THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 MOVIE REVIEW

Denzel Washington and John Travolta square off in the action thriller The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, an updated, reworked remake of the 1974 film directed by Joseph Sargent based on John Godey's novel. This new Pelham has Tony Scott at the helm and if you're familiar with his films, you know going in how he'll shoot key action sequences. Scott's style is unmistakable and it actually serves him well in Pelham, taking the static premise of two men engaged in a cat and mouse game over the radio and mixing in frenzied action shots to help pump up the audience's adrenaline.

In a summer loaded with action films, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 won't go down as the best of the lot. But it is an engaging popcorn flick that's well acted, energetic, and even a little thought provoking (though probably less so than intended).

The Story

A gang of thugs, led by a man who calls himself Ryder with a 'y' (Travolta), takes over a New York subway train, holding its 19 passengers hostage in an effort to extort $10,000,000 from New York City. All that stands between innocent people being shot dead inside the subway train and their safe release is one man, disgraced transit bigwig Walter Garber (Washington). Walter's been demoted to manning a dispatch station while he's being investigated for accepting a bribe and luckily for the good citizens of The Big Apple, Walter has heretofore untapped negotiation skills. He also has the uncanny ability to make a connection with a complete stranger over the radio while picking up clues about who this Ryder guy is and what really motivates his actions.

Ryder has given the city of New York just one hour to come up with the $10 million ransom, threatening to kill one passenger per minute if NYC passes the deadline without paying him off. How will these killers get off the train and out of the subway with the money? That's the key question in everyone's mind. And although Garber has New York's Finest watching his back, ultimately he's the one who has to go face-to-face with Ryder in order to try and stop his escape and save the passengers of Pelham 1 2 3.

Denzel Washington in 'The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.'

The Cast

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 doesn't show New York City at its best, but it does show off the scenery-chewing skills of Travolta and the 'I'm a good but flawed man' charm of Washington. Travolta in particular really gets into character, taking Ryder completely - and seemingly gleefully - over the top. Travolta and Washington barely share a scene together as 90% of their conversations take place over the radio, but the juicy and at times philosophical exchanges between the two work because both are so committed to their roles.

John Turturro, as the head of the hostage negotiation team ,and James Gandolfini, NYC's end of term mayor who's past the point of caring what the public thinks of him, provide support as well as a needed break from Travolta and Washington's radio dance.

The passengers on the subway train, although pivotal to the gang's plan, don't stick out as individuals. Instead Brian Helgeland's script sort of just touches on extremely basic facts about the people held hostage. There's an ex-Ranger, a mom watching over her small child, and a young guy who's been communicating with his girlfriend via video chat on his laptop. They're all generic characters and none stand out.

The Bottom Line

Despite the premise, Brian Helgeland's adaptation and Tony Scott's direction doesn't allow time for the audience to get bored. But when things start to get deep, when issues raised become touchy, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 takes a step back and launches into an action-oriented scene. That's, at times, a real disappointment as digging deeper and showing more layers of the central characters would have helped Pelham overtake its predecessor.

John Travolta in 'The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.'

As it stands now, the original film - with all of its outdated effects - is the more engaging of the two. Still, this Pelham benefits from terrific acting by Washington and Travolta, and Scott's hyperkinetic style. It's entertaining enough to make it worth checking out but ultimately forgettable, unlike Scott and Washington's previous collaborations (Crimson Tide, Deja Vu and Man on Fire).