Film Rating: B+

In the eighties and nineties, director Tony Scott made some respected and/or memorable films; Top Gun, True Romance, and even the generally well-liked Beverly Hills Cop II. But I didn't grow up in this era; I've grown up in the 2000s, and the director's line of work this decade is...well...less than memorable. Man on Fire, Domino, and Déjà vu were all rather generic action flicks that the director tried sprucing up with an off-the-wall crazy visual style where the colors were distorted, no shot lasted longer than five seconds, and the camera moved in an erratic and unpredictable way. You know, the visual style of a trailer or a music video; I don't have to explain why trailers and music videos aren't feature length.

So I'm not so much a fan of Scott; I was attracted to his new film, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 by the presence of John Travolta in a go-for-broke performance and the reliable presence of Denzel Washington. Then again, Washington was in 2 of the 3 modern Scott movies mentioned above, and his performances couldn't save those movies from Scott's horrible visual style. So when the opening credits for Pelham began, I got worried. Simply put, they're crazy, loud, and reek of MTV, and indicated that the rest of the film would be painful.

Thankfully, once the director's name flashes and we get into the real story, Scott calms down and shoots this thing like a movie...mostly. There are a few of his obnoxious 'stylistic flourishes' here and there throughout, but by and large he directs the film competently; in fact, most of the movie is very well directed. And written. And acted. And edited.

Hell, apart from those brief moments of directorial craziness, I loved nearly everything about this movie. Action movies are a dime a dozen these days, but Pelham stands apart from the rest. It's not deep or moving or anything like that; it's just an enormously thrilling and entertaining 100 minutes. It's reminiscent of Speed or Lethal Weapon, a movie that isn't a phenomenal film but is a tremendously successful actionflick that can be infinitely re-watched on TNT or USA. That kind of movie. We haven't had one of those in a while, and I gladly take Pelham over Wolverine or Terminator Salvation. This is a real action thriller, not an effects laden piece of eye-candy trying to use artificial thrills to replace character and plot.

A movie like Speed doesn't work because every aspect of it makes sense; in fact, most of it is absolutely ridiculous and if you stop and think about it you just start laughing, but a good action movie doesn't let you stop to think. Pelham doesn't ever stop, and sells its fairly ridiculous plot in the best way an action flick can: it has a top-notch cast all working at the top of their game.

When all is said and done, the movie works because of John Travolta, playing one bad a** villain and loving every minute of it. He's over the top, go-for-broke crazy, but still manages to be a scary, forceful presence. He's smart, philosophical, and doesn't give a damn about human life. Tick him off in any way and boom, someone's dead. Travolta pulls it off wonderfully, making 'Ryder' into a memorable baddie that you simply love to hate.

Denzel Washington as Walter Garber, the protagonist, impresses in more subtle ways. The brilliance on display in films like American Gangster and The Great Debaters isn't quite shining here; this is Washington in "generic summer action movie" mode, but with less generic. Usually, Washington is the guy calling the shots, the guy with everything under control, but Garber is essentially a normal guy forced into an unfamiliar situation. Washington's performance is so effective that he is able to shed the smooth, in-control image he usually bears, and it was refreshing to see him a different role.

Washington and Travolta play off each other brilliantly, even though they're only actually on screen together during the last ten or fifteen minutes. Otherwise, their scenes are shot separately and some truly impressive editing ties it together. These two clearly steal the show (as expected, since this is their show), but the supporting cast is good as well. I can't quite say impressive, because most of the supporting players are bland pawns, but you could have had a dozen annoying federal agents in there to muck things up.

I expected the annoying federal agent role to come from John Tuturro, since he recently 'perfected' that role in 2007's Transformers. Instated, Tuturro turns in a quiet, natural performance that fits the movie perfectly. I was impressed. James Gandolfini, on the other hand, annoyed me to no end as the mayor of New York; I couldn't picture his character as an effective PTA president, much less the mayor of America's largest city. But he doesn't ruin the movie, and he has at least one grin-worthy moment near the end.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 isn't required viewing, but it's a much more worthy earner of your money than lots of the crap already released this year. The mood for a good action movie strikes me a lot at this time of year, and Pelham satisfies that mood wonderfully; I suspect it will continue to do so years down the road, on TV or from the DVD collection.