The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

The idea of updating the original to embrace current technology makes sense. Alas, we see very little of this. Furthermore, the narrative changes in the remake destroy virtually everything that was good about the orginal.The varied and interesting supporting characters from the original are more or less written out. This is essentially just about Ryder and Garber. Neither is recognisable from their original forms. The original Ryder was calm, intelligent, confident. This Ryder is a panicky, foul-mouthed, yob.The original Garber was a hard-bitten MTA cop. This Garber is a sensitive, once high-flying MTA exec, busted down to controller status after the discovery of a bribe.As if the hijacking were not enough, there is a credibility-defying financial markets twist on this. Ryder has bet large that the gold price will rise in response to the incident. His bet pays off: the original $2 million becomes $305 million.The conclusion is turned into almost farcical melodrama, with the delicate and sensitive Garber performing Mission Impossible-type stunts to catch up with Ryder.If you haven't seen the original, go to that, rather than this fiasco. If you have seen the original and are interested in seeing how the remake compares, be prepared for considerable disappointment.

The original Pelham 1,2,3 was wonderfully directed and acted. The acting in the re-make was adequate but there was just no chemistry between any of the actors. The story was about the same but I didn't feel for any of the characters. I didn't feel the sense of danger in the re-make. Robert Shaw, in the original, had this quiet menacing side which made him intriguing, not so with John Travolta's portrayal. And why did they have to taint the Walter Garber character by having him do something illegal in his past? After the re-make, I had to watch the original to get the taste out of my mouth.

Taking of Pelham 123 was a great 1970s heist film. It was remade in 2009 by Tony Scott starring John Travolta as Mr. Ryder the head of a group of criminals that holds a New York City subway train hostage. Denzel Washington is Walter Garber who works for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that runs the subways. Ryder takes a train and demands $10 million for the release of his captives. Travolta plays the criminal mastermind while Washington is a public employee stuck as a negotiator. Could the new version live up to the standard set by the original? Yes it did.The story is taught and full of tension. Ryder for instance gives timelines for the money to arrive or he will start executing the hostages. He goes into fits of rage as well threatening to kill people. There’s also times posted to highlight how little of it the city has to meet Ryder’s demands. Ryder and Garber also create a dynamic as most of the film is those two talking to each other. You wouldn’t think a story that mostly focuses upon talking heads could make for a thriller but it definitely works largely to the performances of Washington and Travolta.C

Watch the original movie, it's that simple. This pathetic remake has no wit (the original is very funny at times), the story of course has been "improved" by writers who are morons, and Mr. Scott does everything that the original director knew not to do - i.e. let the script do its job and know how to cast. There is not a single thing that works in this wretched excuse for a movie and Mr. Washington should know better, but then he did the horrid remake of The Manchurian Candidate, too. Awful.

If you've seen the original (and if you haven't, you should), you'll be struck by how clumsy this version is. It's loud, melodramatic, over-acted, and shallow. The villain in the original was smart and cool-headed - believable. The villain in this one is hanging onto reality by a thread and throws tantrums every other dialogue. There's no way he's a criminal mastermind - he wouldn't even be able to orchestrate a bbq. The entire flamboyant cast of the original has been replaced by three meaningful characters in this one: the villain (as mentioned, a not very intimidating nut-job), Denzel as the everyman in a tough situation, and the hostage negotiator who coaches him. Denzel and negotiator aren't bad, but it isn't enough to redeem the utter lack of wit and depth. Adding lots of half-blurred camera shots, thumping beats, exotic car crashes, and a (half) gallon of milk for the wife doesn't compensate for the smarts, wit, ruthlessness, and balls in the original.

I confess that I just watched this film The Taking of Pelham 123 after my husband mentioned to me that he has watched and liked a 70s version of this film. I am very glad to have watched this film as there are many twists and turns throughout. The Taking of Pelham 23 features the plot of Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) dramatically having his life changed when Ryder a.k.a Dennis Ford (John Travolta) decided to hijack the train route that Walter Garber was assigned to. Garber’s boss John Johnson (Michael Rispoli) and Lt. Camonetti (John Turturro) try to take over for Garber when his shift was over but he becomes a focal point of the a very dangerous situation whether he wants to or not after Ryder insists on speaking with Garber. Of course, there are other characters who played important roles in this The Taking of Pelham 123 film. I do feel that multiple actors and actresses contributed to this film in different ways. However, I admit to being undecided between which acting portrayal was my most favorite from this film and I am going to have to leave others to decide that as I feel that both Denzel Washington and John Travolta gave brilliant reenactments of their personas even though both men appeared to be each other’s character foil.

The Taking of Pelham 123 gradually accelerates its tension before applying the emergency brakes. New York City. The bustling heart of American bureaucracy, capitalism and greed. An urban beat sprawling the towering skyscrapers, harnessing corporations that generate the commodity of wealth. Money never sleeps. Scott’s remake of the ‘74 classic, that many critics deem “perfect”, embodies the synergetic life moulded by the city. It gives, and it takes. A duality that manifests itself between the connection of the story’s protagonist and antagonist. Two opposing ideologies, both tempted by the greed that New York veils itself in. When the villainous “Ryder” holds a subway carriage full of civilians hostage, only a dispatcher is allowed to negotiate. Placing the lives of many in his hands.Pelham is a game of morality. A game of chess. To reveal the darkened shadows that are suppressed within. The Catholic Ryder ensnaring the seemingly innocent Garber to strategically break down his guard, to form a bond between negotiator and hostage architect. One minute at a time. Whilst Garber calms his temper before any erratic actions are performed, leaving a solemn burden on his conscience. The communicative connection between both characters is often palpable, with each sentence meticulously thought out before spoken. Garber swarmed by police officials and hostage negotiators to say one thing and then the other, conflicted in what move to play next. Scott reassuringly plays out this thriller with a heavy compunction. Each action that is taken, has a consequence.The sole problem with this remake is that it’s so efficient in tackling the plot, that it lacks any thrills to be had. That may seem like a double entendre, but self-efficiency can be a fundamental issue for a thriller. Every character is on autopilot. They do and say everything according to plan so seamlessly, that any edge is prevented. Absolutely safe to watch as a feature, but never involves you indirectly. Scott’s frantic directing style, including the choppy frame cuts and exhausting panoramic panning, is unable to alleviate the safety measures that are inadvertently in place. Mass annoyances rather than cohesive stylistic choices. He does however generate an urban aesthetic that relishes in that New York air.Infuriatingly the tension that is gradually built up in the second two acts, grinds to an immediate halt during the conclusive escape. Action set pieces distract rather than involve. The generic hostages seemingly have no life and, rather ironically, act as one-dimensional commodities that have limited investable power. So when these entities are whisked away on a runaway train, you unfortunately don’t care. Another irritant is the blatant disregard of the NYPD, as they are portrayed to be absolutely useless. Traversing ten million dollars across the city, and they can’t even do that without wrecking several vehicles and themselves. Just another plot convenience to add to the growing list that infests this thriller. And don’t get me started on that laptop that had no connection, then randomly did. Had no battery life...then randomly did. Careless plot details like these can really bring a cohesive story down a level or two.For everything Pelham executes correctly, such as the two main characters (including performances) and urban aesthetic, it seemingly fails on other aspects. Much like public transport, the idea and execution are efficient if irrefutably unreliable.

I read the book on holiday recently, so decided to purchase the DVD. I was very disappointed in the changes made to the book: the alteration of the career of one of the two lead characters, the almost total downplaying of the secondary criminals in the gang, the glossing over of some the interactions in the subway carriage. Nor did I appreciate the blurring camerawork. So I then purchased the earlier DVD version, which was much more faithful to the book.

Denzel Washington, John Travolta, James Gandolfini, Luis Guzmán and John Turturro star together in Tony Scott's big budget remake of the 1974 original which is one of the best heist movies ever made. There are numerous differences between the two, most notably the ending, and the updated soundtrack. Gone are the jazzy tracks and in comes Jay Z's 99 Problems, which is a surprisingly fitting tune to start the movie with considering the day Washington's Garber is about to endure. For the most part, the cast in the original are slightly better, though I do think Gandolfini plays a better mayor than Lee Wallace. Unfortunately, the dark underlying humour that was in the original has all but gone from the remake. Still, it is an enjoyable enough update that is worth watching. 3.5/5

A New York City subway dispatcher draws on his extensive knowledge of the subway system in order to outsmart a dangerous criminal mastermind who's hijacked a subway train...Not bad remake of the 1974 thriller inspired by John Godey's best seller. It was hard to tell whether this remake was going to be good. I personally thought it was a big mistake, as the original was a much loved exhilarating film, which captured the tension perfectly to keep you on the edge of your seat. When this one came out, I realized it was not the same; and not as good. Director Tony Scott was trying too hard to keep the audience attracted. The main change in this film was the modernization, such as the man on the train streaming images to his girlfriend.The 1974 film was a marvel of economy and concise realism. The 2009 version, perhaps like New York itself, is flashier and far less gritty. The camerawork is busier, the effects are expensive, the colours louder. The soundtrack, a bastard mix of rocky techno and crude drum 'n' bass, recalls a car advertisement from 1996.Overall, I would recommend the earlier version of this film, as it is just so brilliant and original. Terror these days comes in the form of viruses or hijacked aeroplanes. John Travolta in a goatee just won't cut it.

The story is simple - bad guy John Travolta and pals hijack a train in the subway and hold the city to ransom - do they get the money - yes they do - do they get to spend the money - buy the DVD and find out. I remember watching the original of this story and maybe that is why I was a bit let down with this version.I think that I was expecting more. If you haven't seen the original then this is a good movie. Denzel Washington and John Travolta play their parts well and it is a good movie to kill a couple of hours with on a rainy night.