The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)    Columbia-MGM/Action-Thriller    RT: 106 minutes    Rated R (violence, pervasive language)    Director: Tony Scott    Screenplay: Brian Helgeland    Music: Harry Gregson-Williams    Cinematography: Tobias A. Schliessler    Release date: June 12, 2009 (US)    Cast: Denzel Washington, John Travolta, John Turturro, Luis Guzman, Victor Gojcaj, Robert Vataj, Michael Rispoli, Ramon Rodriguez, James Gandolfini, John Benjamin Hickey, Alex Kaluzhsky, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Frank Wood, Gary Basaraba, Jake Siciliano, Aunjanue Ellis, Jason Butler Harner.    Box Office: $65.4M (US)/$150.1M (World)

Rating: ***

 As far as remakes go, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is one of the better ones as long as you don’t compare it too closely to the original. There is no comparison. The 1974 film starring Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw and Martin Balsam is the better movie. Whereas that one was gritty and rife with tension, the newer version is louder and flashier. It’s definitely the work of Tony Scott who imbrues it with the same hyperkinetic energy as Beverly Hills Cop II. It took a minute for me to warm up to the 1987 sequel and while I still don’t think it’s a great film, it is a fun ride. I feel pretty much the same about The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. It’s flawed but fun.

 The plot is pretty much the same. Four armed men hijack the titular subway train and demand a hefty ransom for the 18 passengers (including a motorman) they’ve taken hostage. If they don’t receive $10 million in one hour’s time, one hostage will be killed for every additional minute they have to wait. The thing I miss most in this remake is the color-coded nicknames (e.g. “Mr. Blue”, “Mr. Green”) used by the bad guys in the original. In fact, they don’t call each other anything. The lead heavy (Travolta, Pulp Fiction) identifies himself as “Ryder” to MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) dispatcher Walter Garber (Washington, Training Day) who finds himself in the role of negotiator. More about him in a moment. Of the three accomplices, the only one the movie concerns itself with is Phil Ramos (Guzman, Boogie Nights), a former motorman fired by the MTA for a reason that resulted in imprisonment. The remaining two are simply muscle whose roles are limited to looking scary while pointing guns at the frightened passengers.

 Okay, back to Garber, the hero of the story. He used to be a big shot in the MTA until bribery allegations caused him to be demoted to dispatch during the investigation. Did he or didn’t he? He denies it, of course. Others, like his supervisor (Rispoli, Summer of Sam), think he’s guilty as hell. In any event, he’s the one dealing with the hijacking crisis at Ryder’s demand. When NYPD ESU officer Lt. Camonetti (Turturro, The Big Lebowski) tries to take over negotiations, it does not end well for one of the hostages. Ryder only wants to deal with Garber, nobody else. It’s like he’s found a kindred spirit of sorts.

 One of the biggest changes in the remake is motive. Yes, they’re all in it for the money ($2.5M each). Yes, Ramos wants to get even with his former employers (including New York City). Ryder, on the other hand, has higher goals in addition to his own beef with NYC. His bigger picture involves manipulating the stock market to his own advantage- i.e. extreme greed. Interesting, but I prefer the simplicity of Shaw’s villain in the OG. He was a mercenary, in it only for the money, plain and simple. He had no personal stake in the matter.

 The original Pelham has a great cast, no question about it. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 has bigger names including two-time Oscar winner Denzel and two-time nominee Travolta. They deliver what they usually do in terms of performance. Denzel plays a noble, nice guy hero determined to make things right while Travolta overacts like crazy as the villain. Guzman’s character isn’t developed nearly enough. Turturro is good as the cop backing up Denzel. James Gandolfini (The Sopranos) is very good as the mayor with a public image problem. His deputy tells him paying the ransom and rescuing the hostages will go a long way towards restoring positive public opinion. Hey, it’s New York; did you really think politics wouldn’t play a part? Get a clue.

 The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is one of those hyper, noisy, overedited jobs that seem to please modern audiences. Ordinarily, I’m not a big fan, but it didn’t bother me so much this time. I enjoyed this contemporary version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 despite its flaws. Here’s one I didn’t mention. We don’t really get to know any of the hostages too well. Whereas in the first movie we had an idea of who they were (e.g. a pimp, a hippy, an old guy, a mother with two kids, etc.), the hostages in the new movie aren’t all that distinctive except for an ex-soldier, a mother with her kid and a guy who can’t take a piss with others watching.

 Despite its shortcomings, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a decent Friday night action flick. It has plenty of action although I can’t say I love the CGI. It’s fast-moving and even exciting in parts. I guess it’s best not to get too hung up on details. A movie like The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 doesn’t require analysis. It’s out to entertain not edify. My advice, check your brain at the door and enjoy the ride.