The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) User Reviews (387)

Decent entertainment, but doesn't hold a candle to the original

[pacdm · 6/10 · 13 June 2009]

I went to the this most recent remake of Pelham 1-2-3 (most don't even recall the made-for-TV version filmed in Toronto - with good reason) with an open mind. I was weened on Godey's book when 8, and saw the original film when it was released a few years later. I've committed practically every line and scene to memory. I'll admit.... I'm biased. I felt the original could not be successfully remade... the gritty feel, the outstanding David Shire soundtrack, the believable performances of the ensemble cast..... and I was right. I did not go into the theater hoping to hate the remake, but instead to like it. I REALLY wanted to like it. I have always enjoyed both Denzel Washington and John Travolta in their various endeavors and thought the chemistry might work fine here. While entertaining, it became almost tiresome after a while. I felt no tension, no "edge of the seat" sensation that the original brought, I found myself disliking most of the characters and really not caring what happened to them. It passed the time, had some thrills, but that was about it for me.

The '09 version is entertaining, with some excellent action scenes and more than a few decent dialog exchanges between characters, but it is nothing more than a Tony Scott action movie dressed up as "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". While starting off liking Washington's character (now disgraced MTA administrator-turned dispatcher Walter Garber, as opposed to Detective Zachary Garber in the book and original screen incarnation), I found, as the movie progressed, that he went from believable to just another two-dimensional action movie hero who, if he was what as he really started out as being, would not have ended up doing what he did in the film. Sorry, no spoilers here gang. You'll have to go judge for yourselves.

Travolta was dynamic, putting in a great performance, but I found his manic characterization not befitting as the supposed master-mind of the criminal plot involved. Remarkably, there were three other hijackers in the movie. I don't know why Scott even bothered including them. They were not only ineffectual characters with lackluster performances, but totally lacked the dynamic presence and interplay between the hijackers of the original film so much so that you barely even noticed them - or cared. Oh well, I guess it would not have been practical with only one hijacker....

The dizzy camera-work and stylized production were tedious at times and distracting. The soundtrack was, IMHO pure garbage.

Like I said, I found it entertaining, but despite some opinions that the "updated" and "freshened" plot was exhilarating and an improvement on the '74 incarnation, I honestly don't think the Matthau/Shaw/Balsam version need worry about being eclipsed by this remake. Go see it though, as it is fun summer fare and if you have no ties to the original, you'll probably find it relevant. Afterward, do yourself a favor and rent the original. You'll see the way the story was meant to be done.

The Best Laid Plans...

[Xstal · 6/10 · 20 February 2023]

A subway train is hijacked by armed gang, Ryder's the boss, he has New Jersey twang, there's three more with gun machines, in car one they all convene, uncoupling the rest, that sets the scene. A dialogue begins, with those up top, Walter Garber tries to bring it to a stop, then he's informed by mastermind, of the ransom they should find, ten million dollars is the price for hostage swap.

Remakes seldom, if ever are as good as the original incarnations, especially when said original, as in this example, is particularly good. Taking quite a few detours from that original story however does give it a bit of intrigue, the roles well performed, although the end of the line leaves a little to be desired. Worth watching after seeing the 1974 version, if for no other reason than to see how a simple structure with two great leads can hold your attention so elegantly from start to finish, and how variations on a theme can derail that elegance when done to excess.

It started off so good... where did it go wrong?

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 17 June 2009]

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, from the minute I saw the trailer, this looked like it was going to be such an exciting thriller. We have two great actors in the leads: John Travolta and Dezel Washington. Where could you go wrong with that? So my boyfriend and I saw this movie a couple nights ago and had a great time. The movie was intense and provided very good action… BUT… there is a huge but… the film just fell flat at the end. The first and second act are extremely entertaining and beyond intense, two power house actors pulling in very decent performances, had great chemistry and did a good job with the script they were given. But what the heck was with the ending? We shift into this Action 101 book of clichés list and was a complete let down. As a movie, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is certainly entertaining, but when it comes to being realistic, yeah, it's pretty bad.

Four heavily armed men, led by a man who calls himself "Ryder," board a New York City subway 6 train, then proceed to take control of the train. Meanwhile, MTA dispatcher, Walter Garber, is assigned to the Rail Control Center due to an ongoing investigation that he took a bribe to recommend a Japanese car manufacturer for the next subway car contract. The group then uncouple the front car from the rest of the train and hold the passengers of that car hostage. Ryder and the hijackers settle down on the front car, demanding $10 million dollars in ransom money to be paid within the next 60 minutes. For each minute past the deadline, one passenger aboard his car will be killed. Garber and Ryder exchange conversations though the microphone, Garber agrees to have the city pay Ryder the $10 million ransom. Lt. Camonetti enters RCC, and Garber's boss, who has a rocky relationship with Garber, orders Garber to leave the premises. Camonetti takes over the hostage negotiations, infuriating Ryder who demands that Garber be put back on the mic and that he will speak only to Garber. Beginning a very award friendship as the clock ticks down to get the money for the hostages.

Over all I would recommend this for a matinée show or just a rental, it's nothing I would say to rush out and see. It's still a decent enough movie that I'm shocked John Travolta actually made a good choice in taking. He's a great villain when he wants to be and he proved that in Face/Off. Denzel also did a great job as this poor man who just coincidentally was having an average day and now all of a sudden has the added pressure of having lives depend on him. But like I said there are some major flaws that came with this film as well, there were unnecessary moments like what was with the kid and his computer? It had nothing really to do with the story and wasn't that vital. The nice army black man that jumped in front of the gun to protect the kid, the kid's mother talks to him before, but turned out to be unnecessary. Still as silly as these flaws are, it's still a fun movie to watch, I'm glad I checked it out.

6/10

two solid leads but the results are underwhelming

[Special-K88 · 13 June 2009]

It started like any ordinary day; that's likely what N.Y.C. subway dispatcher Walter Garber, an employee of questionable character, was thinking when he got up and went to work in the morning. Little did he know that he'd become the confidant and "stand-in" hostage negotiator for a prickly criminal mastermind who takes over the Pelham subway train and demands money in exchange for the lives of its passengers. Hearing the names Washington, Travolta, and Scott creates a lot of anticipation, but unfortunately what wants to be a slick combination of suspense thriller and character study instead results in a ponderous film with a weak setup, predictable plot twists, shallow characters, and little tension. It's easy to watch with actors of Washington and Travolta's caliber at work, but Scott's direction is pretentious and throws out some obligatory action scenes that seem to exist for the sole purpose of padding the time on the way to an expected climax. The leads do what they can with the strained material but really deserve better. **

Flawed with the Usual Exaggerations

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 20 February 2010]

In New York, four criminals led by the smart Ryder (John Travolta) hijack the subway train Pelham 123, stopping the first car with nineteen hostages in a higher plane in the tunnel in Manhattan. Ryder calls the subway control center and the operator Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) talks to him. The abductor demands ten million dollar and gives one hour to the delivery by the City Hall. The Mayor (James Gandolfini) accepts to pay the ransom while the NYPD negotiator Camonetti (John Turturro) assumes the negotiation. However Ryder demands that Garber, who was demoted from an executive position due to the accusation of accepting kickback in the purchase business of Japanese trains, continues to be his liaison with the authorities. Within the tense hour, Ryder empathizes with Garber and asks him to bring the money to the train.

"The Taking of Pelham 123" could be a good movie, with a story with potential and great cast. Unfortunately it is spoiled due to flaws combined with the usual exaggerations of most of Hollywood action movies. There are terrible moments that really destroy the story, such as: (1) why the corrupt Garber would confess the true story of his bribery? He could have told a fantasy to satisfy Ryder and keep secret of his kickback. (2) Why the ransom was not transported by helicopter? (3)Why that imbecile girlfriend would insist on asking her boyfriend to say that he loves her in such a tense situation? (4) Even in an unusual day like that one, how could an investment be multiplied by 150 in a few hours? Two million dollars transformed in three hundred million dollar in less than two hours is simply ridiculous. (5) Why should Garber risk his life following Ryder? (6) Why should two criminals under siege of a large number of police officers and without any protection shoot their guns? (7) Garber had less than six minutes to reach the location to deliver the money and spends precious seconds talking nonsense with his wife. (8) Why would a cold blood killer like Ryder with three hundred million dollars to pay bribery pacifically surrender to Garber? I listed only some absurd and silly parts that insult the intelligence of any average viewer. Unfortunately I have not seen the original movie to make a comparison. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Sequestro do Metrô" ("The Hijack of the Subway Train")

Travolta and Washington make it work

[C-Younkin · 6/10 · 9 June 2009]

"Taking of Pelham 123" was the movie that had it all. A great director in Tony Scott, screenwriter in Brian Helgeland (Man on Fire, LA Confidential), and leading men in Denzel Washington and John Travolta each doing what they do best. To its credit, Washington and Travolta keep it afloat. This is the kind of movie both can do in their sleep and watching them go one on one with each other is the film's main bright spot. Were also in for a pretty exciting ride as Tony Scott swings his camera around New York city streets and underground subway tunnels. Though this remake of the 1974 film starring Walter Mathau and Robert Shaw proves to be a little less than the sum of its parts.

Washington plays Walter Garber, the chief detective for the MTA currently involved in some controversy over a bribe he may or may not have taken. While that's being worked out, he's been reassigned to desk duty as dispatcher in the subway command center. Just today will be a day unlike any other as armed men hijack a New York City subway 6 train and hold all of its passengers hostage. The leader of the hi-jackers wishes to be called Ryder (John Travolta), and tells Walter that he wants 10 million dollars within an hour or he will start executing hostages. The cops (led by John Turturro) are brought in but Walter remains as the lead negotiator at Ryder's request.

Short on actual plot, I was expecting more of a character driven movie and early on it appears to go in that direction. There is a great scene where Ryder puts Walter on trial for the bribe and it leads you to think that these two are going to butt heads in dialogue-driven scenes all day long, exposing each other for who they really are. Just the battle of wits ends there, which is unfortunate cause the movie really crackles whenever they talk to each other. Travolta, sporting a menacing goatee and tattoo, is at his over-the-top, f-bomb-dropping, lunatic best and Washington is his level-headed, average-guy adversary.

The rest is all action. Car crashes and shoot-outs take place, the car crashes coming within a sloppy scene where the police travel by motorcade to deliver the money and the shoot-out starting from a rat crawling up a guy's leg of all things. Both feature no important characters and situations that are manipulated. The finale comes before you know it, a chase through the streets of NY that's more exciting because it makes more sense. And Tony Scott, despite using clichés like counting down the clock and going into slow-motion, keeps the movie gritty and fast-paced. As for the rest of the cast, James Gandolfini, playing a New York Mayor, is good comic relief, getting jokes about Giuliani, subways, and the Yankees but Turturro and Luis Guzman, playing a disgruntled MTA employee working with Ryder, don't get much to do.

"Pelham" works pretty well as a thriller because the Tony Scott-Denzel Washington teaming (this is their fourth go-around) always seems to do so and adding Travolta, always fun as a villain, is another nice touch. Just it doesn't always leave you engaged in what's happening, whether because the plot or the action lacks humanity. Still it's held together by good acting and solid direction and for that alone it's worth a ride.

Washington offsets Travolta, producing entertainment

[dfranzen70 · 7/10 · 14 June 2009]

I was surprised to find this remake of the 1974 thriller was actually pretty good. I thought that, because it was a remake by an explosion-happy director (Tony Scott) and starred ultraham John Travolta, it couldn't possibly be all that interesting. Maybe a mild diversion, but those are a dime a dozen during the summer. But hey, big shock! It's actually pretty tense, with just enough twistiness to fascinate without seeming implausible.

Of course, the biggest reason the movie succeeds is Denzel Washington. Washington plays a disgraced (investigation pending) transit executive who's currently slumming as the control chief. On his shift, naturally, a 1:23 train out of Pelham (New York City) suddenly stops in the middle of its run, and a hijacker demands $10 million to be delivered in exactly one hour, or passengers start dying unnaturally.

What makes this a little more than your typical cat-and-mouse game is the undercurrent of what's gotten Washington character into hot water, as well as Travolta's character's actual motives. After all, he's just grabbed a subway full of hostages, but obviously he can't just ride the car to Cuba, or something. He has to have an escape plan.

Washington and Travolta play off each other very nicely, with Washington's flawless portrayal of a flawed man far more convincing than Travolta's garden-variety unhinged wacko. Essentially, Washington was good enough to counterbalance Travolta's overacting. (Is he crazy, or is he just cleverly acting crazy? Who cares?) Washington's Walter Garber is unsure of himself, an actual Everyman thrust into a madman's master plan. It's roles like these that separate Washington from people like, say, Tom Cruise, guys who can play really only one character, the Man Who Knows Everything. Walter Garber not only isn't a "seize the day" kind of person, he shies away from confrontations he knows he can't win.

Also worth noting are John Turturro (as a hostage negotiator displaced by Washington, since Travolta won't talk to anyone else) and James Gandolfini (as Hizzoner, finally playing a mayor who's not a complete nitwit). Gone is the whimsical naming convention from the first, in which Robert Shaw named his comrades after colors, which was swiped by Quentin Tarantino for Reservoir Dogs. There are some changes from the original, true, but they don't seem contrived; for example, Walter Matthau was a transit cop in the 1974 version, not some under-investigation suit.

The action is tense throughout, especially since you assume that the hijackers are going to have to murder someone at some point (otherwise, why have a deadline?) Somehow, the movie manages to be gripping and realistic without being over the top. There are some minor bouts of nonsense (did we really need to know that Garber needed to bring home a gallon of milk?), and maybe in the final 20 minutes or so it's a little by the numbers in its approach to action, but overall it's not bad at all. It's certainly a lot better than I'd expect a John Travolta movie to be, but maybe that's because he's the bad guy here, and they're practically expected to be over the top.

A good, tense heist thriller

[tvspace · 7/10 · 13 June 2009]

A surprisingly enjoyable and tense thriller. While it does have a good bit of the kind of silly excess that ruins most summer blockbuster movies anymore, those flaws are overshadowed by the tightly-wound script and a couple of good performances from Denzel Washington and John Travolta. Director Tony Scott seems to have spent a good bit of effort trying to channel the spirit of 1970's American movies, and often this pays dividends as the focus on grittiness over spectacular action sequences ups the suspense. It's interesting that as the movie approaches the end you can feel the director's 21st century comic-book instincts straining against the genre he's working in as the story becomes increasingly less believable and more "heroic."

Nevertheless I can recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a suspenseful action movie that doesn't beat you over the head with histrionics from beginning to end. Admittedly I've never seen the original, and I can easily imagine those who love it might be substantially less enthusiastic about this remake.

"Pelham" Is Suspenseful, Fun Summer Heist Flick

[violdamor · 8/10 · 6 June 2009]

In "The Taking of Pelham 123," Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber, a dispatcher in the New York City subway's control center. When Garber notices that the Pelham 123 train has stopped for seemingly no reason, he radios the driver and discovers that the train and its passengers have been taken hostage. A team of criminals led by a man who identifies himself as Ryder (John Travolta) is demanding that the mayor (James Gandolfini) give them $10 million within one hour in exchange for the hostages. If there's a delay, Ryder threatens to kill one hostage for each minute that the money's late.

This film is a remake of the 1974 original starring Walter Matthau alongside Jerry Stiller and Hector Elizondo. The filmmakers took some liberties with the story, which enhanced it. For instance, Garber is no longer Lt. Garber, a transit cop. "Pelham" is a by-the-numbers heist flick; the good guy will win, but the fun is seeing how he'll do it. Because Garber is no longer a professional crime fighter, an otherwise predictable (although enjoyable) premise becomes more suspenseful.

Also, the updated story portrays technology as both a blessing and a curse to good effect.

Washington and Travolta deliver engaging performances. Playing a relatively low-key, almost geeky civil servant is an interesting change of pace for Washington. Travolta is terrifying as a disturbingly intelligent crook who oscillates between being sadistic and amiable. The conversations between Garber and Ryder touch on fate, relationships and even contain moments of humor. Such lines, in the mouths of less capable actors, would have been tedious.

A standout in the supporting cast is John Turturro as police negotiator Officer Camonetti, who inserts himself into the hostage situation. Although playing a hard-boiled cop, Turturro handles the role delicately and prevents Camonetti from becoming a caricature.

One slight disappointment is that Garber's wife Therese (Aunjanue Ellis) does not factor into the film that much. Her appearance in the film's trailer is half of her appearance in the film. One would think that there would be plenty of home-related conflict considering that Garber's situation could result in professional, if not fatal, consequences. But then again, the story plays out in a little more than an hour, so the short shrift makes some logical sense: Perhaps there wasn't enough time for panic to mount.

This performance-driven (I had to make a pun somewhere) crime thriller is a must-see for the summer.

Denzel Washington does it again

[NewEnglandPat · 7/10 · 13 June 2009]

This urban crime drama is a diverting entry with plenty of action, tense moments and running dialogue to sustain interest for the duration of the film. The main plot is a hostage situation and a demand for an outrageous sum of money. Denzel Washington and John Travolta spar throughout the picture and play off each other very well. Denzel, as always, is great and Travolta makes a good heavy although some of his one-liners fall flat as he negotiates with Washington. There are several interesting scenes of the trains, subway stations, tunnels, track beds and elevated sequences where the action takes place. Some of the street-level scenes, involving taxi and police car stunts don't seem to be necessary. Cast and camera work are very nice.

Forced action scenes and nonsense script ruin what could have been a good thriller

[funero · 4/10 · 27 October 2009]

WARNING! MAJOR SPOILERS! This film started out good, but it soon became clear that the director (Tony Scott) and the source material had a bit of a falling out somewhere along the way.

The story was obviously meant to be a sort of a low-key thriller, where most of the action takes place on a psychological level, in the interaction between the hostage taker (Travolta) and a hapless train operator (Washington) who happened to be on the shift when the takeover took place. And at times, it is exactly that. The scenes where Travolta forces a confession out of Washington and offers hostages in exchange for the mayor (the Soprano guy) were great. This is where the movie shines, where it's the way it was meant to be.

However, Scott apparently thought this tension-filled psychological mind-game would be too high-brow for the average consumer. So he decided he must do everything in his power to make the sucker more EXTREME, you know, the way modern kids like it. And how in the would would a prolific Hollywood director like Tony Scott make a bunch of tension-filled conversations more exciting?

You've guessed it. This is yet another modern movie suffering from the infamous shaky camera syndrome. If you enjoy your POV flying loopdeloops around the room, shaky closeups of character faces and stop-motion intermezzos (and all that during an average dialog scene), you're in for a treat. A direction style normally reserved for action scenes was used to effectively detract the viewers' attention (and source of their tension) from the events inside the plot to the director outside it.

Scott obviously knew this, which is why he made sure the little action this movie has (and NEEDS) is as EXTREME as humanly possible. Thus, a simple matter of transporting two bags from point A to point B is turned into an idiotic and completely needles car chase, that destroys more property than there's money inside the bags. Then, there are Travolta's nameless henchmen, who are apparently there solely to die gruesome bloody (and EXTREME) deaths. And finally, there's the main bad guy himself, who isn't content to simply head-shot his helpless victims but must empty his entire clip into their jerking bodies, while droplets of blood and guts spray over the screaming hostages. EXTREME!

Really, if Tony Scott wanted to make an action movie, why he didn't just order an action script? It's not like he's some rookie who must film whatever is given to him.

Speaking of the script, forced action is hardly the only thing wrong with it. Throughout the movie, police snipers have hostage-takers in their sights and can end the crises in the moment they are ordered to shoot. But for some reason, no one gives the order, nor is anyone apparently in charge of giving it (where is the police captain coordinating the hostage negotiations and SWAT shooters)? What government would rather pay millions than try a rescue operation if there's even the slightest chance of success? And where's the FBI and SEALs taking over and icing Travolta in a minute?

On the other hand, why bother at all? Very soon, the police finds out identities and faces of everyone involved in the heist. With traffic cameras on every street corner and other assets of the 21st century law enforcement, the criminals are screwed, whether they escape the train or not. Doesn't Travolta know that? After becoming a YouTube legend, how long would it take someone to recognize his face and twitter him over to the police (LOL ITS THE SBWAY DUDE !1!!)?

Considering all this, you'd think the bad guys must have a really good reason for engaging in such a risky enterprise. And really, throughout the movie, Travolta makes it a point to portray his character as a desperate man living on the edge, staking his life in an all-or-nothing game against the might of the city that had let him down. Only later, we learn his entire scheme-within-the-scheme depended on him investing $2 million from an earlier robbery, so he could make hundred times as much on the market, when... wait, what!? He'd rather risk his life, kill a bunch of innocent people and spend the rest of his life in hiding, than retire with *just* two million!? That burning urge that drove him through his crazy scheme wasn't idealism or revenge or even the simple desire to get rich, but the desire to get even RICHER!? He must be the craziest, greediest, most idiotic millionaire on Earth. And a douche bag to boot.

These baffling inconsistencies in the plot make much more sense when we take in account this is a remake of a movie originally published in the early 70-ies. Back then, they didn't have the Internet, cameras and Nazis in charge of airports. The bad guy actually had a chance of getting away with his ingenious plan. The least script rewriters could have done was give Travolta and his men masks, or some other way of concealing their identities.

On the other hand, watching a pair of eyes talking into a radio for 90 minutes would have hardly made for an exciting film, so I guess I can see why they decided to sacrifice believability for the sake of character interaction. Now if only Scott would slow down the camera enough so we could actually see that interaction...

So, was there anything good about this movie? Surprisingly Travolta's acting. All the Scientology stuff aside, you can see why he was once considered an A-class star. Great job. Washington was very good too, you can really tell the panic taking a hold of his character when Travolta forces him to confess. As I mentioned earlier, radio dialogs between the two of them were truly the highlight of this movie.

Too bad the rest of it was sacrificed on the altar of blockbuster popcorn fun.

At What Point Do You Say, "People Are Dying"

[Hitchcoc · 8/10 · 2 November 2010]

John Travolta and Denzel Washington fill the screen very well (especially Mr. too many pork chops lately Travolta). The problem with this film is the events are so damned outrageous that one sits back in awe of how stupid it can be. I have never seen a more incompetent network of negotiators and police. They knew where the train was, they had a SWAT team. When they start just blowing away hostages, it's time to move. These guys have nor moral sense or approachability and because of this you take them out. The charm of the bad guy works at first, but he is really a monomaniac so there is no way he's going to talk in a sensible way. The runaway train thing is passe (although I see Denzel is about to get on board again). Then, of course, there's the absolutely awful ending (I won't say a word and spoil it for anyone). How could such a finely honed plan have such a miserable endgame. Oh well.

Pelham Offers Quite a Ride!

[dglink · 7/10 · 12 June 2009]

The new Tony Scott movie gives one helluva ride, but don't sit and analyze the plot for credibility during the closing credits, this is not that kind of movie. Four sleazy thugs, who could be spotted as bad guys by a blind man, hijack a Lexington Avenue subway and take passengers as hostages. A ransom-for-hostages negotiation begins via radio between the driver's compartment on the train and the central control center for the New York City subway system. The premise is hardly new territory, and, for those who have seen the Walter-Matthau-Robert-Shaw version of the John Godey novel, the film is even less original.

However, for audiences that want a night out at the movies with a rousing action flick, "The Taking of Pelham 123" will fill the bill nicely. The editing is often frenetic, and the camera moves even during dialog-heavy scenes. The chases are fast paced, the car crashes are over the top, and the bloody scenes are properly bloody. While all of this is enough for some mindless entertainment, four excellent performances enhance the proceedings and make the film seem better than it is. John Travolta pulls out the stops as Ryder, the head hijacker, and, in his full wacko persona, steals his every scene. As the man on the other end of the phone, bespectacled Denzel Washington, dressed down in everyman frumpy, is quiet and assured, although nothing quite suggests that the character of Walter Garber will or could rise to his climactic actions. James Gandolfini plays the mayor with a sly sense of fun, and John Turturro is a hard-to-gauge hostage negotiator. "Pelham" is a man's movie, and the women are relegated to small, peripheral roles as wives, conductors, and hostages. How refreshing the film might have been if Scott had cast a female in one of the four main roles.

However, whatever the movie's flaws, and there are many, "The Taking of Pelham 123" does what it sets out to do: entertain and engage the audience for two hours. Don't expect more, and you won't be disappointed, and, in a summer movie, "Pelham's" assets are exactly what most of us are looking for anyway.

Check Me

[ferguson-6 · 4/10 · 13 June 2009]

Greetings again from the darkness. For some reason, I keep thinking director Tony Scott will re-capture his magic of "Crimson Tide". Instead, he thrives on being the center of attention, rather than letting the story and characters unfold on screen. How he mangles the great cat-and-mouse game of the original "Taking of Pelham One Two Three" is pure torture to watch.

In the original Walter Matthau and the icy cold Robert Shaw were brilliant. Here Travolta is way over-the-top with all his "MF'ers". Denzel, for all his greatness, is simply miscast as the nice, working class hero. In the original, NYC shots were gritty and real ... here they are Tony Scott disco complete with flying cars. Since when does a car collision send one of the vehicles soaring and somersaulting? And why does a skilled motorcycle cop ram right into a parked vehicle? Just a ridiculous action sequence.

Also in the original, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo and Earl Hindman (Wilson from Home Improvement) were Shaw's team and each had their own personality. Here Luis Guzman is given little to do and I couldn't pick the other two out of a line-up after just watching the film! John Tuturro and James Gandolfini are the only others with much to say. Gandolfini is a nice combo of Giuliani and Bloomberg, and provides at least a touch of humor. The story is expanded from a pure heist film to a bit of distorted revenge by Travolta, a disgraced Wall Street stud.

Just not much good to say about this one since I don't believe it stands on its own and it certainly can't hold a candle to the original.

So-so thriller but swooshing cameras do not cover for lack of spark and tension in the material

[bob the moo · 22 November 2009]

It has been the best part of a decade since I saw the original film version of this story but I still remember it being pretty enjoyable with a dark edge of comedy. From the opening seconds of the remake it is clear that the focus here is going to be on the action. Jay-Z's 99 Problems kicks things off while the camera swooshes and zooms round as all the main players move into position – within minutes subway car Pelham 123 has been taken and a race to save the hostages begins. The rest of the film is meant to be exciting and tense and we know this because the camera is constantly swooshing and throwing in slow-motion bits here and there to let us know that the stakes are high, lives are on the line and that we should all be tense.

Sadly, while the cinematographer is keen to make sure we know this, nobody else seems that bothered because the film does nothing to justify the sweeping camera movements and pumping soundtrack. In terms of physical "money up there on the screen" action, there is very little and what there is just seems thrown in for the sake of having some action (the car crashes trying to get the money in on time) rather than being part of the film. This in itself is not a problem by any means, because the nature of the plot did always suggest that the spark would be in the dialogue and the interplay between the two stars. Sadly this is lacking as well. It isn't "bad" though, but it just lacks spark, impact and tension. The problem is mainly with the script but director Scott doesn't seem to know what to do with it all anyway and seems desperate for characters to get shot or for things to crash into something just for the sake of having action. Travolta appears to be happy just to ham it up with a simplistic performance that matches the basic feel of the film. Washington had the harder job and suggests he could have done it with better material and direction – instead he is thrown into forced dialogue and unlikely semi-action sequences towards the end. The supporting cast is pretty good through with a handful of HBO faces in there (Sopranos' Gandolfini, Generation Kill's Kelly and The Wire's Akinnagbe). Gandolfini, Guzman and Turturro all do the good work you would expect from them, although again all are limited by the material.

It is not an awful film, so if you are looking for a glossy but basic thriller with stars and a big budget then this will just about be good enough to pass the time. The lack of spark and tension is the killer though and this the film cannot compensate for no matter how many time the camera swooshes around or the editor makes quick cuts – the failure is deeper than that and nobody appeared to be able to address it to make this film better than it was.

Though nowhere near as good as the original, it makes for a good summer heist film.

[johnnymacbest · 7/10 · 13 June 2009]

Having been burned by so many remakes of classic films, I decided to have an open mind. True, it is fact that remakes can never be better or equal to their original counterpart (The Day The Earth Stood Still and The Wicker Man are good examples) but this one was entertaining, although it sometimes has that bloated, Hollywood feel that is so prevalent in movies and totally unnecessary because story and acting alone should be more important. Both Denzel Washington and John Travolta give good performances, especially Travolta with his cold demeanor and charismatic personality with a surprising touch of black comedy that I didn't expect from this remake. To be fair, I was thrilled at some points in the film( I won't give anything away) but since I saw the original many years ago, I can say that this is a good summer heist flick that while not as gripping as the original Taking of Pelham 123, more than makes up for it in the entertainment value which I cannot say for most remakes (although some have come close) but with two strong leads, I would like to see both Washington and Travolta in future films that are not remakes but entirely fresh roles altogether.

Run of the mill movie about an extraordinary idea

[secondtake · 6/10 · 18 May 2010]

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

Well, you can't really blame anyone except the director for this pretty-good-not-great struggle of a crime hostage subway drama.

John Travolta is convincing enough as a smart guy gone bad, but he never quite exudes evil (he doesn't even swear very convincingly) or the craziness you'd need to try this scenario. Denzel Washington is smooth and quick and impressive as the bad guy done good (though not very bad--he just bribed some folks in Japan). The two connect over a telephone, and a lot of the movie, with all the mayhem aside, boils down to their back and forth.

Well, a lot of the movie actually boils down to editing. The camera-work is very dynamic, every scene, even a short head shot, seems to have the camera sweeping or swooping. This makes everything edgy, which of course is a good thing when you have a high stakes disaster in the works. But the editors have cut this footage as if it was Hitchcock's showers scene in Psycho. I don't mean literally (it's not a constant montage, not quite), but there is rarely, if ever, a sense of immersion and flow. We are battered by all this amazingly horrible stuff (including some really heartless killing) and it happens on the screen in a flurry of short takes and jarring snippets. We know too much that it's a movie, and the pieces are made to go together sensibly, up there, not in here, where it would be a thrill.

The director by the way is Tony Scott, an action adventure guy (Top Gun), and the movie does have a steady intensity. But there are some unneeded sentimental cornball things, too, highly unlikely, between passengers, or between one guy and his girlfriend through his laptop, which seems to run out of power at one point and then is working again later. But anyway. As usual, Washington holds his own and gives some stability to the whole, which is made up of so so many parts.

Tony Scott and Denzel Washington reteam for an update on a thriller classic that while technically proficient feels like it's missing something

[IonicBreezeMachine · 6/10 · 6 January 2023]

On the New York City Subway, four men armed men lead by Ryder (John Travolta) hijack a train car of 19 passengers from train Pelham 123 (so named because of its departure time and origin station). As the train car is stopped in the subway tunnel it wreaks havoc upon the rest of the subway system. Train Dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) makes contact with Ryder who demands $10 million ransom in exchange for the passengers.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is the third adaptation of the novel of the same name by John Godey following the classic Joseph Sargent directed 1974 film and a mostly forgotten 1998 TV movie. The film was Denzel Washington's fourth collaboration with Tony Scott following their work on Crimson Tide, Man on Fire, and Déjà vu and as such was positioned as a blockbuster for the 2009 Summer movie season. Opening in third place behind holdovers of hit films Up and The Hangover, The Taking of Pelham 123 was seen as a "soft" opener for the $100 million project but eventually legged out to $150 million worldwide which while not great was far from terrible. The movie received mixed reviews with critics praising the technical aspects of the film as well as the performances, but also feeling that Tony Scott's frenetic direction didn't really mesh with the material and it was inferior to the 1974 original film. In the end this update of Pelham 123 does try to do something different, but it doesn't do so all that successfully.

Much like the original 1974 film, this version of Pelham 123 also serves as a time capsule of New York City substituting the 70s recession era atmosphere of the original for a New York City that has been redefined in the aftermath of 9/11 and of course the then recent financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. With Scott's direction having a few too many flourishes that his audience will be all too familiar with, sometimes it feels like New York City's identity isn't as well established as it could be and it feels like there's more focus on "how" it's being shot in place of "what's" being shot. In particular I felt as though the boarding sequence in the first act was overly truncated and I felt like the hijackers with the exception of Travolta's Ryder felt greatly diminished as characters with none of them allowed to leave much of an impression. Denzel Washington plays our substitute for Zachary Garber from the original film in Walter Garber who unlike the original transit cop character is a train dispatcher so he's out of his element and there's also an added subplot involving how he got moved from a higher level position down to dispatch. In principal I like the idea of where they take the Garber character but the execution is where I feel it stumbles because they try to make Ryder and Garber parallels of each other in a "we're not so different, you and me" that leads to a very overwrought standoff moment serving as the climax that I just feel doesn't work. This incarnation of the film takes itself much more seriously, and while there are shades of humor such as with James Gandolfini's performance as the mayor of New York or the occasional exchanges among the passengers the movie feels like it has excised a good amount of the original film's humor which was a key appeal of its identity including its stinger ending involving a sneeze.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is perfectly serviceable as a time killer and Travolta and Denzel do solid work but I think Tony Scott's direction isn't all that conducive to what is mostly a chamber piece and it feels like Scott has tried to "energize" his direction to compensate for the contained nature of the story. If you want to see a Tony Scott train movie that works with his style instead of against it I'd recommend 2010's Unstoppable because the story of a runaway train meshed better with Scott's directorial style.

Slightly Off The Rail, But Remakes Have Come Far Worse Than This

[virek213 · 7/10 · 21 June 2009]

Even more so than sequels, remakes of older films have their own build-in pratfalls. The pratfalls are just a lot more noticeable if the original film was a classic or extremely well regarded.

Such are the complications that faced director Tony Scott (MAN ON FIRE; TOP GUN) and screenwriter Brian Helgeland as they took on their remake of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3, which had already made for an incredibly suspenseful film back in 1974 under the hands of experienced journeyman director Joseph Sargent. Based on John Godey's 1973 novel, that film's story of a New York City subway hijacking in which eighteen people were threatened with violent execution at the hands of heavily armed gunmen if a million-dollar ransom wasn't paid in exactly one hour had not only the particular NYC grit of the mid-1970s, but also a fair bit of jet-black comedy as well, ratcheting up the tension even more. With audience attention spans shrunk considerably in the ensuing thirty-five years, not to mention the expectations of car crashes and explosions, Scott and Helgeland not surprisingly fall somewhat short by substituting subtlety for sound and fury; headache-inducing freeze frame and montage gimmickry; rap and heavy metal on the soundtrack; and far more crude language and bloodshed than is really necessary.

Still, there have been remakes that have been far worse than this one; and at least, Scott had the good sense of placing Denzel Washington in the role essayed by Walter Matthau in the original; here, he is a transit official with a slightly shady past (and whereas he was named Zachary Garber in the original, as a favor to the great actor who played Garber in '74, in 2009 he's named Walter Garber). Times being different, the ransom is now up to $10 million, but the idea of making NYC deliver the money in one hour wisely remains the same, giving the remake the same HIGH NOON-style level of tension that informed the 1974 original. Veteran actors John Turturro (as a hostage negotiator) and James Gandolfini (as the NYC mayor) also do good supporting turns, trying to help Washington's cool, calm, collected transit official.

Where I felt the film went slightly askew, however, was in a decision typical of many Hollywood directors these days with respect to actors who play villains: allowing them to go so far overboard early on that there's more ham in their performances than there is in any Hormel factory. And this is what Scott does with John Travolta; he allows the actor to play the lead hijacker John Ryder with far too much zeal and insanity to be anything other than a typical Hollywood nut job, this in total contrast to Robert Shaw in the original film, where the late, great British actor portrayed Ryder with a certain low-key viciousness and a clipped delivery. Indeed, what the film misses the most is the witty over-the-radio repartee between Matthau and Shaw that was present in the original. Both Helgeland and Scott missed the boat on that one.

And yet, despite all the bloodshed, profanity, and headache-inducing sound and fury thrown at the viewer, it is really the plot itself that makes this film work as well as it does; and it is fortunate that, thanks to Washington's presence, Scott and Helgeland aren't allowed to completely trash that. This PELHAM stops a couple of stations short of the masterpiece status accorded to the original, but one could do much worse in terms of classic films that 21st century Hollywood has somehow decided need a reworking.

Not For Those Looking For A Quiet Train Movie!

[damianphelps · 8/10 · 12 January 2022]

Its exactly what you would expect from Scott, Travolta and Denzel. 123 Packs no surprises but it does pack a punch.

Visually and audibly strong it gives the senses a nice workout.

Its not really the thinking man's film but is good fun entertainment.

Pretty Good Movie Over All

[mr-teflondon187 · 7/10 · 12 June 2009]

This film was a pretty good remake of the old one. The movie did not have much action in it. It had a lot of talking between Denzel Washington and John Travolta. The dialog was very funny at some points in the film, and also very intense in other parts of the film. I would have liked to see a little more action in it, but otherwise it was a good remake. John Travolta is the perfect person to play that part. He is definitely the reason I would encourage anyone to see this movie. Denzel Washington did a superb job playing his part. The movie kept me wondering what was going to happen, even though I have seen the old one. This is not a movie I would say you have to go to the theater to watch, but you should watch it on DVD.

Some People Don't Understand 70s Cinema

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 27 November 2012]

The original movie was a smart witty thriller , a cut above the usual heist thriller . Some people might complain the action is a little bit too static but that's not the point and it is very important to remember this . Having nothing better planned I turned over to Film4 to catchthis remake and caught the tail end of the advert break . It was only after two minutes that I realised what I was watching wasn't the adverts but the opening sequence of THE TAKING PELHAM 123 . That's says all there is about this movie

Do I have to repeat it ? It's important to remember that whilst the original only having two sets , the subway control room and the subway train the original film managed to carry itself by some smart dialogue and character interaction . This obviously isn't enough for director Tony Scott and the production crew who feel the need to bludgeon the audience to death with MTV style camera work , editing and score . It's as if the production team think if people are being held at gun point on a train that's not exciting enough for a cinema audience so feel the need to insert sequences regardless of it makes any sense or not

It might have been a good idea to make the hostages in the train interesting . The original film succeeded on this score even if they were slightly offensive in their ethnic stereotypes but hey nothing is perfect but even that was preferable than a jarring cut of police cars zooming around the city with crash zoom lens , then to even this up we get a sequence in slow motion . The only people in this film who deserve any credit are the hairdressers who gave John Travolta the same hairstyle as me

The solid leads cut through Tony Scott's bluster and flourishes

[Simon_Says_Movies · 8/10 · 7 August 2009]

Director Tony Scott's remake of the 1974 classic is a four star reimagining lost amongst one star gimmicks and flourishes. An immensely impressive opening half begins to quiver towards the end and finally pops and deflates at the climax. In fact, Pelham runs almost in a reverse build-up to most films. It seems as if Scott didn't realize how intelligent and ultimately entertaining the early chapters were and in place of an intense and slow burning nail biter emerges and wildly excessive action flick.

Scott is certainly no stranger to style as all his films pulsate with a manic energy, zoom shots, quick cuts assembled in an almost eccentric but to and often amusing end. Here thankfully, I found such freeze frame and camera swirls not to be distracting, just entirely unnecessary. The reported budget for this film was a mind melting $100 million and I literally cannot tell you what they spent it on. The cast is small, aside from the perfunctory action scenes most of the film is set in a stationary train in a dark tunnel or the rail control center. If there has ever been a benchmark for a 'not needed' budget, this would be a front runner. Of the aforementioned action scenes, the films most embarrassing sequence comes shortly after the hour mark and involves an absolutely ridiculous police chase that involves defiance of physics and of logic. That being said, it is ultimately the characters that take central stage and the movie succeeds fully because of the stellar cast.

Replacing Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw are Denzel Washington and John Travolta respectively. Washington stars as Walter Garber a timid, but thoroughly likable and charismatic subway operator and Travolta as Ryder, the man on the other end of the line; a criminal who has hijacked Pelham 123 and is one part over-the-top, one part smooth talking' and one part brutal killer. Both these veteran actors pull off their rolls fantastically. Travolta is a far better rounded villain then he was in Swordfish or The Punisher, never playing the character one note, or as a messy collage of traits. Garber is an innerly flawed man, overweight, aging, with strains both on his professional and personal life and Washington makes him into a real sympathetic person about a man in the moment.

As we have seen in many movies before, a bond forms between the two men, as Garber frantically tries to fulfill the demands of a $10,000,000 dollar ransom for the lives of his captives on a subway car. But unlike other similar flicks the kinship does not remain all smiles and sunshine, nor does a contrivance of their friendship lead to the villain's downfall. That coupled with an equally intelligent twist there is plenty to admire in Pelham but also enough to scoff at. Joining the duos ranks are two other solid rolls fulfilled by John Tutturo as a hostage negotiator and James Gandolfini as the New York City mayor. In fact, it is almost a four man show, with Travolta and Washington carrying the bulk weight of the film. While still a testament to how Hollywood continues to unearth the classics of the past, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is also a testament to how a film that has fallen to its bluster can be saved by its leads.

Read all my reviews at simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com

Interesting Adversaries

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 22 June 2009]

This story about the hijacking of a subway train is getting its third telling. The two succeeding ones have had plot differences with the original classic that pitted Transit cop Walter Matthau with head hijacker Robert Shaw.

This version of The Taking of Pelham 123 has Denzel Washington not as a transit cop, but the station manager and the Grand Central command headquarters. As he's the one who answers the call from hijacker John Travolta, Travolta fixates on Washington and tries to develop a relationship with him of sorts. I'm sure this wasn't what Washington had in mind when he went to work that day.

Washington's in a bad situation, the Transit Authority has no confidence in him because of charges pending, but Transit Cop John Turturro has to deal with him, play the hand Travolta is dealing so to speak.

The biggest difference between this and the original Pelham was in the hijacker's character. Robert Shaw was one cool operator under pressure, the rest of his team less so, but he doesn't let anything rattle him. Even when he kills it's a matter of purely business.

Travolta is one loose cannon who flies off the handle with little discernible provocation. That's the main problem with this version. The plot goes well beyond this hijacking, in fact the key to the film is who Travolta is and what he did in his past. And someone that crazy would not be doing what he did before.

Nevertheless Travolta and Washington make an interesting pair of adversaries. And the action sequences are well done with the computer graphics not available for the first one.

Still I miss Walter Matthau and that never to be forgotten expression on his face as the first Pelham ended.

A movie that goes off the tracks

[JoeyGreen · 1/10 · 13 June 2009]

Technical wizardry does not make for a good film. Mix in an annoying jazzy score, guitar riffs and some violin music, a couple of overrated actors, and you get TTOP123.

First off did Denzel do a reverse DeNiro and gain 50 pounds for this role? He looked like fat Albert "on a good day." Travolta, also sporting an earring or two -- what are these guys, two metrosexuals wanting to do each other? -- alternately drops f-bombs between ridiculous soliloquies about his tortured past and while plugging a hostage or two just to break the boredom. OK, he was reading bad lines, but he did not make for a believable villain, alternately scowling and laughing or otherwise mugging for the camera. Compare to the superb Robert Shaw, who played the character with calm menace that was 10 times as scary.

Plot holes? By the bushel. First off, there's Denzel's wife, in the middle of a tension-filled crisis in which blood is being spattered left and right, badgering her husband to bring home a gallon of milk. Could anything be more ridiculous? Maybe a producer promised the woman some more celluloid time on the casting couch, but the role was entirely superfluous and the 10-minute scene of the couple talking sweet nothings on a cellphone while bodies are dropping everywhere was one of the funniest I've ever seen.

Then there's Travolta, $300 million richer, thanks to his manipulation of the stock and commodity markets, worried about a paltry $2.5 million cut from the heist, weighing around 55 pounds, that he had to lug around at the end during his escape.

No disguise, easily identifiable, Travolta and the rest of the gang blithely stride through midtown Manhattan carrying big heavy satchels of cash, trying to hail cabs with thousands of people milling around and hundreds of cops. Travolta's character was about as stupid as you can get, riding and then walking in broad daylight, inviting easy capture. A more plausible ending would have had him stroll into the Waldorf, get a room and disguise himself until he could try to get away later, setting up a cat-and-mouse finish.

But there was no imagination, no humor, no intelligence, nothing whatsoever to justify making this movie other than its sole purpose: another big paycheck day for the two stars. Watching Gandolfini play mayor, I couldn't help thinking that if he was Tony Soprano, he would clip the entire cast, crew, director and production team and dump em all in the East River.

Save your money and rent the original.