The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (movie)

1. Not every old movie needs to be remade.

The remake that I am referring to came out last year.  It starred John Travolta and Denzel Washington.  Tony Scott directed it.  I finally got around to watching it on Netflix Instant.  Quite frankly, it was forgettable.  The original film was much better.

The funny thing is this could technically not be a remake.  Why? Because the titles are different.  The original was called "The Taking of Pelham One-Two-Three."  The new one is called "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3."  Good one.  Tony Scott shorten the title by 8 characters.  

Anyway, the original came out in 1974 and starred Walter Mathau and Robert Shaw.  The story revolved around Shaw and his men taking a subway car (and its passengers) hostage in the NYC subway tunnels.  Mathau works as a NYC Transit officer and becomes the impromptu hostage negotiator.  The remake is pretty much the same except the year and the amount of money the baddies want.  Damn inflation...

2. NYC cops can't drive.
At one point in the movie, NYC cops are transporting 10 million dollars to the hostage situation.  The way the movie put it together, it would show Denzel and John negotiating for a few minutes.  You know, character development.  Then, it would cut to these cops in a large convoy speeding through Manhattan trying to get to the subway station before John kills a hostage.  Standard procedure for a hostage movie.  However!!!!  Every single time they cut to the cops ....they wreck.  Its like the movie studio saw the final product and said....."We like it....but there isn't enough car wrecks."  However, the end product just looks like the NYC cops are horrific drivers.  The most absurd scene shows a cop car driving through an intersection smashing into a cab.  The cop car physically plows through the cab, flipping it over the cop car as IT DOES NOT EVEN SLOW DOWN AFTER THE WRECK!  The parting shot just shows this crumpled and turned over cab in the middle of the intersection.  Oh yeah...and it shows the cop car drive off like it hit a pothole.  Ridiculous.  It's funny how small parts of a movie can take you right out it.  Is the cab drive ok?  What about its passengers?  Were there any kids in the vehicle?  Who cares....cut to John Travolta screaming another F-Bomb.

3. Tony Scott wants to make me throw up.
Why can't you keep the camera stationary? I understand in action scenes the camera needs to follow the action. However, there is no need for the camera to circle a single character as he is standing still talking about "the plot." It adds nothing to the film....except this feeling of dizziness. I would understand that you could use it in a movie where the character being circled is confused or disoriented. However, there is nothing exciting about James Gandolfini (he is the mayor) standing on the street, talking to his advisor on what he should do about the current crisis.

One thing I will admit is that I liked Gandolfini's portrayal as the Mayor of NYC.  Most times, mayors are portrayed like heroes and doing everything they can to help save its city and blah-blah-blah.  He is the exact opposite.  He openly talks about how he hates his job and is not running for re-election.  From a few dialogue lines, it seems the Mayor got into some extra-marital affairs and has been dragged through the mud.  I just thought it was an interesting character choice in an otherwise by-the-numbers movie.

Bottom line:  2 out of 5 Stars

 If you want to see a good movie, see the original. If you want to see John Travolta play crazy and throw F-bombs or Denzel play the "every man" ... I guess you should see this movie...