The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
Directed by Tony Scott
No — The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is not woke, scoring 11 out of 100 on our wokeness meter.
The 2009 model of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 arrives as the third adaptation of John Godey's novel, and Tony Scott directs it the way he directs most things: loudly, quickly, and with a great deal of unnecessary camera movement.
Consciousness Markers
Ryder is revealed to be a disgraced Wall Street private-equity man who embezzled from the city pension fund and manipulates the market via put options, giving the villain a mild financial-greed streak. It's a plot device, not an 'eat the rich' sermon.
Denzel Washington anchors a cast that also includes Luis Guzmán, John Turturro, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Aunjanue Ellis, and Tonye Patano, but these are natural, story-driven choices rather than self-conscious representation casting.
A lean Tony Scott action thriller that shows no interest in preaching. Any thematic content (greed, redemption) is delivered through plot and violence rather than lecture.
The film has a Black lead and a diverse ensemble, but race is never a subject of commentary, critique, or consciousness. It simply isn't a theme.
No LGBTQ+ characters, subtext, or themes whatsoever. This is a straightforward man-versus-man subway thriller.
No feminist agenda to speak of. Women appear only in supporting roles (Garber's wife, a hostage mother, a conductor) with no gendered critique or empowerment framing.
No environmental or climate content at all.
No body-positive themes or messaging present.
One hijacker has a stammer, but this is a minor throwaway character trait, not neurodivergent representation or advocacy.
No historical revisionism of any kind; this is contemporary-set genre fiction.
Why it received this score
The 2009 model of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 arrives as the third adaptation of John Godey's novel, and Tony Scott directs it the way he directs most things: loudly, quickly, and with a great deal of unnecessary camera movement. A subway car is seized, a dispatcher named Walter Garber is pressed into service as a negotiator, and the film proceeds as a duel between two men on either end of a phone line. Denzel Washington brings gravity to the dispatcher's chair, and the ensemble around him is notably varied, with Luis Guzman, John Turturro, Aunjanue Ellis, and Gbenga Akinnagbe filling out the control room and the hijacked train. None of this is staged as a statement. The casting simply is what it is, which counts as a quiet and unremarked virtue in a genre picture from this era.
The film's social conscience, such as it is, extends about as far as making the villain a disgraced Wall Street private-equity man. Dennis Ford, alias Ryder, embezzled from the city pension fund and now manipulates the market with put options while the Dow drops a thousand points in the background. That is a plot mechanism, not a sermon. John Travolta plays him with prison tattoos and a biker's slouch, snarling about the mayor and the system that kept him locked up past his plea deal. The screenplay lets greed serve as motive and then moves on. There is no lecture, no closing argument, no finger wagged at the audience for its complicity in late capitalism. The film wants to be a thriller, and it remains one.
Elsewhere the ledger is bare. There is no LGBTQ content, no environmental concern, no body-positive messaging, and no meaningful engagement with race beyond the fact of a Black lead. A young hijacker stammers, which is a character trait and nothing more. Women appear as a wife, a mother, a conductor, and are not asked to carry any argument. The result is a competent, over-caffeinated remake that was never trying to teach anyone anything. It wanted to move fast and look expensive, and on that modest charge it mostly delivers.
Analysis generated by our Consciousness Algorithm
Synopsis
Armed men hijack a New York City subway train, holding the passengers hostage in return for a ransom, and turning an ordinary day's work for dispatcher Walter Garber into a face-off with the mastermind behind the crime.
Questions about The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
Is The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 woke?
No — The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is not woke, scoring 11 out of 100 on our wokeness meter. That earns it a verdict of Ultra Based.
Does The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 have any woke elements?
Very few. None of the 10 markers reaches 30, the level where a marker counts as present; the highest is Eat the Rich at 25.
How does The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 compare to other 2009 movies?
It ranks #94 of the 230 films from 2009 we've scored; their average is 14. The wokest is Home (79).
How is the Woke Score calculated?
An AI-assisted process researches the film and its reception, scores it 0–100 on ten markers, then combines those into one 0–100 Woke Score. It measures a specific set of 2020s cultural themes, not film quality.