Even more so than sequels, remakes of older films have their own build-in pratfalls. The pratfalls are just a lot more noticeable if the original film was a classic or extremely well regarded.
Such are the complications that faced director Tony Scott (MAN ON FIRE; TOP GUN) and screenwriter Brian Helgeland as they took on their remake of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3, which had already made for an incredibly suspenseful film back in 1974 under the hands of experienced journeyman director Joseph Sargent. Based on John Godey's 1973 novel, that film's story of a New York City subway hijacking in which eighteen people were threatened with violent execution at the hands of heavily armed gunmen if a million-dollar ransom wasn't paid in exactly one hour had not only the particular NYC grit of the mid-1970s, but also a fair bit of jet-black comedy as well, ratcheting up the tension even more. With audience attention spans shrunk considerably in the ensuing thirty-five years, not to mention the expectations of car crashes and explosions, Scott and Helgeland not surprisingly fall somewhat short by substituting subtlety for sound and fury; headache-inducing freeze frame and montage gimmickry; rap and heavy metal on the soundtrack; and far more crude language and bloodshed than is really necessary.
Still, there have been remakes that have been far worse than this one; and at least, Scott had the good sense of placing Denzel Washington in the role essayed by Walter Matthau in the original; here, he is a transit official with a slightly shady past (and whereas he was named Zachary Garber in the original, as a favor to the great actor who played Garber in '74, in 2009 he's named Walter Garber). Times being different, the ransom is now up to $10 million, but the idea of making NYC deliver the money in one hour wisely remains the same, giving the remake the same HIGH NOON-style level of tension that informed the 1974 original. Veteran actors John Turturro (as a hostage negotiator) and James Gandolfini (as the NYC mayor) also do good supporting turns, trying to help Washington's cool, calm, collected transit official.
Where I felt the film went slightly askew, however, was in a decision typical of many Hollywood directors these days with respect to actors who play villains: allowing them to go so far overboard early on that there's more ham in their performances than there is in any Hormel factory. And this is what Scott does with John Travolta; he allows the actor to play the lead hijacker John Ryder with far too much zeal and insanity to be anything other than a typical Hollywood nut job, this in total contrast to Robert Shaw in the original film, where the late, great British actor portrayed Ryder with a certain low-key viciousness and a clipped delivery. Indeed, what the film misses the most is the witty over-the-radio repartee between Matthau and Shaw that was present in the original. Both Helgeland and Scott missed the boat on that one.
And yet, despite all the bloodshed, profanity, and headache-inducing sound and fury thrown at the viewer, it is really the plot itself that makes this film work as well as it does; and it is fortunate that, thanks to Washington's presence, Scott and Helgeland aren't allowed to completely trash that. This PELHAM stops a couple of stations short of the masterpiece status accorded to the original, but one could do much worse in terms of classic films that 21st century Hollywood has somehow decided need a reworking.
Such are the complications that faced director Tony Scott (MAN ON FIRE; TOP GUN) and screenwriter Brian Helgeland as they took on their remake of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3, which had already made for an incredibly suspenseful film back in 1974 under the hands of experienced journeyman director Joseph Sargent. Based on John Godey's 1973 novel, that film's story of a New York City subway hijacking in which eighteen people were threatened with violent execution at the hands of heavily armed gunmen if a million-dollar ransom wasn't paid in exactly one hour had not only the particular NYC grit of the mid-1970s, but also a fair bit of jet-black comedy as well, ratcheting up the tension even more. With audience attention spans shrunk considerably in the ensuing thirty-five years, not to mention the expectations of car crashes and explosions, Scott and Helgeland not surprisingly fall somewhat short by substituting subtlety for sound and fury; headache-inducing freeze frame and montage gimmickry; rap and heavy metal on the soundtrack; and far more crude language and bloodshed than is really necessary.
Still, there have been remakes that have been far worse than this one; and at least, Scott had the good sense of placing Denzel Washington in the role essayed by Walter Matthau in the original; here, he is a transit official with a slightly shady past (and whereas he was named Zachary Garber in the original, as a favor to the great actor who played Garber in '74, in 2009 he's named Walter Garber). Times being different, the ransom is now up to $10 million, but the idea of making NYC deliver the money in one hour wisely remains the same, giving the remake the same HIGH NOON-style level of tension that informed the 1974 original. Veteran actors John Turturro (as a hostage negotiator) and James Gandolfini (as the NYC mayor) also do good supporting turns, trying to help Washington's cool, calm, collected transit official.
Where I felt the film went slightly askew, however, was in a decision typical of many Hollywood directors these days with respect to actors who play villains: allowing them to go so far overboard early on that there's more ham in their performances than there is in any Hormel factory. And this is what Scott does with John Travolta; he allows the actor to play the lead hijacker John Ryder with far too much zeal and insanity to be anything other than a typical Hollywood nut job, this in total contrast to Robert Shaw in the original film, where the late, great British actor portrayed Ryder with a certain low-key viciousness and a clipped delivery. Indeed, what the film misses the most is the witty over-the-radio repartee between Matthau and Shaw that was present in the original. Both Helgeland and Scott missed the boat on that one.
And yet, despite all the bloodshed, profanity, and headache-inducing sound and fury thrown at the viewer, it is really the plot itself that makes this film work as well as it does; and it is fortunate that, thanks to Washington's presence, Scott and Helgeland aren't allowed to completely trash that. This PELHAM stops a couple of stations short of the masterpiece status accorded to the original, but one could do much worse in terms of classic films that 21st century Hollywood has somehow decided need a reworking.