'The Taking of Pelham 123' (Scott, 2009)

Travolta hams it up as the villain. But should he have been cast as the hero?

It's a sort of standard operating procedure with hijack/hostage thrillers such as this to have a big reveal in the final reel. A shocking twist that miraculously transforms the cliché characters and mediocre story of the past ninety plus minutes into a film you might actually remember the next morning. Unfortunately, The Taking of Pelham 123 is not one of those films.

Lead actors Denzel Washington and John Travolta contribute to a relatively watchable hundred minutes, but one can't help but feel that they were cast in the wrong roles. I suspect that Washington as the charismatic terrorist and Travolta as the burned out transport operative would no doubt have made for a far more satisfying viewing experience than the final product. That said, they are both highly capable actors whose interaction with one another electrifies, and lifts the film from DTV tosh to cinema-worthy fare.

Tony Scott has always been the kind of guy who loves tinkering with visuals. His use and manipulation of hand cranked cameras in 2004's Man on Fire created an energy and vibrancy that thrilled, terrified and emotionalised in equal measure. Sadly, none of that flare is on display in Pelham, whose misjudged time lapse shots and interspersion of thrash metal superimposed over inserts of ransom money being raced across the city creates the wrong breed of unease and awkwardness.

Somewhere within the the depths of the film, there seems to be an abortive attempt to initiate some sort of critique of Wall Street but, like much of the film, this element is not explored to any compelling degree. It is merely paid lip service before the filmmakers cower from committing to a concrete message of one description or another. Whatever commentary on class warfare was inherent in the story being told simply never comes to any notable fruition.

So this is a film of missed opportunities. Miscast leads. Underdeveloped themes. Underwritten scenes. Underwhelming plot. Misjudged aesthetic. And yet...it is not a complete waste of time. There is some entertainment value to be had here, there is some joy to be gleaned from the performances, and there are moments of high tension that will grip an audience, even if it isn't the best at doing what it does.

*****