Good movie but grossly overrated

Beautiful, moving film.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

This is a good remake. Is it as good as the original- depends really on which one you see first. But Travolta is menacing, and the film never outstays its welcome.

So you're there on a Saturday afternoon after a long week in work and you're think about a great film to watch tonight with a nice bottle of wine and a Take-Away. This is not it. Save it for that "don't have to concentrate" film you watch on a Sunday night to forget you have work the next day.Denzel Washington is pretty safe in this as he always is. John Travolta however, terrible.I loved Travolta in Swordfish, I thought he played the bad guy quite well in that. He just doesn't seem to suit the big tough guy role.

Yeah, I know. I started the review with a bad pun.This Tony Scott remake of 1974's great, great The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is just awful. Much worse than any pun I can come up with. There's literally nothing to praise here. It's as if the screenwriters broke down the script from the original and the John Godey book, and found almost nothing usable.Then they put it back together, leaving out, well, everything important. So much for reverse-engineering. You're supposed to figure out how something works when you do that, not how to screw it up.So, we get John Travolta playing his Swordfish baddie again, Denzel Washington looking disconnected and bored behind some sort of phony nerd-glasses, and not a single character to care about. It's just an opportunity for Tony Scott, a hack right down there with Michael Winner, to use a bunch of fancy-shmancy graphics and camera tricks, and tell a story that was told infinitely better in 1974.Garbage, garbage, garbage. I never once cared for anyone in this movie. I never once was engaged with the story. It's as if Scott set out to make the crappiest remake possible.He made it.

Author John Godey's premise gets reinvented for the technology-driven 21st century in this second screen adaptation of his work. Denzel Washington stars as Walter Garber, an NYC subway system dispatcher who just happens to field the call of the movies' villain. That man is "Ryder" (John Travolta), who holds the passengers of a subway car for ransom. $10,000,000.01 to be exact. But the catch is that the money must be delivered in exactly ONE HOUR. And Ryder is willing to kill hostages as punishment for not meeting his demands to the letter.Washington and the late director Tony Scott once again team up for undemanding, technically slick thrills. Part of the problem, though, is that the presentation is often TOO flashy, with a camera that sometimes refuses to stay still. For this viewer, that approach always seems to be saying that the filmmakers don't quite trust the material. Scott is able to generate some excitement, and tension, but the story doesn't have the same impact as it did in the 1974 version.In terms of the bad guys, Travolta really is the only one to leave an impression. The Brian Helgeland script gives Luis Guzman, as a participant in Ryders' scheme, precious little to do, and the other two guys who are in on it come across as one dimensional ciphers. Travolta is definitely good, and charismatic, in a fairly flamboyant portrayal, but it's Washingtons' efficient, low key performance as a working man caught up in an escalating situation that holds the movie together.An excellent supporting cast is on hand to provide their expertise: John Turturro as a crack hostage negotiator, James Gandolfini as the mayor, John Benjamin Hickey as the deputy mayor, Michael Rispoli as Garbers' boss, Gary Basaraba as a motorman, Aunjanue Ellis as Garbers' wife, etc.There's some cringe inducing dialogue along the way, but some decent moments as well. But this version of "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" really starts to derail once it insists on turning Garber into a typical action movie hero.Watchable but uninspired.Six out of 10.