The Taking Of Pelham 123 (2009)

Just saw this again the other night and confirmed what I knew the first time... It's actually a good movie.

First things first... Big fan of the original. One of the great 70s thrillers for all the reasons that are always cited. I've even read the John Godey book. The movie is better than the book.

But I still think the remake was unfairly criticized.

I try to look at it as an individual work... If you assume the original doesn't exist, and just judge it on its own terms, I see almost nothing wrong with it. It's an interesting premise for a thriller, Denzel and Travolta are both very good. And there is a colorful supporting cast with strong memorable turns from Gandolfini, Turturro and Luis Guzman. As well as the two Albanian villains who the special features on the disc inform me are actual ex cons that Tony Scott went to for consulting purposes, and he liked them so much they ended up playing the roles themselves.

That sort of attention to detail and character help elevate this movie.

Let's have a little discussion, if anyone is interested, about why this movie is "bad." I'm prepared for plenty of "you have terrible taste" comments. I'm used to them, since I wrote a blog defending The Happening. But I'd prefer if we can actually talk about what, exactly, is wrong with this movie.

Watching it again, I came to the conclusion that it's actually one of Tony Scott's most enjoyable films. And the leanest, most unpretentious and uncluttered work he's put out in the past decade or so.

Right... The police setback didn't need to be dramatized in quite so spectacular a fashion. It's like they felt the movie wasn't actiony enough, so let's have this scene mid film where it turns into The Blues Brothers for no logical reason whatsoever.

New York was a different place in 1974. And its Pelham is a perfect capsule of that time. But, wouldn't you say the '09 Pelham is an accurate enough depiction of the current New York?

One of the criticisms leveled at the remake is that the characters on the train aren't as interesting. Because you don't have, say, Jerry Stiller this time around.

I'd argue that people today just aren't as interesting as they were in 1974.

These people do stand out well enough. I like how they give them little character beats, like that subplot with the mother, her kid and the armed forces dude. As well as the guy from Changeling and that episode of Fringe about the man who turns into a wookie on an airplane (can't be bothered to look up his name on IMDB), I like that scene where he wants to piss but suffers from shy bladder.

Interesting that someone brought up the made-for-TV remake from the 90s. The problem with that one was its level of fidelity to the original. It forced you to compare Edward James Olmos to Walter Matthau and Vincent D'Onofrio to Robert Shaw. (Guess who wins?)

Changing the characters this time around, and adding an unexpected layer of poignancy, makes all the difference.

That whole thing with Travolta: "You're my goddamn hero." I think that's a great touch.

I get where you're coming from Tati. But, given how shitty Travolta's movies had gotten, I thought this was a breath of fresh air that reminded me of where he was at post Pulp Fiction. The over-the-top nature of the character comes off as deliberate. He's a white collar guy who was changed by prison. And he adopts this "I don't give a fuck" persona. The swagger is calculated. It comes off as a guy who is going to great lengths to really come off a certain way.

He keeps it to a minimum here, though. Couple of needlessly dramatic freeze-frames and ominous title cards. But that's about it.

This is an interesting side discussion too. When exactly did Tony Scott adopt this style of zooms and freeze frames and subtitles and all that? In the 80s and 90s he was all about gloss. Now he seems to be obsessed with epilepsy.

I'll forgive him for its use in Man On Fire because it has a funny effect in that one (unintentional, but still...) and I like Man On Fire. But, when did Scott start doing this? Enemy Of The State?