The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Oh dear. Where to begin with this? Let’s start with the more general issue of remakes. You’re pretty much safe it you’re going to remake a film that was awful to begin with in the first place, Oceans Eleven being an example. You’re in seriously shaky territory though if you’re going to re-make a total classic, and while The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 isn’t the worst remake idea ever (that’s still Gus Van Sant's Psycho by a long distance) it’s pretty near to the top. The original is not only a cult classic, but one of the best films to come out of the 70’s. So, the question is, how could this turn out to be such a turkey? Obviously this wasn’t going to be a shot for shot retread, but with the solid skeleton of the first film already there as a template, surely any additional meat added to the bones should only have been a bonus for the viewer? What we do have is an almost totally new film, with the entire star qualities of the first jettisoned. It’s obviously difficult to review a film like this without comparison to the original, but even without looking through nostalgic tinted spectacles this is a poor effort. It’s been a long time now since Tony Scott’s last true classic (Crimson Tide) and here’s a few reasons why we’re still waiting; Terrible dialogue, contrived plot co-incidences, total audience apathy towards supposedly terrified hostages, a complete lack of tension, Luis Guzman totally wasted (he must speak less than 20 words!), a shockingly OTT turn from John Travolta, a limp finish, the list goes on…..At the end of the day, here’s a question that Scott and the studio need to address. How can you make a film about the high-jacking of a subway train not exciting?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
As a comparison to the original this would warrant a zero rating. As a stand alone effort, well, it needs to stand alone in the corner and think about what it’s done. Rating: 3/10.