Taking of Pelham 123 Movie Review
I’ve seen a great number of films, and experienced a great deal of villainy. One of the recent villainous greats was Heath Ledger’s interpretation of The Joker in The Dark Knight. Ledger’s version of The Joker gave the character a whole new shade. His take was a whole new voice compared what we’d seen in comics and previous Batman films – literally. But, more importantly, he was a character with depth and emotion. And, he was evil. He created tension and dread amongst the characters in the film and the audience in their seats.
John Travolta’s character, Ryder, the lead villain of our film, certainly does and says things that bad guys should. He yells “motherfucker” every chance he has, has tattoos, and tries to establish a few catchphrases. But acting like a villain, and being a villain are two different things. The Joker created an atmosphere of fear and panic in Gotham City. Ryder, on the other hand, seems to work from his Cliff Notes version of the villain handbook. His henchmen seem interesting, but we’re not given any details on them – they might as well have “Hired Goon #2” signs around their neck. A shame, too, since we’re provided with a former MTA employee who seems defeated and almost regretful he’s involved in the scheme. We have a trigger happy silent killer who effortlessly identifies and murders a non-uniformed police officer. They certainly seemed interesting, but we’re instead left with Travolta’s villain caricature.
Denzel Washington is our hero, Garber, who is surprisingly not a cop – but a subway dispatcher with his own issues. He’s a little pudgy, grayed, and isn’t always sure of the right thing to say. But, beyond that, his character also brings nothing new to the table. Likewise, the hostages seem to be paper-thin personalities as well. A super-cool teenager named George (“Geo” to his friends) seems like he was casted first, and detailed later. I won’t try to figure out why his laptop, with his stripping girlfriend on webcam, was never noticed by the bad guys, but, well, it is a movie, after all. Additional characters (no-nonsense cops, a beleaguered but passionate mayor) bring their personalities to the party, and seem equally hollow.
But that’s Pelham 123 in a nutshell. It’s definitely not a bad film, but I expect a bit more from Tony Scott after a strong thriller like Man on Fire. Examining Pelham seems to suggest that the filmmakers took a known story, and filled in the basic action formula pieces. I hate to say that the film comes off a bit lazy, but I’m not sure how else to see it. A film like this, centered on a heist, depends on its villain, and the relationship between antagonist and protagonist. I never felt that connection between Garber and Ryder was there. They simply spoke into a radio and replied to each other. Furthermore, the film displays a clock to transition scenes – Ryder and his gang have given the city of New York one hour to deliver ten million dollars. But, since we know that heist movies never get the money to the bad guys on time, we don’t even care about the clock. And, later, Garber somehow gets dragged into the confrontation physically, despite him not being a cop – but he’s the star of the film, so of course he has to face off with Ryder. Right?
Again, let me repeat: not a bad movie. But it wants to be so much more. It wants to be a thriller. Blurry editing, sped-up car chases, and bloody gun brawls don’t make a thrilling film. Intensity does. And this movie simply didn’t have it.
