PHILIP BARRETT: Give Tony Scott credit, he’s improved over his career. He went from being his generation’s Michael Bay (see: Top Gun, Days of Thunder) to developing his own style and being a legitimately good filmmaker (see: Man on Fire, Enemy of the State.) One could say he learned a thing or two from brother Ridley about putting his characters and story hand-in-hand with style (you could also make the case for Ridley as well as his films have become more stylized over the years.) The result? Better films from a very talented action director who looks to continue his partnership with The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

PLUS1: When I see the name “Tony Scott” I know that I’m getting an action flick that has a great sense of style and knows where the start, middle, and end should be. Enemy of the State is one of my all time favorite Tony Scott movies and Pelham 1 2 3 has the same action and gritty moments throughout the film. In Pelham 1 2 3, Tony Scott manages to put the characters and the story ahead of the “let’s blow things up” mentality that most directors seem to showcase now-a-days. By doing that, he gives a movie that has a dynamic amount of character and plots that keeps the audience hooked from start to finish.

ERIK BUCKMAN: Fans of Tony Scott’s approach to film will thoroughly enjoy Pelham 1 2 3 for its lavish effects, erratic cinematography and excitement for over-the-top violence. Others may loathe it.

PBAR: Pelham‘s biggest problem is that it truly does feel like a bus ride. When it moves, it’s on fire and accelerates at a very high pace. When it slows down, it moves at a crawl waiting for us to get on so we can advance to the next stop.

BUCKMAN: Once the camera stops moving long enough to spot a discernible image of our characters, we notice that John Travolta and Denzel Washington are actually starring in this. Good thing, because without them and their charm, Scott’s Pelham 1 2 3 would plummet into flames. Instead, it’s a slow burn. Mr. Travolta, who really hasn’t been this fun since Face/Off, is on the verge of bringing depth to his character but is grounded by his character’s unbelievable background and agenda. Thanks to a story focused largely on under-developed characters with desires on paper only, the convenience of the plot advances are staggering.

PBAR: Getting back to Travolta, he’s honestly the best thing on this bus ride. I love me some Denzel and while he’s good here (as always) it’s Travolta who takes the show. His character of “Ryder” (which is a reference to the original) shows that Travolta is having the most fun he’s had in years. Years from now there will probably be a drinking game of how many times he utters the word “fucker.”

Like oh mah gah! I got a gun, oh mah gah!

BUCKMAN: Seemed like 23 “motherfuckers” as well, yet only three working on this review.

PLUS1: To me Travolta and Washington were needed as I could not see anyone else playing these parts. Travolta played “Ryder” with fun, excitement, and mystery in a way that was very reminiscent of the character he played in Swordfish. As a fan, there is something amazing about Travolta and the charm he brings to the characters handed to him. As for Washington, he needed a good movie as the past few he had been in were box office flops. Pelham 1 2 3 gives Washington the vehicle needed to bring him back to the mainstream as a great actor. The trials his character Walter Garber went through from the start of the movie to the end showed that not everyone is perfect but if given the chance you can fix any mistake possible.

BUCKMAN: Aside from Denzel and Travolta, the other star of the film appears to be modern technology. Complete with web cams, Bluetooth earpieces, an insatiable gossip-hungry mainstream media and an all-mighty WI-FI connection, Scott’s Pelham also makes its most telling change yet: the bad guy worked on Wall Street which is now the epitome of evil.

PBAR: My biggest issue with the plot was how it did little to nothing with all the technology Buckman mentioned. The one kid who has the laptop with the webcam was fine and he actually had more depth than any of the other side characters, but Pelham doesn’t do anything with his camera. When the villains do discover it’s on, it’s more of an “Oh, that’s too bad” rather than general anger that they’ve now been identified on national television. Unless I missed something, they were pretty inconspicuous so I’d doubt they wanted to be caught.

BUCKMAN: In this modern tale of the Pelham train, it seems the only aspect (besides the plot) that was kept from the original was its claustrophobic fright. Standing on it’s own, does Pelham 1 2 3 work? It does. When comparing it to the original, it most certainly does not.

PLUS1: The plot was a roller-coaster ride that knew when to peak and valley at the given times keeping everyone on the edge of the seat and wondering what would happen next. For that, I give Tony Scott major props for not making a booring movie and keeping the audience entertained every step of the way.

That one snafu about the web-cam can be overlooked. If you remember, the bad guys heard the beeping of the battery dieing and when they looked at the laptop the screen had just gone blank. Yeah they should have shown some anger toward what happened but in their defense they knew they were getting off the train soon with the money promised to them.  Ok…I helped fix the plot hole…yeah, that was one major mistake that was overlooked. As for the “secondary” cast, it consisted of names that you’ll recognize: James Gandolfini, Luis Guzman, and John Turturro. Each brought their unique acting style to very cookie-cutter characters and managed to give life to characters that could have been used as filler for the plot.

PBAR: The biggest disappointment I had with the secondary cast was how little they used John Turturro. Scott’s not above having colorful characters in his films and Turturro made Mr. Deeds tolerable and was the best human character in Transformers. Turturro doesn’t feel there, like anyone else could have done this role and the movie wouldn’t have suffered any less.

At the end of the day, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 isn’t a terrible movie, it’s just a semi-decent one. Tony Scott does ok work, but his style seems out of place here and Brian Helgeland’s script is pretty bland. But, for those looking for an adult flick as it should entertain.

PLUS1: I liked this movie. I thought the action and suspense were the right formula to make this a good popcorn flick and an enjoyable evening out at the movies.

BUCKMAN: For inconsequential summer features, audiences could do worse than this but for viewers looking for an up-scaled version of the original, you may find that your money has run out

PBAR’S Grade -

Rating: ★★½☆☆