| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 08/05/2009 : 10:50:08
|
The Taking of Pelham 123
Tony Scott has made a wonderful choice in filming this remake of what I still think is a classic. There's a visual leitmotif running all the way through - well, as soon as we're face-down licking up the action - which is pretty soon. He keeps the background deliberately fuzzy, unsteady, while allowing us to hang on by our fingernails to the foreground, whether it's a helicopter flying over NYC or a police posse racing to the scene.
It's a genius move because it puts us emotionally in the direct experience of NYC subway dispatcher Walter Garber [even his name is nerdy] - so good at his job he can command every train while munching junk food. A man playing with a gigantic train-set, who never forgets the reality behind the led screens. Because he's been down there on the tracks himself, and we'll find out why he's behind a console later on in the plot.
But taken out of his comfort zone, Garber - another assured performance by Denzel Washington - he may be ZAP in the middle of things, but he really doesn't know what the hell is going on, it's all fuzzy at the edges. Just like Tony Scott's visual metaphor.
I'm banging on about this connection because the film really isn't much more than that. It's not bad. Not at all. And some of it is extremely good. Especially some of the acting. In smaller parts are the ever-dependable John Turturro as a hostage negotiator who's able to sacrifice his feelings of rejection when the badguy insists on dealing with nerdy untrained Garber, and James Gandolfini as the mayor, hiding his steely political acumen under an avuncular smile.
And then there's Garber's nemesis John Travolta as Ryder. Travolta takes the role in his maw like a terrier and won't let go. He creates a world of his own in which every aberration is justified, every sacrifice worth the reward. Except for a pathetic moment-of-not-quite-truth at the end, it's a skilled piece of acting.
There's a Garber in the original 1974 film starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Matthau is Lt Zachary Garber of the transit police, and no nerd for even a single moment. Zach! not Walter ...
The whole pacing's slower and the film focusses on strategy, especially the contrasting approaches by Matthau and Shaw. Whereas Scott concentrates on action and character through action. And, of course, Scott and screenwriter Brian Hegelund have embellished the plot to make it more timely.
In 1974 the very idea of high-jacking a subway train was surprising to say the least. People were intrigued. How could it be done? How could it pay off - the train would have to stop eventually, wouldn't it? How could the police approach a moving train? And many other questions saw audiences flocking to find out the answers.
I'm not sure why this particular film was chosen for a remake, but I'm guessing it has something to do with story rights running out and taking advantage of an archive. So, as remake or just as thriller, it ain't bad. Take the ride with Ryder. Just watch out for those fuzzy backgrounds.
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 11:57:00
|
The Taking of Pelham 123
Communications technology is always simplified in films, I guess necessarily, but it leaves a hollow feel.
Let's pretend these things are spoilers for simplicity:
Why did the henchman walk up and down the carriage for ages before seeing the laptop screen, facing him, active? Why didn't he mind when he did?
Once the baddies had gone, why didn't the passengers break into the cabin with the emergency hammers that are on every train? Or through the back window? It would be dangerous to jump but surely it would keep their options open. It would have been better had the baddies made a point of removing all the hammers.
It was O.K. Fizzled out. 3/5 |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 08/12/2009 11:59:28 |
 |
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 20:14:16
|
i liked it a lot more than i expected to, except for a couple of silly things at the end.
i preferred the cool malice of the bad guy in the original -- Mr. Blue, i think -- to Travolta's screaming and cursing, but it didn't seem so out of place after a while. Denzel showed his considerable skill again.
overall, almost as good as the original.
SPOILERS BELOW:
it seemed a little preposterous that Garber went from subway administrator to super-cop and stunt-driver in an instant.
and how in the world did a bunch of cops arranged in a circle, more or less, shooting at a couple of guys in the middle manage not to shoot each other?
also one other question for discussion:
did Garber shoot Ryder? i think the cops on the bridge actually did. i thought the cop who packed the gun with the money left it on safe and Garber admitted that he didn't know how to use a gun. they didn't show Garber on screen squeezing the trigger.
but if it was the police, Ryder probably would have been riddled with bullets, rather than a single shot.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 22:12:58
|
I was taken with the many differences between the NYC of the falling-apart Seventies and today. I think Tony Scott is a carrier of Bay's Disease [symptom: too many short shots], but the first 2/3 was very fine. It fell apart for me when they emerged topside toward the end. Travolta is becoming the go-to John Malkovich: this over-the-top performance makes his turn in FACE/OFF look Shakespearean. For real fun, dig up the 1974 original.
Baffy, the reason Zach became Walter was as a nod to Matthau! |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 07:41:55
|
I haven't seen the new one, but I used this as a reason to go watch the original. I liked the original, gave it 7/10, but can't see any reason to bother seeing the remake. So I won't.
I'd see a remake on one of those rare occasions when it's better than the original (generally due to superior FX) but can't see how this could be the case here. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The Taking of Pelham 123
