The number 6 train, the reluctant star of this movie, was my subway line as a young girl in Brooklyn.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, as you are probably well aware from the trailers, stars Denzel Washington as New York City subway dispatcher Walter Garber, a man whose world is turned upside down when the Pelham 1 2 3 train is hijacked by a gang of terrorists, led by an attention-seeking loud-mouth who goes by the name Ryder (John Travolta). Ryder and his three underlings have taken over the train and are demanding a large amount of cash in exchange for the safe return of 19 hostages. He communicates with the outside world using Garber and has put a one hour deadline on his demand for the money. If the cash is not delivered, one passenger will be killed every minute until the money is received. A lot of times in this type of movie, the antagonists never actually follow through with their threat to kill people but Ryder proves right from the beginning that he is not fooling around. He only wants to speak to Garber and when his newfound buddy is removed from the radio by the NYPD, Ryder does not hesitate to put a bullet in one of the passengers.
That pretty much lays the groundwork for the next 2 hours and 45 minutes — a subway dispatcher, a hijacked train, 19 hostages and a crazy man with a gun. “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3? also stars the likes of Luis Guzman as a bad guy with a bandaid on his nose, John Turturro as an NYPD hostage negotiator and James Gandolfini as the Mayor of New York.
The first thing I will say about “Pelham 1 2 3? is that I really liked John Travolta in this movie. I would say it’s his best role since 2001’s Swordfish and the best movie he’s been in since Ladder 49. (Yeah, I liked Ladder 49 so leave me alone.) Travolta manages to make a gun-toting murderer come across as a somewhat engaging character. He was a guy that you wanted to know more about. He delivered some great one-liners. He seemed to have a bit of a sense of humour. And yet despite all this, you still know that he was just another lunatic with a gun. I really thought Travolta did an excellent job in this movie.
Denzel wasn’t too bad himself, as the equally engaging and calm, steady subway dispatcher. Him and Ryder really had a good rapport going on that kept the movie interesting. I was actually surprised to see on his IMDb profile that this is the first movie Denzel has done since 2007, when he was in “American Gangster” and “The Great Debaters”. That seems like so long ago. And there’s going to be an “Inside Man” sequel? Who would have thought?
As for the rest of the cast, Luis Guzman is always enjoyable to watch but really wasn’t used too much in the movie. I just can’t get past the whole “Tony Soprano” thing when I see James Gandolfini and watching him play an asinine mayor was somewhat painful. Maybe he should have just been thrown on the train with a gun. A terrorist role would have been much more suitable. John Turturro was as solid as we have come to count on him being, although I think audiences, in general, are expecting too much humour from him, like that butler with the gangrene foot from “Mr. Deeds”. I mean the guy showed up on the screen and spit out one line and the whole theatre started laughing – and it wasn’t even a funny line. It was also nice to see Gbenga Akinnagbe in the movie. Fans of “The Wire” will remember him as “Chris”. I really liked him in that show.
Overall, I will say that “Pelham 1 2 3? is a lot better movie that I was expecting. I thought Travolta was very good and I really liked the chemistry between his character and Denzel’s subway guy. It’s an intense movie at times that, excuse the pun, takes no prisoners. The terrorists in this movie aren’t here to fool around. They mean business. Despite a handful of moments that might make you chuckle, this is a very “no-nonsense” movie. I’m even pretty sure that the “f”-bomb is dropped somewhere in the first three words that are uttered in the film. Now that’s some serious stuff.
I think my biggest complaint about the movie, on a whole, would be the escape plan of the terrorists. Considering how much effort they seemed to put into hatching their evil plot, you would have thought that they could have come up with a better exit strategy. Not that I want to give away too much, but have you ever heard of disguises, gentlemen? Even the motivation behind the whole hostage-taking was bit feeble. Not enough to make the movie a complete write-off but does everything just have to be about money? What happened to the good old days, when criminals had more substantial incentives for their evil plots – like Hannibal Lecter. He ate people because he was hungry. Now there’s a good reason to kill innocent people.
The one final problem I had as the movie drew to an end was I also found that it dragged on a bit in the last 15 minutes. It should have been edited down a bit. However, in my opinion, “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3? is still a pretty entertaining movie – a lot moreso than I thought it would be. There’s a lot more good than not and as I said, it was great to see Travolta back in form. For that alone, I would suggest checking out “Pelham 1 2 3? at some point in the near future. link
