The Taking of My Money 1 . . . 2 . . . 3

Remakes are a tricky undertaking under the best of circumstances. Take Landslide by both the Dixie Chicks and Smashing Pumpkins. I find the former wanting in several ways and the latter a worthy update to the original – written and performed by Stevie Nicks for her father. Clearly the poet of the alt-rock scene, Billy Corrigan, was doing something different with the song and, at least for me, it resonated at a number of levels. The Dixie Chicks remake smacks of interest in fast money, and based on the radio play alone, I assume it has succeeded at that level. But there is not much done to improve the song or make it their own. I also think of Stan Ridgeway and his remake of Johnny Cash’s Ring of Fire. Again the creator of Mexican Radio put his own signature on a classic and gave us his quirky, compelling rearticulation (which I find more interesting than Social Distortion’s take, by the way).

But to a largely unimaginative movie industry remakes tend to be gold on the cheap. Just find a good director, some big (not necessarily good) actors and/or actresses and boom – money, money, money. Making the remake worthy of viewing, on the other hand, is a more complicated process. The first question that comes to mind is why are we remaking this film? Is there a reason, or is it simply to make money? Second, what am I adding to the original? Anything compelling? Third, why should I see this rather than go to the rental store or add it to my Netflix list? To start, I'll offer a series of decent remakes: Casino Royale (2006), The Departed (2006), Heat (1995), The Thing (1982), Scarface (1983), Cape Fear (1991), The Ring (2002), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), The Hills Have Eyes (2006), Dawn of the Dead (2004), The Fly (1986) and The Count of Monte Cristo (2002). Horror films fare well on my list and that of many others (see http://www.popsyndicate.com/column/story/the_list_25_best_movie_remakes_of_all_time_part_i for a list, though I disagree with many entries). Making clever foreign films into American fare, less so – as is every Tim Burton attempt (who I consider one of the most overrated directors in the history of film). Here is my long list of forgettable ones from just the past few years: Alfie (2004), The Out of Towners (1999), Sleuth (2007), The Ladykillers (2004), Vanilla Sky (2001 - Original Obre Sus Ojos), The Italian Job (2003), Planet of the Apes (2001), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), City of Angels (1998), The Truth About Charlie (2002), Scent of a Woman (1992; I know many will disagree) , The Invasion (2007), Poiseidon (2006), Pyscho (1998, why?????), The Stepford Wives (2004), War of the Worlds (2005), The Wicker Man (2006), Pink Panther (2006), The Jackal (1997) and The Omen (2006) to name a few. In all cases, the formula involves bringing in a a young or aging established actor is brought in to give us a new interpretation of the classic (Steve Martin appears a couple of times here, the fading Marky Mark twice and exes Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman twice each) and make the film marketable, the story is generally updated to give it contemporary relevance, cinematography and costuming are generally important and, if applicable, the humor is generally over the top and stupid (like most Steve Martin and Robin Williams films in recent years).

And that brings us to the less-talented of the Hollywood Scott brothers. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is one of the most pointless remakes I have ever seen, and up there on the list of all-time most pointless movies for that matter. John Travolta plays a completely unredeemable character that kills for no other reason than his own greed and revenge against the city that caught him in his Wall Street scam. Caught in the middle is Denzel Washington, who while capable as usual, does little here to keep my attention. After building tension in the middle part of the movie, the first two bad guys are caught too easily in the middle of the street and the final chase scene with Travolta as uninteresting a denouement as one can imagine. The plot twist might make unemployed Hedge Fund traders salivate, but it left me cold. Gone is the clever cynicism of the original, the compelling acting of Walter Matthau, the mercurial malevolence of Robert Shaw as Mr. Blue, the frenetic energy of the mayor and police and the buildup to a clever escape plan, only to be foiled in the end. Here the escape plan is faultily hatched and uninteresting to watch as it unravels. The humor is sparse and the pointless death less interesting than any Schwarzenegger film I can think of. Tony Scott has been making bad films for some time now, including the truly terribly Domino (2005), Man on Fire (2004), and the Last Boy Scout (1991), the entertaining (if not good) Déjà vu (2006), Enemy of the State (1998), Days of Thunder (1990) and Revenge (1990). But he did do the classics True Romance (1993), which introduced the world to Quentin Tarrentino (as a writer), and Top Gun (1986). Maybe I was just expecting too much of someone who peaked 16 years ago. (C-)

By the way, I reviewed Public Enemies a few days ago, and while that is a loose remake, it would certainly fit on my list as well. The point seems to be that it is best to leave ideas already created in the can unless you have some way to actually improve on them – as is often the case with horror films, but less so with classics. The point for us viewers is to stop going to these crap fests so Hollywood finally starts to make quality films in months that don’t start with a D.