The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Synopsis

Ryder, (John Travolta, Bolt) a criminal mastermind leads a group of hijackers who take a New York City subway train and threaten to kill the train’s passengers, unless their ransom of one million dollars per hostage is paid within one hour. Walter Garber, (Denzel Washington, The Great Debators) a subway dispatcher tries to negotiate with the hijackers after being thrown into this madness. He volunteers himself to the hijackers in exchange for releasing the hostages on the train.

Review

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 has great tension and suspense that’s dipped perfectly into action batter ready for frying. It’s a great mixture. Will I remember it and be talking about it next year? Probably not, yet it’s a decent film to catch.

Pelham circulates around Ryder (John Travolta, Bolt) a psychopathic hijacker and his criminal crew who seize a New York subway train and holds a group of passengers’ hostage for $10 million. Ryder is not playing. He threatens to execute passengers if his cash money isn’t to him in one hour.

On the flip side, subway dispatcher, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington, The Great Debators), is assigned to the Rail Control Center and receives the disturbing call from Ryder. For some strange reason Ryder feels comfortable with Garber and wants to only negotiate with him. We must remember that Garber is just a civil service employee. He’s just a guy and not a trained negotiator. It’s on though because Ryder wants to trade Garber for all the passengers and bring the ransom.

The film is based on the thriller novel by Morton Freedgood and is a remake of the original 1974 film adaptation, which was also remade in 1998 as a TV movie. I wonder why they keep remaking movies from back in the day. I guess if they make money, why not.

Pelham has good character back-story to help move the story and key premise along. It’s a strong cast of men. There’s a couple women sprinkled in, but not many to speak of.

Denzel does what Denzel does. He’s not going to disappoint as usual. He’s a natural and professional. Any character he plays he has that innate ability to just make it real and come to life. What else can I say about him? Do I think every character he plays makes me think its Denzel and I just say “Get him Denzel" instead of his character’s name? Yes! Oh, wait… I’m lying, when he played John Q. I did think of him only as John Q.

I’m trying to figure out did Denzel put on a couple extra pounds to play this part. Because, he looks frumpy and like he’s been eating a few Krispy Kremes. Sorry Denzel. I’m just wondering. No disrespect.

John just plays a nutty nutball. He’s funny and a bit exaggerated at times. Ryder – is a good villain character to a degree. There were times when I was thinking “Come on now, you’re acting a bit too loco for me to believe.” This ain’t The Joker in the Dark Knight. Shoot, The Joker is comic book crazy, not reality crazy.

The em ef word is used so much in this flick I thought it was someone’s homeboy or something. I was shocked. Hearing my boy John T. use such foul language threw me off a bit. I was quite mystified.

James Gandofini (The Sapranos) is also present in Pelham as the Mayor of New York City. I liked his part. He came off as cynical. He’s a bit comical with his sarcastic demeanor and really seemed like a Mayor to me. I truly believed his role.

Could I miss this film at the theaters and be happy with waiting 3 months to see it on DVD. Um, yes I could wait. It’s a good firm film and story with interesting leading men; however, it’s just that. It makes for a great matinee, and if you opt to see it in the evening, you won't be disappointed you spent the extra cash. I wasn’t. What more can I say? It’s not bad.

My Rating ~ 3 Reels

Audience Rating (What's Yours?)