing when you consider the next project he's attached to direct. A new adaptation of Mario Puzo's The Godfather? No, but only slightly less odd. On deck is a remake of The Warriors, the cult classic about gangs in 1970s New York set, for long stretches, in the city's subway system. (Like Scott's Pelham, it was shot largely in Brooklyn's Hoyt-Schermerhorn station.) Any train riding in Scott's 2010 version, however, will be strictly light rail. Tired, perhaps, of having to wait for the F train while quite drunk, he's setting the remake in L.A.
Slate V: The critics on The Taking of Pelham 123 and other new movies
The Hilarious Results of Slate's "Write Like Sarah Palin" Contest
Does Your iPhone Really Need a Titanium Case?
Vice Presidents Say the Darnedest Things
The Golden Scissors Awards Are the Oscars of Black Hair
Slate's Complete Coverage of the Tiger Woods Scandal
The Awesome Spectacle of Glenn Beck's Live Performance of The Christmas Sweater












A diversion? Wasn't that the idea in Die Hard With A Vengeance?
This is telling -- apparently, hijacking a train is not exciting enough for the modern day movie viewer. We need gimmicks. It's like when they re-made the small gem 1970s film, Assault on Precinct 13 and felt a need to add corrupt police officers and other loud touches. Let's see the film minus the charm that made it worth seeing the first time around!
I did find out something that answers a question that bothered me since I first saw the original ... on tape. Why in the hell is the 6 local train going to South Ferry (bottom of Manhattan)? That's where the 1 train goes with the Lexington Ave Express going to a stop nearby, but the 6 goes only as far as Brooklyn Bridge. Turns out that the 6 -- until the 1970s -- did go down that far.
-- Joe_JP
(To reply, click here)
An undiagnosed genre is New York City hassle movies of the 1970s. I grew up as a kid in New Jersey in the 70's and movies like Pelham one two three seemed to be made to remind us of one simple fact: New York City was a hell hole. Going to visit was ok, but living there is a prescription for a headache that never, ever goes away. And as such, this movie wasn't alone.
By the way, this genre isn't to be confused with the vigilante/Charles Bronson craze of the same time period, although the two are closely related.
Here are a few other classics of the genre that I loved then and I still love today:
Dog Day Afternoon (a laugh riot, plain old funny)
Panic In Needle Park (Al Pacino is the patron saint of New York Hassle movies?)
Taxi Driver (transcends this ghetto, but lives amongst none the less)
Times Square (it came out in 1980, but it was filmed in 79 and it's a time capsule of NYC hassle culture)
Saturday Night Fever (another classic brought to you by Robert Stigwood, I still LOL when that curly haired putz falls off the bridge)
The Warriors (ok truth be told, I hate this movie, but still the message is clear: don't live in New York)
The Goodbye Girl (This movie has more hassle in it than just about all of the others; Imagine having to raise your daughter with some random out of work unemployed actor in your apartment who plays guitar in the middle of the night, in the nude no less? Can you say HASSLE?)
And of course, Midnight Cowboy. (Two words: Ratso Rizzo. Ratso is to NYC hassle movies what that round orange thing is to basket ball. "I'm trying to cross the street here!" Word has it that that little outburst was improvised! Wow. This one came out in 1969, but it is <along with the Velvet Underground's recorded output> the primordial ooze that the 70's NYC crawled out of.)
-- sigmond
(To reply, click here)