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.”

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Domino” (2005)

This is probably last “Great” movie Tony Scott made. Not to say his remaining films are bad, because they're not. By “Great” I mean big, bold, loud, and outrageous in the way only Tony Scott could do it (which is why I put “Great” in quotes and capitalized it). In fact, one could say that his style's evolution as a filmmaker was building to this and peaked with “Domino.” Anything more full-throttle would be tremendous overkill. He really gets right to the brink where it's almost unwatchable, but the film can't help to be equal parts charming and mesmerizing in the midst of its grit, bite, and decadence.

The quick cuts, flashes, blurs, and pacing are meant to give the impression of a cocaine binge. To approach telling this story any other way would probably be ineffective. The casting is also very crucial to the film's success and this ensemble is impeccable. It must've been a tough challenge since these characters are so vividly realized and exceptionally unique. On top of that, they need to have the right chemistry to make it work. I'm not just talking about the three principle leads, either. The supporting characters have to fit perfectly into the puzzle as well. Impressively, every actor in every role meets this challenging criteria perfectly.

This must have been a fun movie to make, too. Everybody really shines onscreen, even in the smallest role. Jerry Springer (yes, that Jerry Springer) looks like he's trying to stifle a smile in his brief scene. Christopher Walken seems to be poking fun at himself by pretty much just doing an impression of Christopher Walken. Even more so, Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green (literally playing themselves) are tremendous good sports in emulating every cynical prejudice the public might have of them. It's also great to see Dabney Coleman back in the type of role his played so perfectly throughout the 80's. And leave to Jacqueline Bisset to provide the anomaly of elegance and class by playing it cool and haughty. Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier, here comes Tom Waits.

Put all this together and it's a recipe for disaster. But, in a good way. It's safe to say no other director could have handled all these ingredients so perfectly. The only drawback is that one has to be in the right mood to watch “Domino,” but that's just because one has to keep up. Otherwise, it will leave the viewer in the dust wondering what happened. Tony Scott's best movies feel like rides and this is by far Mr. Tone's Wildest Ride.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Man on Fire” (2004)

Tony Scott returns to Denzel Washington as his leading man, who will remain his leading man in three out of his four remaining films. I've always wondered about their connection and if it was just a professional one or if their relationship was deeply personal as well. Either way, you can see why Tony Scott was metaphorically married to Mr. Washington after this film. “Man on Fire” is Scott's most complex character study (with the possible exception of “Domino,” yet to come) and he doesn't hold back on the dark places he goes with Denzel's character.

You can see Scott employ some of the visual tactics began in “The Fan” with Robert DeNiro's character's descent into madness. Washington's Creasy is of equally scorched-earth caliber, but with a motive driven by love. Perhaps casting Denzel Washington as Creasy was the best way to make the character not only sympathetic, but likable. A great deal is spent on developing the relationship between Creasy and Pita, the young girl he's hired to protect. For the first 45 minutes of the movie, that story arc itself makes for a sufficiently entertaining film. That's what makes Pita's kidnapping so devastating and why Creasy's unrelenting quest for revenge has us fully on board.

The camera twitches and flashes in the moments Creasy's rage is inflamed, making scenes already unsettling even more so. As Creasy works his way up the chain of bad guys, his tactics of torture, humiliation, and execution escalate as well. The tension is a mixture of urgency for Creasy to have his vengeance seen to completion as well as our borderline sympathy for the villains he zealously exterminates. In some cases, this style of filmmaking overwhelms the viewer's experience, but I think that may actually be the point. This film is not meant to be endured comfortably.

Tony Scott's somewhat superfluous use of subtitles can be distracting at times (particularly when it's dictation of English dialogue versus a translation of Spanish). Since the film has a lot of Spanish in it, he didn't want all of that conversation merely superimposed over the bottom of the screen, so he made it flow through the shots as it's spoken. I suppose he liked it so much, he didn't want the English-speaking scenes to feel neglected. I didn't care for it the first time I saw the film, but I've gotten used to it in subsequent viewings and have just accepted it as appropriate emphasis in the scenes it appears. Scott uses a similar tactic in the aforementioned “Domino” with much better effect, so it's good he had this movie to experiment with. Much like he had the love-fueled rampage set in Mexico “Revenge” to experiment with before making this amped-up version of a similar formula.

Tony Scott had originally wanted this to be the follow-up piece to his debut film “The Hunger” and it's interesting he had such perseverance to the project to see it through some 20 years later. Maybe that's what makes Creasy's fixation on his mission so believable. In that context, the scene where Creasy attempts suicide is all the more haunting given Tony Scott killed himself less than 10 years later. Perhaps Creasy's demons are not too far off from Tony Scott's and as such, it could be said Tony Scott effectively lives on in this film. I don't think Tony Scott would mind being remembered for “Man on Fire” given how honest it is.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Spy Game” (2001)

“Spy Game” is Tony Scott's first grown-up movie. That's not to say his previous flicks can only be appreciated by the young or the immature, but those films are mostly entertainment for its own sake. “Spy Game” has its share of car chases and shoot outs, but it stands apart from Scott's other work for the reason Robert Redford was drawn to the project in the first place: “It's a thinking man's action picture.”

Like any good spy story, it's a puzzle the audience slowly puts together, but not so convoluted that it's a challenge to follow. There's a lot going on here that has to be organized and disseminated without being dull or tedious. Tony Scott shines in how he makes scenes where people are talking on the phone or looking through files feel like action set pieces. It's also his first demonstration of using suspense and tension with subtleties because the characters have to play it cool as they simultaneously try to find things out while keeping their own secrets. Tony Scott said he tried to make the scenes in the CIA conference room feel like a high-stakes poker game.

Also, because the film is so dialogue-heavy, Scott really flexes his muscles in directing actors to act. The performances in his other films are all sound, so he clearly knows how to extract great acting. In a film like “Spy Game,” though, it's a bit more delicate because the characters have to be, not just convincing, but intriguing. The complexity of the players has to really show through particularly because, as I said before, they're trying to reveal as little as possible.

Scott also plays around a lot with cameras and cinematography in this one. In probably the most pivotal scene in the movie, Robert Redford and Brad Pitt have a tense exchange on a circular rooftop. They verbally spar, not knowing if they can rely on each other as the camera rotates the perimeter of their arena. The scene was so expensive to shoot, Scott paid for the helicopter rental out of his own pocket to do it right. Totally worth it.

With the exception of “The Hunger” (and possibly “The Fan”), every one of Tony Scott's films could predominantly be labeled as an action flick. “Spy Game” fits into that category as well, but it exhibits a real adept filmmaker executing a mature, thoughtful, and nuanced movie that would be lost on the frivolous and the mundane. It's ambitious for Scott to pick material that doesn't necessarily appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I love his more mindless, over-the-top, rollercoaster pictures, but “Spy Game” makes me wish he would've tried his hand at a few more this smart.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Enemy of the State” (1998)

With the exception of “Unstoppable,” Tony Scott's remaining films all have a bit of a “spy” slant to them, starting with this one. I like to think it's because Scott really found his calling with “Enemy of the State.” By that I mean this is the type of film his style and atmosphere (and possibly personal tastes) really suit best. This is a near perfect film in the sense of achieving the goals it sets for itself. It's exciting, it's funny, it's clever, it's unpredictable, it's well-acted (which is no surprise with its extensive top-level cast all at their best), and feels original (which is especially impressive given it pays homage to many other films that inspired it).

“Enemy of the State” also shows that, despite being pigeon-holed as an action director (especially due to his frequent collaborating with Producer Jerry Bruckheimer), he will not settle for recycling the same old stuff. For instance, this film has some of the most superlative food chases I've ever seen. Foot chases are hard to do well and, I lost count, but there have to be about five of them here and they're heart-pounding as hell. Also, with that much running around, you'd think the audience would get as tired of it as the characters, but that's not the case. They're running down alleyways, up staircases, upon rooftops, in the middle of the street, and even across the sides of balconies and through tunnels under the city. Whew! Yet each one feels, not only fresh, but essential to the story.

Even with all that, Tony Scott still fits in a couple car chases that are unique in their own right. One takes place between two moving trains and another contains a pivotal interrogation scene at high speeds. Wow! The latter of those actually serves as one of the greatest red herrings in motion picture history. If you haven't seen “Enemy of the State,” skip the next paragraph, because I don't want to ruin it for you.

Early on, the audience is informed of a mysterious private investigator by the name of Brill. It's obvious we will eventually meet this character and that he will probably be Dean, the lead character's, savior. When the time comes for Brill to make an entrance, in walks Gabriel Byrne. Awesome! I love Gabriel Byrne and he's perfect as this character we've heard so much about. In literally less than three minutes, we find out Gabriel Byrne is not Brill, but in fact somebody sent to pose as Brill in order to entrap Dean. We find this out from the real Brill, played by Gene Hackman, who is an even better choice to play the character. I was blown away by this misdirection because when an actor of Byrne's caliber shows up, you expect them to play a major role. Whatever disappointment I felt that Byrne was not actually Brill was completely eradicated by how impressed I was by that trick on the audience. Well done, Mr. Scott. That could very well be your finest moment.

There's almost too much to unpack here as to how satisfying this movie is and on how many levels. The mark of any good movie is how well it holds up after multiple viewings and that's especially true of comedy and horror because the effectiveness of those genres often rely upon the element of surprise. That's also true for thrillers, particularly ones like this with twists and turns and tricks and double-crosses. But, I can never watch this movie enough. Even though it's quite familiar to me, it never loses its edge because I'm always in awe of its craftsmanship and presentation. Can't say that this is Tony Scott's best movie, but I can say it's my own personal favorite.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “The Fan” (1996)

This movie is a bit perplexing. Even the details behind it getting made are befuddling. It's based on a novel and I've read the novel. It's decent. Not bad, held my attention, entertaining enough, but not by any means innovative, original, profound, nor (for that matter) memorable. As far as I know, it wasn't a best-seller, either. None of that in itself is unusual, but what is unusual is there seemed to be a lot of weight behind getting it made. Apparently, all kinds of actors were fighting to play the title role. Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, and even Wesley Snipes all were reportedly vying for it. None other than Robert DeNiro won the role. Not surprising, given his clout (not to mention his extended resume of playing intimidating psychopaths). I'm curious what it was about the script (or novel) that drew him to the project. As I said, he'd played plenty of psychopaths before, so this role wasn't neither new for him, nor was it challenging. And the source material wasn't by any means a built-in money-maker, but nonetheless, enough Hollywood heavies wanted it to get made and so it did.

In any case, DeNiro's attachment to the project was what brought Tony Scott to it. Scott always wanted to work with DeNiro and this was his chance. He even turned down the opportunity to direct “The Rock” to do “The Fan,” which is funny because I've always considered Michael Bay (who ended up directing “The Rock”) a Tony Scott wannabe. Ironically, “The Rock” turned out to be a much more satisfying flick (at least by the standards that Tony Scott's usually measured by). That's probably because Tony Scott's interest in the project seemed to extend only as far as DeNiro's involvement.

Scott didn't have much interest in baseball in general, in many cases ignoring the input of technical adviser Cal Ripken while making the film. Nevertheless, the baseball stuff comes across as convincingly authentic. The psychotic stuff, not as much. That's neither Scott's fault nor DeNiro's, it's partly the script's and partly the editor's. The movie opens with an odd poem recited by the star, which is unnecessary and kinda awkward. After that, the first half of the film actually has a good rhythm with DeNiro's character's life gradually falling apart alongside Snipes' character's career falling apart. But some parts are confusing because they're neither explained nor developed. For instance, there are many lines of dialogue that are ambiguous because we're not sure if DeNiro is lying, telling the truth, or just plain crazy.

It's a shame, because there are many elements of the film that work perfectly. The notion of parents overreacting at little league games escalating to domestic scuffles has been done before, but I don't believe I've ever seen it as unsettling and disturbing as in this movie. The villain's first murder is grisly, but in an effectively understated way. Hans Zimmer's score blends perfectly with remixes of Nine Inch Nails, creating a volatile atmosphere even in scenes where little is happening. Generally speaking, the film maintains okay until DeNiro kidnaps Snipes' son. Ironically, that's when it should get more intense, but it oddly boils down to Snipes literally having to hit a home run to save his son. Many baseball movies climax with our hero having to hit a home run, but not many psychological thrillers do. Probably the worst oversight, though, is there are lots of opportunities to explore the perils of fame, wealth, sportsmanship, family, and personal passions further, but they only merely touch on them.

Criticisms aside, this film does still hold a special place in my heart. One main takeaway for me is that Wesley Snipes is a much better actor than most people give him credit for. Watch how he plays the scene when his character first starts to realize DeNiro may actually be a threat instead of a fan. Another is my own realization that any Tony Scott movie is worth watching. There's an insightful line by Snipes about sports fans where he observes, “They don't understand that you're the same person when you're hitting or not.” This movie shows that even when Tony Scott's not at his best, he's still pretty good.