BOTTOM LINE: Using the intriguing premise of the original and the wasted talents of Denzel Washington and John Travolta, Tony Scott manages to turn this remake in to a stupid, noisy MTV clip that will make you laugh inappropriately rather than take you on its hostage thrill ride.

THE GOOD: “The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3” manages to start in a good place with its basic premise of an unknown team of hijackers taking control of a subway car and demanding a ten million dollar ransom from the Mayor of New York. It helps immensely that John Travolta as “Ryder” is leading the group of hijackers in a role he looks to be relishing. Denzel Washington is more low key in this role as the everyman Walter Garber who happens to be on the other end of the line when Ryder starts making demands. The dialogue between these two characters is perhaps the best part of the film as they seem to develop a sort-of repartee, particularly as Ryder’s true intentions slowly reveal themselves to be more than just the ten million he is demanding. Much of the charisma from the movie is generated by Washington and Travolta, with the continually shifting dynamics between them making their journeys almost watchable.

THE BAD: Tony Scott has a hyper-kinetic film style that may not be at the same level as Michael Bay but does manage to give you a headache after a few minutes of watching it. This film is no exception. The opening sequence is visually interesting in that Scott manages to shoot and edit the shots as if they are passing subway trains (you have to see it to understand), but from then on, it is just quick cutting, arty low frame rate shots and a noisy MTV style soundtrack that grates more and more with each passing minute. Some of the story techniques are off kilter. As an example, when Ryder’s team take-over the subway car, a laptop with a webcam of one of the passengers falls to the floor. The webcam is re-activated when Ryder sets up a make-shift wireless link. The way this is set up leads to the impression that it will have profound significance later on, but no, all we get is a pathetic exchange between the laptop owner and his girlfriend with the latter starting an argument of how he should tell her that he loves her. Other scenes manage to use the laptop to identify one of the hijackers but it does not assist Garber and the police with helping to diffuse the situation other than to ruffle Ryder’s feathers with some perfunctory dialogue. This is one of many examples of scenes that do not serve much purpose which undercuts any drama to be had. This culminates in to an anti-climactic ending; after all the elaborate hijacking and execution of the plan, Ryder is caught by Garber way too easily. How does a hijacker who is smart enough to swindle over three hundred million from the stock market (as he does in this movie) get caught so easily by a subway controller who is in over his head? As good as Travolta is in this film, his use of one certain profanity becomes downright annoying after the second or third time he uses it and Washington is unfortunately under played in this film despite some emotional moments. The icing on the cake however is the delivery of the money by car to the hijackers. Scott turns this in to a laugh-fest by staging an over the top defacto car chase-style sequence (without the chase) with the police managing to have accidents along the way; police cars flipping, motorcycles crashing in to cars, policeman flying across the street. Are New York police that bad as drivers? Or as the Mayor quite stupidly points out later, “why didn’t they just use a helicopter to deliver the money?” – because the director would not have had an action sequence to stage. “The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3” is yet another good idea that is wasted by bad execution.