Pelham 1-2-3 Actually, 4-5-6. Let's talk...

A Tale of Two Actors and a Fantastic Cast.

If you don't know by now, the "Taking of Pelham 123" is yet another one of Hollywood's classic remake. In this case, the classic was the 1974 "Taking of Pelham One Two Three." See the difference. The movies do share a common bone structure, but there are interesting differences.

I have never been a fan of remaking a film unless it's a pure dud. The original Pelham was anything but. Yet, it appears that in today's movie industry anything older than 20 years is fair game for a remake. I digress.

Incidentally, the math on that is: 20 years/1 generation = new movie.

Leaving me to ask...

1. What's the deal on paying all those writers to come up with NEW stories? I have read there are huge script vaults of stories that have never been made.
2. What's the deal with those vaults too?

I simply do not understand. Once again, I digress.

The green-lighters keep going back to the same old shed and blowing dust off films that have already been done before. I guess that's Hollywood. I digressed, again.

I'm ecstatic some studios have homes outside Los Angeles (like Los Hooligans, Lucas, and Pixar). Last ramble.

Original made 1974

A Snapshot of the 1974 Version

I saw the original (1974) movie twice. Both times on TV. The second time was pretty recent. I guess the studio wanted to promote the new movie. Not sure if that helped them or hurt them. The only reason I watched it again was because someone else wanted to see it. At that point, it became background noise for me. I do not mean that in a bad way. I was doing something else and well you know...

Advantages of the 1974 Version

1. Great Actors - the primary, supporting, and incidental cast.

Walter Matthau was the shrewd, affable Lt. Garber. Matthau's affability was disarming and charming. He seemed like a good ol' uncle you wanted to sit and have a chat with.

Robert Shaw (lethal nemesis in the James Bond's From Russia with Love) played a sinister villain. You really hated the man. This man you would remember as an image to avoid. The poster on the carton to look out for not save.

2. The Pace. Well trimmed tension and release.

3. The Style. The transit authority employees felt real. They interacted with one another with that special New York crass mixed with a bit of humor. The dialogue was fantastic, and in hindsight, probably thoroughly researched.

When you watched the 1974 version, you were immersed in New York lingo. You felt this was an authentic portrayal of how the working class New Yorker talks and acts.

Negative, a fairly big one

This version kowtowed to the stereotypical images of people and types of people. It was rather condescending in that way and in this way this version went off rails.

On the train, there was a Spanish lady, a maid, a hooker, a homosexual, a pimp, a Jewish man, a salesman, and on and on. They wanted to create melting pot but it felt contrived. If you ever watched Speed, you have an understanding of what I mean. The bus was filled with people going to their destination somewhere. Unlike, all of these specific people handpicked to be in the same location at the same time. It didn't feel like a typical cross section of people. It felt like a Hollywood cross section targeted at making preconceived statements about people.

This is where the new Pelham 123 excels.

I do, however, recommend seeing the Matthau and Shaw version. It is a study of characters in a particular profession living in a gritty location (NYC).

This one inspired Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs action thriller in dialogue, action, and names. I do wish Tarantino would be more progressive with his dialogue too. Remember Mr. Blue and Mr. Brown? They first appeared in this Pelham One Two Three (1974).

Pelham 1 2 3 Redux

This version had two major things going for itself:

1. The Actors and
2. The Story Rewrite.

Surprised? Yeah, I was about the writing. Never on the acting.

The writing was fairly tight and brought in more supporting cast. You learned more about the people involved in this nightmare as humans, not workers versus evil people. In the first Pelham, it was all about the hijack then some light character development. As a rewrite, I tip my hat to the 2009 version.

The strongest aspect of this film hands down was the acting, from everyone. Every cast member shined. I was particularly impressed with Denzel Washington and John Travolta performances. I did not believe they would disappoint. Yet, I was not prepared for how much they gave.

Denzel Washington usually plays a very strong character. This role required him to pull that back, restrain. He had to be a respected albeit beaten down high ranking transit official, Lt. Garber. He even transformed himself into a hefty man to further imbue that civil servant role.

Looked the civil servant part and acted like it.

John Travolta was the maniacal antihero. You didn't like the guy but he had personality. And he was real. Robert Shaw's villainous character you wanted to die. You could not connect with this guy. He looked and sounded like a man that he if he ran you over, he would stop the car, get out, and pour acid on you then leave.

Travolta's Pelham 123 mastermind was a guy you'd like to have lunch with as long as there was a bullet proof glass wall between you. That is a fine balancing act. I'm not sure if that is what Tony Scott (director) wanted, but that is certainly how I felt.

Look at the crazy eyes - Travolta in complete character.

The supporting cast was an array of familiar faces with rock solid talent.

John Turturro


James Gandolfini

Gandolfini showing range in playing an empty, lame duck politician.

Aunjanue Ellis

You may remember Ellis as MSgt. Jocelyn Pierce in the short lived Benjamin Brait TV series E-Ring.

Ramon Rodriguez

If you watched TV shows "The Wire" or "Day Break," you know Rodriquez. We will see him again in Transformers II opening June 22nd.

The new Pelham 123 had a refreshing visual style. It reminded me of one of the Bourne Identity sequels. I wished the film editor did more intercutting between four key scenes: the train, the station, the mayor, and the police. But that's nitpicking.

A movie's ending is critical. How will the audience feel after that final scene? Bittersweet melancholy. I doubt Tony Scott wanted me to leave his movie holding that emotion. I didn't either. I popped over to the adjacent theater and caught the last 15 minutes of Up for my feel good boost. That immediately did the trick.

Conclusion: I will watch it again. Through Netflix.

Kaja's Rating:

4 soaring rockets

Summary: Well done revision. Well done, indeed.