Remakes are tricky and usually unsuccessful. If the director is too faithful to the original and produces a carbon copy, he can expect a "Why bother?" reaction from filmgoers. And if he strays too far, he risks tainting the original for those who remember it. Hollywood usually waits long enough before remaking a classic that the new generation won’t remember the original and won’t bother to look it up. And based on the poor quality of this uninspired remake, that’s likely their strategy.

The latest version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an absolute mess, and the blame can be laid at the feet of director Tony Scott. The story is basically the same, though the stakes are higher. Ex-con Ryder (John Travolta) hijacks a subway train in New York City and negotiates with a transit executive (Denzel Washington, formerly Walter Matthau as a cop), demanding $10 million (up from $1 million) for the lives of his hostages. It’s a typical cat-and-mouse game that pits good guy against bad, and its inherent suspense should easily lead to an expected payoff.

Joseph Sargent, who directed the original movie, understood that suspense is built from the inside, with little hints of danger subtly added until the viewer becomes afraid for the hero, or in this case the hostages. In stark contrast, the unsubtle Tony Scott clearly thinks the audience is stupid -- that suspense must be forced upon them by hitting them over the head. In my case, he created far more irritation than suspense.

Scott’s camera is never still. It swoops and plunges and circles constantly. Not since Brian De Palma’s Obsession have I had such an urge to nail the cameraman’s foot to the floor. Top that off with bad slow motion (the kind created by a cheap camcorder), blurry images (reminiscent of a bad hangover), and just about every overused cinematic trick in the bag, and you get the idea. The nadir of nonsense for me occurred when the railcar full of innocent passengers was supposedly speeding along at 60mph and Scott opted to portray the action in jerky slow motion. What’s thrilling about that? I needed a sense of speed and looming disaster, but the only disaster was the scene itself.

Aside from the ridiculous action sequences, Scott’s antics are contemptuous of his actors. Washington, having gained about 30 pounds to look married and settled in, does a fine job, as does Travolta (though he’s a little over the top at times). But it’s as if Scott doesn’t trust these veteran actors to carry the story -- he feels he has to embellish the plot with distracting camera junk that ultimately gets in the way.

People raised on TV (and TV advertising) may like Scott’s filmmaking style -- likely because they haven’t seen better. But if you really want to see The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 as a suspense thriller, go buy the original on DVD. It’s available at Amazon.com for the price of a theater ticket. And unlike the remake, you’ll want to see the original more than once, so you’ll get much more out of your investment.

• Go Back