In an ideal world, a movie should be remade only if the director or the writer have something new and interesting that they want to do with the story. Consider, for example, "A Fistful of Dollars" (or to a lesser extent "Last Man Standing"), both remakes of Kurosawa's venerated "Yojimbo", and still engaging and exciting films in their own right. On the other end of the spectrum, there is "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3", a remake of the 1974 film of the same name. Following the same story – the hijacking of a New York City subway train – it strips away any intrigue and suspense, leaving only a plot that is full of holes and characters that rarely rise above the level of one-note.
Director Tony Scott ("Enemy of the State") is not exactly known for subtlety, but he hits a new low here, relying solely on noise and an overuse of hand-held camera to create any sense of tension. Adding to the general cacophony is John Travolta ("Face/Off"), in the role of Ryder, the lead hijacker. Clearly lacking an appreciation for the intelligence and charisma that would be inherent in the mastermind behind such an intricate plot, Mr. Travolta instead resorts to screaming, barking, and frothing at the mouth to the point that the audience is desperate for him to be stopped (just not for the right reasons). The usually reliable Denzel Washington ("American Gangster") fares only slightly better as Walter Garber, the hapless train dispatcher with whom Ryder insists upon negotiating. While much is made of the fact that Garber is just an average Joe who has the misfortune to get pulled into a bad situation, he too quickly seems to morph into a seasoned hostage negotiator and action hero. However, in the one or two scenes where Washington is actually required to act, he does his typically commendable job, expressing the frustration and desperation required in the moment.
The only actor who does seem on his game is James Gandolfini ("The Sopranos"), playing New York City's cynical mayor. Having some fun with the role popularized with mixed reviews by the likes of Ed Koch and Rudy Guiliani, he manages to pull his character out of the realm of caricature (in spite of the best efforts of the screenplay) instead portraying a man who is tired of his job, tired of his advisors, and tired of the public.
Assuming that the majority of the scenes weren't re-written on the set, a great deal of blame for this film must be placed firmly at the feet of screenwriter Brian Helgeland. In light of his impressive resume, including the masterful "Mystic River", it would seem that he knocked out a quick script as a drive-by on his way to something better. He seems to have largely left the actors to try to scrape together their characters and the absurd plot holes (was that really Ryder's escape plan? And why on Earth are other trains still running?) does the director no favors.
All the same, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" does succeed in one thing. It perfectly captures the experience of a New York City subway ride. It is loud, uncomfortable, full of annoying people, and you are happy when it's over.
