Tony Scott Retrospective: “The Taking of Pelham 123” (2009)

Tony Scott has directed remakes of two films: “Man on Fire” and “The Taking of Pelham 123.” Both films are based on novels. Tony Scott's “Man on Fire” seems more like it's based on the book than the previous film. His “Pelham 123” seems more based on the original movie than the book. That's too bad because the original “Pelham” film is a near perfect thriller and uniquely so. In fact, it's literally my favorite film from 1974. Ironically, the book itself is a bit lackluster. It's not bad, but there are such a wide array of characters, that there's no true “hero” since the protagonists are a collective. It feels more like an academic case study of how the New York subway system works and how law enforcement is woven into it. Regardless, it's a good blueprint for a great movie.

The original movie did a fantastic job of streamlining the story into an almost mano-a-mano showdown without sacrificing any supporting characters, who indeed are much more vividly realized and rotate throughout the film very effectively with their eclectic personalities. Scott's remake attempts the same thing, but we never really get to know many of the characters and, the ones we do, we don't really get invested in. That's a pretty crucial aspect for a film about hostages. Even the supporting terrorists are kind of anonymous gunmen in the new version.

Let's be fair about this, though, and take the original out of the equation to eliminate any unfair comparisons and judge Scott's remake as a stand alone piece. One may be more sympathetic to its shortcomings if they're unaware it had been done before (and successfully). This is not a shot-for-shot remake and there are a tremendous amount of changes, but they hinder the film more than they help it.

One example is John Travolta's role as the lead villain. It's very oddly written and even more oddly performed. He's clearly a psychopath, but he (the character, I mean) is performing for the sake of misdirection. The hijacking scheme is a smokescreen for manipulating the market. So, “Ryder” (as he's called in the film) is not only conning law enforcement, he's also conning his cohorts. Consequently, the audience is uncertain as to what kind of bad guy this really is. He seems to really delight in killing his hostages, but he blames their deaths on everyone other than him. He goes from laughing and treating the matter very nonchalantly to flying into fits of rage like a child throwing a tantrum. Also, he's an investment banker who kills people. I'm sure that's not outside of the realm of possibility, but it feels odd here, because with his handlebar mustache, neck tattoos, and scrappy clothes, he looks and acts more like a violent criminal than a white collar one. You don't have to compare his character to Robert Shaw's in order to spot the flaws.

These, of course, are mostly complaints about the writing, not the directing. So, how does Tony Scott do in the telling this (flawed) story? It's certainly watchable. And, even though it's largely forgettable, it is still entertaining for the most part. I think the biggest criticism I have about Scott's direction here is that it feels a bit like a paycheck project that he just phoned in. Not much of his usual nuance or, for that matter, joy comes across. Consider “The Last Boy Scout.” That was a film that it's rumored made everyone involved with it miserable throughout its production. Yet, for whatever reason, it transcends its difficulties and feels like a joyride. For all I know, “The Taking of Pelham 123” was great fun to make. It doesn't feel like it, though. In fact, this is possibly Tony Scott's weakest film. Unfortunately, it's not just because it's a remake.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Deja Vu” (2006)

“Deja Vu” walks a precarious tightrope. The first three quarters of the film require the viewer to think and pay close attention as the characters not only gradually uncover the mystery they're trying to solve, but how the method by which they're trying to solve it works. It's not too difficult to keep up with, but the playing field does have a detailed and unique set of “rules” that the viewer has to keep in mind to understand what's going on. Then, in the last half hour, the story shifts and the audience inadvertently has to disengage the scrutinous part of their brain in order to accept all that happens in the final act. It's like reading a dissertation about writing and overlooking all the spelling and grammatical errors in order to enjoy the final summation. In short, to appreciate “Deja Vu” the viewer has to pay attention to the details in the set-up and then just accept everything at face value for the pay-off. Another way to put it is: one's enjoyment of “Deja Vu” is in direct proportion to one's suspension of disbelief.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. I've always been the type of filmgoer that can appreciate a profound complex thoughtful arthouse piece every bit as much as a mindless goofy nonsensical special effects exhibition piece so long as they both succeed admirably in what they're trying to accomplish. That distinction comes in handy when watching a movie like “Deja Vu” because I can switch gears whenever I need to. In all honesty, though, I have seen plenty of movies that have had similar dichotomies that I found completely unforgivable. Not so with “Deja Vu” and I think that has to be because of Tony Scott.

Not to say I'm biased (although I probably am), but he just makes the film so damn watchable. For one thing, Denzel Washington (working with Scott for the third time here) can make an audience swallow just about anything with his charm and determination. Second, the aesthetics of the film are so compelling. The plot's sales pitch relies on the technology being presented and the surveillance workspace with its suspended translucent monitors, wheeled joysticks, and sexy sound effects really seal the deal. Best of all, the technology allows the film to indulge in one of the most clever car chases in film history as one car in the present pursues another car in the past, but time is ticking in both timelines and if the pursuer loses the suspect, all is lost. It's a nail-biting action sequence because of what's at stake, not merely because of the high speeds and close calls.

Rumor has it the screenwriters originally composed a more airtight script that accounted for a variety of time travel paradoxes. If that's true, I'd like to read it some day. Tony Scott (with a history of sacrificing realism for the sake of spectacle) made changes to the story that created plotholes big enough to drive a Humvee through (which Denzel literally does). This is probably why the film went largely unseen and was forgotten quickly after its release. However, the film does have a lot more character development, humanity, and pathos than necessary to tell the story. And if Tony Scott could only effectively inject those things into the story at the cost of the screenwriters' original vision, then it was worth it.

So, while you do have to be in the specific mindset of a “cerebral no-brainer” in order to fully appreciate “Deja Vu,” the film accomplishes what Tony Scott does best: Entertain. Think of it as getting into a Humvee with somebody chasing somebody in the past and driver simply tells you, “Don't ask questions, just enjoy the ride.”