The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
Directed by Tony Scott
Starring Denzel Washington, John Travolta, James Gandolfini, John Turturro
Rated R
Release Date: June 12, 2009

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a remake of the 1974 film of the same name, which also spawned a made for TV remake in 1998; all of which were based on a novel. So there’s a book, two movie versions, and a TV version. The most obvious question beyond why it was even made in the first place is what was being brought to the table to make it worth my time? Let’s try and forget for a minute that this is yet another cog in the wheel of the Hollywood remake machine (an argument for another day) and focus on the specifics of this current incarnation.

The problem with a movie like The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is that it is not the type of movie you can just like on its own merit. It’s a heist movie — and a fairly boring one at that — so you have to find something else to like about it. Because the film isn’t strong enough on its own to let this happen, your level of appreciation will be strongly dictated by any comparisons you are able to draw from the pieces of its construct.

There is potential to be found in that this is the fourth time director Tony Scott has teamed up with Denzel Washington (Déjà Vu, Man on Fire, and Crimson Tide). With the exception of Déjà Vu, this pairing has been pretty good. Washington is usually as reliable as it gets. Even in an inferior film he has the ability to rise above a mess and stand out. And while one could argue that substance isn’t a spice Scott often takes out of the pantry, when he’s on his game and the project warrants his spastic style, he can turn out a decent movie.

So what about this movie? Well, it’s nothing you haven’t seen a dozen times before. Someone steals a subway train, demands a bunch of money, and threatens to start picking off hostages one at a time if his ransom isn’t supplied. Washington plays the good guy driven by whatever his characters are usually driven by. John Travolta plays the villain. Something he hasn’t done successfully since, well, never unless you count Pulp Fiction; which I don’t. And Scott injects his trademark frenetic style into a movie where really not that much is going on beyond a back and forth conversation. Therein lies the problem. If you are going to make a movie that has already been told three different ways through three different mediums, wouldn’t you want to bring something new to the discussion rather than dragging out the same people to play the same parts they normally do in a story you’ve already heard?

That’s not to say that it was a total failure. Scott was smart to focus the movie not on the heist itself but the characters involved in it. There were some interesting subplots that should’ve been elaborated on but then smoldered no sooner than they got started. I also appreciated the low-tech approach to the story. Nothing would have taken me further from the movie faster than slathering a boring story with technology that doesn’t exist.

The whole experience was like eating a TV dinner. You see the package in the store and buy it with the knowledge that you like fried chicken and corn and brownies, but when you get it home and eat it you realize nothing tasted like it was supposed to and there wasn’t enough of anything you wanted to leave you satisfied.

At the rate they’re going, when they remake The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 again in 10 years or so, they are going to have to make it into a musical or something just to get me to bat an eye. At this point I’d rather just cut my losses.

And there’s the rub.