In The Taking of Pelham 123, Tony Scott’s camera zips around like paranoid fly, orbiting his cast like it hasn’t got anything better to do. It appears Scott grows restless because he desperately wants to make a 90 minute long music video, but has been told by his producers he must make a film about a heated phone conversation instead. Mind you, it hasn’t stopped him from trying; Pelham is packed with enough rap music, nauseating camera jerks, speed shifts and freeze frames to almost, so nearly, convince us something actually interesting is occurring on screen.

Now I haven’t seen the 1974 original, but unless Brian Helgeland’s revamped screenplay removed everything that made it of quality, I simply can’t see how Pelham was ever feature film material. Here we have all-round nice guy Walter Garber (Denzel Washington in his 5th Tony Scott film), a train coordinator, who is unfortunate enough to be on duty when not-so-nice guy Ryder (John Travolta), a train hijacker, is out to make some money. Garber inadvertently becomes a hostage negotiator when Ryder and his armed men bring Pelham 123 to a halt in the middle of the subway tunnel, threatening to kill the passengers if they don’t receive ten million dollars within sixty minutes.

The only way I managed to endure through their hour long chit-chat — where both their dishonest backgrounds are revealed to no real consequence — was by clinging to a hope that the film was building up to something. A twist conclusion, perhaps — anything that would make the first four reels a worthwhile exercise of my patience. But the twist here is that there are no twists. Everything is as it seems.

It’s as if Scott was convinced that star power alone was enough to carry the film and he needn’t bother with any narrative substance.  Quite frankly, he almost gets away with it; Denzel Washington, having played an uncannily similar role in Spike Lee’s remake of Inside Man, certainly knows how to talk his way out of a dull situation. John Travolta also deserves kudos for  attempting to make something more of his character than what the screenplay suggests. He hints at the possibility that Ryder’s ‘crazed gunman’ act is really just a devious facade, and that he’s actually a brilliant mastermind waiting for perfect moment to reveal his grand plan. But not only is his supposed ‘grand plan’ stripped of all its mystique by being prematurely revealed, it also turns out that he is, in fact,  just fruity in the head.

Perhaps the fundamental flaw of  Pelham is that it misplaces, and drastically misuses, our invested interest in the characters. Take Garber for instance; he’s actually quite a likeable chap, but because he isn’t in any direct danger throughout most of the film, we’re given no real reason to be concerned about him or his circumstances. Compare this to a similar, but far more suspenseful film, Phone Booth. For 81 minutes, Colin Farrell’s character is stuck inside phone booth, held hostage by the man on the end of the line who has a sniper rifle aimed at his head. Now that’s a protagonist in a dangerous situation. Danger is what makes us feel anxious. Anxiety is what creates suspense. For the most of Pelham, right up until the farcical conclusion, the only threat to Garber is his wife; she really wants him to bring home a gallon of milk.  Meanwhile, most of those who are actually in danger, such as the hostages on the train, are dealt non-speaking roles. If The Taking of Pelham 123 wanted to be at all thrilling, it should have at least partly been about them, and not about a guy having a pretty average day at the office. As if we really need a movie to tell us what they’re like.

Follow the author Anders Wotzke on Twitter.