Read Mixed User Reviews for The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

5

TetsuoFeb 1, 2011

I'm a fan of the book and '74 film starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. When I saw it it was a great idea of updating the setting to post-9/11 New York. The acting from Denzel Washington and John Travolta is good and the film is like aI'm a fan of the book and '74 film starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. When I saw it it was a great idea of updating the setting to post-9/11 New York. The acting from Denzel Washington and John Travolta is good and the film is like a ticking clock film. The biggest problem is that while the first 2 acts are strong, the third and final act turns into a cliche action movie with loses all the momentum. If they chose and final act similar to the book and original film it would of been a lot better.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

MikeYJun 12, 2009

Sort of boring, two good actors saves it.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

6

BobFlJun 13, 2009

Travolta's manic emoting was over the top. Why do screenwriters feel compelled to infect every other line of dialogue with the F word? It's both gratuitous and juvenile.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

RayzorMooseNov 16, 2013

The Taking of Pelham is very entertaining.
Overly qualified actors with an average to poor script mixed with great execution. Plot holes plague this otherwise exciting film, and the directing is good. The film is well paced and theThe Taking of Pelham is very entertaining.
Overly qualified actors with an average to poor script mixed with great execution. Plot holes plague this otherwise exciting film, and the directing is good. The film is well paced and the entertainment value is great. The last half of the movie then becomes sloppy and loses some momentum.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

EvinCAug 12, 2009

Most of the action in this film just seems unnecessary. It is slightly captivating. John Travolta is just too much. Give it up for James Gandolfini being the goofy mayor. He was the best.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JoelSAug 5, 2009

It's not a bad film, its just been done so many times before. Denzel is the same, Travolta's not bad as the villain, but films like this need to be smarter these days. This isn't 1985. We are over Die Hard and Speed-type It's not a bad film, its just been done so many times before. Denzel is the same, Travolta's not bad as the villain, but films like this need to be smarter these days. This isn't 1985. We are over Die Hard and Speed-type movies. Films like Inside Man, which are more intelligent and creative need to be the prototype for dodgy-yet interesting-action movies in the 21st century.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

LaszloSNov 9, 2009

What was the ingenious twist in this movie? That the bad guy is making money on the stock exchange? That the good guy follows the bad guy after he had a chance to escape. No. It s a disappointment. The story could be done in 15 minutes also.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChadS.Jun 14, 2009

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pioneering filmmakers Auguste and Louis Lumiere would be proud. Recalling a nineteenth century bijou audience's reaction to a train arriving at a station(from the short subject film The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pioneering filmmakers Auguste and Louis Lumiere would be proud. Recalling a nineteenth century bijou audience's reaction to a train arriving at a station(from the short subject film "L'arrive d'un train a la ciotat"), a young woman backs away from her computer screen when one of the terrorists discovers her boyfriend's laptop. Since "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" isn't a Japanese horror movie, her agitated state caused by the approaching man is unwarranted. She doesn't cover her face like a moviegoer would during the scary parts(for instance, Hideo Nakata's "Ringu"); she forgets about the physical laws of demarcation, just like those patrons who fled their seats from the speeding locomotive circa 1897. She forgets her twenty-first century sophisticated self for a split second and cowers as if her life was in mortal danger. But a lot has indeed changed since 1974: a self-reflexive moment comments on the Joeph Sargent original, in which Camonetti(John Turturro), the official hostage negotiator, tries to replace Walter Garber(Denzel Washington) as the lead actor by taking over the impending crisis. Ryder(John Travolta), despite being the story's antagonist, on an extra-diegetic level, performs textually as the film's advocate for social change, when he restores Walter to his rightful spot of being the man in charge(the leading man). Sharing the same first name with the original film's star(Walter Matthau played Lt. Garber in the early-seventies "classic"), not only does "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" pay tribute to the late actor, it also comments discreetly on colorblind casting, in which a "man of color" can play a role originally written for a white actor, as Washington did in a fairly recent Broadway production of William Shakespeare's "Julius Cesar" where he played Brutus.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MayaFNov 7, 2009

Seen it, survived it. for the action lovers it might be a little bit boring nd for the philosophers a bit shallow... anyway, already seen in many many movies.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JayHOct 28, 2009

Although it

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JudyTJun 12, 2009

So So Hollywood fare. Denzel and Gandolfino were great but everyone and everything else was jjust medicore.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MikeKJun 13, 2009

Good start, fell apart towards the middle too long a movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

FantasyJun 14, 2009

Fast pace hostage thriller with John Travolta as the BAD guy and Denzel Washington the GOOD guy. Many plot holes in the story as it would have been nice to have character development to see why they became who they were? In the end, the Fast pace hostage thriller with John Travolta as the BAD guy and Denzel Washington the GOOD guy. Many plot holes in the story as it would have been nice to have character development to see why they became who they were? In the end, the movie loses its credibility as Denzel reverts from ordinary Joe Citizen to action hero. The whole premise was ridiculous in the first place. Not a bad movie but not a good one either. A nice way to spend a rainy afternoon.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DarkCriticAug 28, 2010

The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 is a pretty good remake since the 1974 of the original,but not that close. It has good scenes in the subway and some trains that they could ride. But little too much,I see that they swap the scenes that they shootThe Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 is a pretty good remake since the 1974 of the original,but not that close. It has good scenes in the subway and some trains that they could ride. But little too much,I see that they swap the scenes that they shoot every subways and every trains that they located in New York City,but not different location that they where at. I'm more like a subway likable person that I see subways all the time. Denzel Washington is awesome in the cast. John Travolta was too weak as a villian,but okay. It has good scene when they take the hostages by those terrorists at the inside of the train. But it is a okay remake,but the original still is the best.… Expand