"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" Does Not Suck By A Long Shot

As cliched as this sounds, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is, very simply, everything a movie should be. It thrills the audience with its rich humor, complex characters, lively performances, blend of stylized and realistic violence, suspense, intensity, etc. To top it off, it is that rare kind of gritty action movie: the kind that emerges from the terror and violence with its heart intact. Most importantly, it brings with it a crucial element that is missing from most action movies of late: fun. I liken it to "Drag Me to Hell" in that it brings a sense of innocence back to its genre. The action genre has been hardened in the last few years by films like "The Bourne Ultimatum" and "The Dark Knight." "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is perfect counterprogramming to those films. Where those films are engagements with the times in which we live, "Pelham" offers pure escapism. Although it is about an act of terrorism in New York (a subway hijacking), it does not highlight relevance to 9/11 or the War on Terror. It is not trying to pour salt on open wounds, it is trying to make the audience forget about those tragedies.

With "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3," "Drag Me to Hell," "Star Trek," and a slew of other movies, we are entering a new Golden Age of Cinema. Movie buffs now flock to the theaters not to see hardhitting, politically allegorical films like they did in 2007 ("There Will Be Blood," "No Country for Old Men," "Zodiac," etc.), but to escape reality and experience good ole fashioned popcorn entertainment. The villain in "Pelham" is not Daniel Plainview. Not Anton Chigurh. And despite being viciously violent, he is not the Zodiac killer either. As portrayed by John Travolta, he is a live wire and an oddly likable guy. He is a real person with real emotions whereas the villains in "Zodiac" and "No Country for Old Men" were symbols, simple metaphorical representatives of our current enemies in the Middle East and at home. They represented faceless terror, greed, corruption. Ryder (Travolta) has a face. He has a personality, a sense of humor. And by the end of the film, you actually want to see him succeed. Travolta's performance is the best piece of acting I've seen this year thus far.

Director Tony Scott has never tried to be relevant or bring loftiness to his films. This is the only time his lack of relevance has been refreshing, though. This is also the only time simple popcorn entertainment has felt so good and so...necessary.

"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3"

Grade: A-