It’s always interesting to see how a remake stacks up against the original version. So let’s take a look at the tale of the tape.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (The Original)
Release Year: 1974
Runtime: 104 minutes
Director: Joseph Sargent
Cast: Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Hector Elizondo, Jerry Stiller, Doris Roberts

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (The Remake)
Release Year: 2009
Runtime: 106 minutes
Director: Tony “The Hack” Scott
Cast: Denzel Washington, John Travolta, Luis Guzman, John Turturro, James Gandolfini

Round 1: Acting

Robert Shaw Thinking Shark

While on paper, the remake would appear to have a better cast, the actual acting part of the equation puts the remake at a slight disadvantage. John Travolta’s over the top performance in the remake pretty much seals the deal on this one. No one in the remake can compete with Robert Shaw’s classic performance as Mr. Blue. The best the remake has to offer is a sometimes bewildered Denzel Washington, as he speaks into a microphone for an hour and a half. Luis Guzman just stands there in the remake, while in the original, even Jerry Stiller managed to be interesting… of course,, if he started yelling about The Feats of Strength, this round would have been a cakewalk for the original. As it was… it took a whole second longer to hand this category to the original.

Winner: The Original
Scorecard: Original 1, Remake 0

Round 2: Directing

Hack!

Again, this is a round where the results go against the expectations. Tony Scott is a popular, much-celebrated director, who has turned into something of a one-trick pony over the last four or five years. His supersaturated imagery, music video-style editing, and constant tinkering with imagery, actually works against this film. Maybe he thought his actors weren’t strong enough to carry the film without some sort of visual bullshittery. Hey, Tony! It’s fucking New York, the city speaks for itself. Joseph Sargent, an underdog if there ever was one, puts together a simple flick that has no frills and relies on its characters to carry the film. The setups are simple, the pacing is fine, and everything looks gritty, like a film about a subway should.

Winner: The Original
Scorecard: Original 2, Remake 0

Round 3: Special Effects

It may not seem like a fair challenge considering that the original was shot in ’74 and lacks the benefit of CGI and all sorts of other technological advances, but so fucking what? The special effects in the original film are as lackluster as they come. There is virtually no blood and the stuff that is shown is weak. The car crashes and shootout scenes aren’t nearly as exciting as they should be. The remake on the other hand gets it right. People are gunned down in city streets while squib-fueled bullet holes sprout up on people all over the place. The shots of motorcycles speeding through New York’s city streets are genius and done with an eye to detail. This round easily goes to the remake. It’s like playing video games against a seventy-year-old man. Yeah, video games weren’t around in his time, but so what? He still gets his ass kicked.

Winner: The Remake
Scorecard: Original 2, Remake 1

Round 4: Best Henchman

I Will Rape You

If there’s one area where the original far surpassed the remake, it’s in the area of character depth. The henchmen in the remake are cardboard cutouts who stand there and look angry. They have no real personality… as evidence by their tracksuits, and they are simply there to aim guns at people. In the original, Hector Elizondo plays perhaps the most frightening character out of anyone in either of these movies. He’s a horny rapist who wants to get rich and laid… and he doesn’t mind killing people for absolutely no reason. That’s where it’s at, man. Give me some fucking menace. Give me some goddamn danger and let me feel like these hostages are really in for a bad time. Kudos to Hector Elizondo… and the original takes this round.

Winner: The Original
Scorecard: Original 3, Remake 1

Round 5: Chemistry

Chemistry Gone Wrong

Chemistry is one of the most difficult things to predict when you’re putting together a flick. Just look at Gigli… Ben Affleck and J. Lo were fucking each other, and yet they still had no chemistry. In the original film Walter Matthau is paired with the inimitable Robert Shaw, and the two riff off each other fairly well throughout the film. Yeah, Matthau’s got that crazy car salesman thing going on, but there’s never a moment where you feel like the two aren’t on the same page. In the remake, Travolta and Washington, while both good actors in their own right, feel disconnected. Travolta films his scenes as if he is a bipolar maniac, while Washington spends his time looking sheepish and bemused. Since the whole film is basically two fucks talking to each other, the disconnected tone really drags the film down. It’s a byproduct of not being able to act with the person on screen, but the chemistry is definitely lacking.

Winner: The Original
Scorecard: Original 4, Remake 1

Round 6: Sound Design

Both of these films rely on sound design and score to transmit a gritty feel to the viewer. The original does so with a bangin’ score from David Shire. The sound effects of the original, at times, drown out the dialogue in a natural way, a way that feels like a function of the film which gives the city and the subway a heartbeat all of its own. The remake is a much different beast all together. It relies on standard-issue modern day techniques to basically blast the viewer into enjoying the film. Its big-budget, aural assault is effective… but not as effective as the subtle tones and sounds of the original. You can’t fault the remake for going this route, because it’s the way all big budget flicks are these days, but it’s certainly not the way they should be.

Winner: The Original
Scorecard: The Original 5, Remake 1

Round 7: The Ending (Spoiler Alert)

Let’s get things straight… there are no actual winners in this round. Both films have endings that are forced and pretty bad. However, this is the one area where the remake actually comes out on top. While John Travolta’s character begging for death on a bridge is pretty stupid, at least it’s not Walter Matthau hearing a fucking sneeze and opening the door to some old schlub’s apartment. Seriously… the freeze frame ending of the original is probably one of the worst endings I have ever seen. While the remake’s bridge showdown is clichéd and stupid, it doesn’t even come close to the laughable cheesiness of the 1974 flick.

Winner: The Remake
Scorecard: The Original 5, Remake 2

Round 8: The Mayor

Strangle That Shit, Bitch!

It may seem like a tiny and nitpicky category, but for those that watch the original film, the mayor’s annoyingness is a huge factor. He’s sick, ineffectual, and completely annoying. Lee Wallace plays the mayor in the original flick, with all the flair of a pedophile going door to door to tell his neighbors he’s moving in next door. In the remake, James Gandolfini appears out of thin air, to show himself as a comedic and dramatic force… a force of like 5 out of 10… but it’s still better than Lee Wallace in the remake. Gandolfini is at times funny, pitiable, and likable… which is much more interesting than the one-note annoyingness of Lee Wallace.

Winner: The Remake
Scorecard: The Original 5, Remake 3

Since the rest of the both films are pretty much the same in quality, the fight has been called. It looks like the winner is indeed the original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. You simply can’t fuck with Robert Shaw. In the end, it turned out closer than I would have expected it to, but it’s still pretty decisive. Originals win again!

Tags: 1974, 2009, action, adventure, better than you, david shire, denzel washington, eat a dick, Hector Elizondo, james gandolfini, Joseph Sargent, movies versus movies, recent2, Robert Shaw, the taking of pelham 1 2 3, the taking of pelham one two three, thriller, tony scott, Walter Matthau, you're nothing