User reviews

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 TAKING OF PELHAM 123 is Tony Scott's flashy and expensive remake of a stone-cold classic of 1970s cinema. The original had Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as hero and villain respectively, while this remake sees Scott regular Denzel Washington and bad-guy-for-hire John Travolta stepping into those lofty shoes. And, unsurprisingly enough, this turns out to be a redundant remake that can't hope to better - or, indeed, even come close - to the quality of the original.

I'm not a hater of remakes per se. Occasionally certain films will be flawed or dated and the remake works better than the original; I found this with THE HILLS HAVE EYES. However, the original PELHAM is a great film and anyone who's seen it will end up just watching this version and criticising it by comparison. I'm sure if the original didn't exist I would have enjoyed the updated PELHAM a lot more, but as it stands it's a waste of time.

It's not all bad. Washington is the slick master of professionalism as always and never disappoints this viewer. Travolta gives another fun villainous turn, following on from FACE/OFF and BROKEN ARROW. Scott certainly knows how to make a fast-paced movie and this is a thriller that's never dull. But compared to the original, it's vapid, shallow, and way too superficial.

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. **

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Well its better than the original and I watched the original in a VHS rental back in the mid 80s Yes the original is also OK has that New York street grit 70s but this one wow, acting storyline, cinematography da best. Substantially better than the original. In comparison, direction: Tony Scott better, cinematography, Tony Scott way better. Story: this one is way better than the original. Acting: I think its bvetter than the original and I love the old school acting of Robert Shaw and. Walter Matthau , etc. But the new one Travolta and. Washington blows away the original. However in terms of atmosphere , Im still partial to the original 1970s NYC street grit is just very street wise. Than the new one.

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.