Step 1: Hire Denzel Washington. He is bound to make any mediocre film better than it should, which is precisely what he does in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.
Step 2: Then rethink casting John Travolta as your bad guy. He really doesn’t understand subtlety when it comes to playing evil and completely hams it up in Pelham. He’s kind of turning into another over-the-top Al Pacino.
Step 3: Realize the subtlety of the original cult film is lost as well in this unnecessary remake. The 1974 Pelham centers on a group of men – with cool names such as Mr. Blue, Mr. Grey, Mr. Green, etc. (guess Quentin Tarantino got the idea from Pelham to name his own characters in Reservoir Dogs) – who quietly hijack a subway train and hold the people inside hostage for a hefty sum, which, in 1974, was $1 million. It is all done methodically, with the leader Mr. Blue (played by Brit Robert Shaw) keeping things even keeled. But in this 2009 redo, Travolta, as the leader Ryder, screams he wants $10 million in one hour or he’ll start shooting the hostages. Up goes the ante, higher goes the volume – and gone are the colorful names. Washington plays Walter Garber (played in the original by Walter Matthau), a New York transit dispatcher, who is unlucky enough to be on call when Ryder pulls his stunt. But the cat-and-mouse, tug-of-war game between the two just doesn’t cut it this time around.
Step 4: Refer to Steps 1 & 2. You have to admire Washington for his abilities. He can do over the top (American Gangster, for example) or hand us a study in nuances, as he does in Pelham. The actor makes Garber’s predicament at being forced to play hostage negotiator seem genuine. Travolta, however, is a different matter. I hate to knock the guy, especially after his recent personal tragedy, but he has never been all that effective as a villain, in films such as Face/Off, Swordfish, or god help us, Battlefield Earth. He thinks he should be hammy and loud, killing people with a maniacal twinkle in his eye. Just play it cool, boy, real cool – you know, like you did in Pulp Fiction or Get Shorty. Or stop playing the bad guys altogether.
Step 5: Remember that action doesn’t always work. Of course, director Tony Scott would probably disagree with me. He likes his explosions and definitely tries to beef up this Pelham, making it more Web 2.0 savvy with car chases and quick, stylized cuts. It gets the blood pumping a little – but it also seems forced. Again, the original was a slow burn, which worked perfectly well for subject matter. Even the 1998 TV movie remake did it better. I guess, the third time is not a charm.
Level of difficulty in watching The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3: Moderately hard. If Denzel wasn’t in it, this would be a contrived (subway) train wreck.
