The Taking of Pelham 123

→ in
Tools    





The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)



Denzel Washington. John Travolta. Need I say more?

Pelham is your classic summer thriller with enough thrown in to keep you interested through its entirety. Its Speed for the next generation, with a star-studded cast that definitely earned their paychecks. In short, The Taking of Pelham 123 harkens back to action adventure flicks from the past, adding new age elements along the way.

Pelham chronicles the hold up of a New York City subway by a psychotic con-man named Ryder(John Travolta). He and a loyal group of followers cleverly disable a single car full of passengers while demanding a large ransom (that old song and dance). A seemingly honest dispatcher named Garber(Denzel Washington) is charged with saving a traincar full of New Yorkers by satisfying Ryder's insatiable greed. The movie has its share of predictablility, but not without a few surprises as well.

The acting in this movie is excellent, as I would be lying if I said Washington was anything short of stunning. Denzel really has a special ability of depicting an unselfish hero, whilst still sustaining the stature of the everyday man. Travolta is suprising, in that he commands the screen with his assertion and attitude. The character of Ryder is unique in the fact that he generally follows through with his threats (making him a real badass). The supporting cast of John Turturro, James Gandolfini, and Luis Guzman rounds out the bill to make Pelham a true blockbuster. Although the plot is not the most unique, there is a certain quality of this film that makes it fresh.

In essence, you get everything you expect out of a good summer thriller. There is plenty of action, a suspenseful storyline, powerful characters, and even a touch of unexpected emotion between Garber and his wife. With a few suprises thrown into the mix, The Taking of Pelham 123 is one you don't want to miss.

__________________
Latest Review: The Ugly Truth



mega bump.

no one saw this?
I did. I liked it a helluva lot more than I thought I would as well.

I posted this bit about it in the movie tab a few days ago:
I didn't expect to like it at all after the negative to mixed reviews labeling it as a typical Hollywood thriller, but I still dragged my butt to the theater. Actually thought it was pretty damn good. I can't relate to the criticism of Travolta's performance either, he did a fantastic job at letting me feel he was on the edge of insanity; that he was about to blow any second.

The film brought much more tension than the 1974 film most likely ever even thought of doing (even though the stupid spinning camera shots almost ruined it). From the look of the trailer, it seemed like it would rely almost solely on special effects and gunfire, but rather centered on building suspense, which it did beautifully.

It did have it's flaws, but it created a new, darker, more realistic vision of John Godey's novel than the 1974 film. I'll get around to writing a full review one of these days.
I'd be glad to read an argument.



Nice review, mate. Never been to big on Johnny Travolta, but absolutely adore Denzel Washington and can watch him in (almost) anything. So the Washington/Scott tag team is still riding relatively high then?

Your review of it makes me think it's superior to the original, which is quite an accomplishment as I watched it ages ago and remember liking it quite a bit.



The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)
Denzel Washington. John Travolta. Need I say more?
Well, you might say this is a remake of an original film starring Walter Mathau as a transit cop (the role "updated" by Washington) vs. a gang of hi-jackers led by Robert Shaw, who played a colder, more calculating thug than Travota can ever hope to. Saw an interview in which the director of the remake talked about how the city of New York is the star of the picture and using all these great locations. Yet at least a couple of reviewers say actual views of the city are brief and primarily at M-TV speed.

I'd like to see a comparision by someone in the forum who has seen both films. From the ads I've seen on TV, the remake looks much less interesting that original, especially those scenes with Travolta who I've always had trouble believing as a tough-guy--a hold-over from his roles as Vinny, and in Saturday Night Fever and especially in Urban Cowboy, I guess.



I never saw the original, therefore I cannot make a comparison.

I think that those who saw the original, as is the case with most remakes, will like the original better no matter what



Well, you might say this is a remake of an original film starring Walter Mathau as a transit cop (the role "updated" by Washington) vs. a gang of hi-jackers led by Robert Shaw, who played a colder, more calculating thug than Travota can ever hope to. Saw an interview in which the director of the remake talked about how the city of New York is the star of the picture and using all these great locations. Yet at least a couple of reviewers say actual views of the city are brief and primarily at M-TV speed.

I'd like to see a comparision by someone in the forum who has seen both films. From the ads I've seen on TV, the remake looks much less interesting that original, especially those scenes with Travolta who I've always had trouble believing as a tough-guy--a hold-over from his roles as Vinny, and in Saturday Night Fever and especially in Urban Cowboy, I guess.
I never saw the original, therefore I cannot make a comparison.

I think that those who saw the original, as is the case with most remakes, will like the original better no matter what
I saw both within the last few months or so. Anyway, I like the original a bit better, but I was incredibly surprised that the remake was actually... good, despite the painfully mediocre look it had in the trailer.

But, the two films are very different, thus difficult to compare. The original is a fun, casual, thrilling and clever little crime film, whereas the new one is incredibly dark, and paced as fast a machine-gun.



My main problem with the remake (which I've yet to see) is the casting of Travolta as the 'lead villain'. I immediately think of his performance in Swordfish and Broken Arrow and the trailer I saw didn't dissuade me from that pov. However, if it's as different as film from the original as some have said, then maybe it'll work in the context of the film. Here's hoping, because this is one of the few remakes that I've ever looked forward to seeing.



My main problem with the remake (which I've yet to see) is the casting of Travolta as the 'lead villain'. I immediately think of his performance in Swordfish and Broken Arrow and the trailer I saw didn't dissuade me from that pov. However, if it's as different as film from the original as some have said, then maybe it'll work in the context of the film. Here's hoping, because this is one of the few remakes that I've ever looked forward to seeing.
I completely agree on this, but I can't imagine liking the remake more than the original.



I saw both within the last few months or so. Anyway, I like the original a bit better, but I was incredibly surprised that the remake was actually... good, despite the painfully mediocre look it had in the trailer.

But, the two films are very different, thus difficult to compare. The original is a fun, casual, thrilling and clever little crime film, whereas the new one is incredibly dark, and paced as fast a machine-gun.
I again caught the last quarter of the original on TV last night while flipping channels, and "fun, casual" is not how I'd describe it. Robert Shaw played as cold and calculating killer as any ever put on screen, who refuses to extend his deadline by even 15 minutes before shooting a hostage if the ransom is not delivered. (Shaw and his gang go by fake names during the hijack--Mr. Brown, Mr. Green, Mr. Gray--just like the much later Reservoir Dogs.) And the chaos on New York City streets as police race first to get the money to the hijackers and then to follow the speeding subway was as realistic and exciting as another car-chase after a subway in The French Connection. I especially liked the chaos in the central subway control room where a city transportation supervisor is worrying more about the disruption of the subway system and the approaching end-of-day rush hour while Mathau is negotiating to save the threatened hostages. ("It will take forever to get this system back in order!" he screams.) Plus the panic among the passengers on the captured subway. Thrilling and clever, yes. Fun and casual, no.



My main problem with the remake (which I've yet to see) is the casting of Travolta as the 'lead villain'. I immediately think of his performance in Swordfish and Broken Arrow and the trailer I saw didn't dissuade me from that pov. However, if it's as different as film from the original as some have said, then maybe it'll work in the context of the film. Here's hoping, because this is one of the few remakes that I've ever looked forward to seeing.

Meh, it's alright. It at least distinguishes itself from the original a lot, but that's it's biggest strength. Other than that..mildly entertaining but forgettable is the best I can put it right now. Your suspicious about Johnny Travolta are spot on. His character is a combination of the Swordfish/Punisher/Face off portrayed in the past. Nothing knew was really brought to the table by him.

Unsurprisingly Denzel is likeable but his heroics towards the end of the film are boderline ridiculous, even for a film like this.

On a really positively side Chris from The Wire pops up



Movie Forums Extra
I couldn't get into this movie at all. I'd like the old John Travolta back (think Pulp Fiction)!!!!
__________________
www.spoiler.tv



Just wish they would have taken out a couple quick fixes to make it pg-13.