Columbia Pictures | Release Date: June 12, 2009
6.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 159 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
80
Mixed:
58
Negative:
21
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
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 the
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
6
JayHOct 28, 2009
Although it
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
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
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. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
seiferJan 6, 2011
This movie could use some work, it seems as though it was made in a space a 1hr... because it's tripe... but with some advantages... NO further discussion... so 4!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
rotkuOct 11, 2011
Not a patch on the original movie but not hideous either. I thought the train passengers were under used and there was no real character building for the gang members, (Travolta excluded) having said that I enjoyed the movie although howNot a patch on the original movie but not hideous either. I thought the train passengers were under used and there was no real character building for the gang members, (Travolta excluded) having said that I enjoyed the movie although how wrong can you go with the talents or John Travolta & Denzel Washington (and even though the part was much smaller James Gandolfini) which were the main reasons the movie reached a decent level. Turned into a cliche in the end but worth a watch none the less. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Jefflyn90Dec 4, 2011
The script removes everything that is memorable from the first film and yet tries to burden the main characters with complicated back stories which you won't really understand. Although the director's style of editing and blurring images doThe script removes everything that is memorable from the first film and yet tries to burden the main characters with complicated back stories which you won't really understand. Although the director's style of editing and blurring images do give it the upper hand sometimes, its a big pity that a crash scene steals the spotlight from the main event. Also with these types of films reality is normally not a problem, but it becomes so disengaging that its difficult to get by the miracle internet connection in the subway, how Ryder is hoping to profit from the heist and the fact that Garber seems to be the only one who knows the subway. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
dev92Aug 25, 2012
Tony Scott produces another decent film despite all the cliches and the ridiculous look that John Travolta was wearing. A solid popcorn cruncher which will please most action fans without rocking the boat very much.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
Save for the two impressive lead performances, it's pretty ridiculous.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
A_NorthernerApr 17, 2013
I'm going to get straight to it, upset fans of the original and say that on the whole I quite enjoyed this film. Don't get me wrong it is definitely not without it's flaws, none more so than the hugely anti-climatic ending, cut-out bad guysI'm going to get straight to it, upset fans of the original and say that on the whole I quite enjoyed this film. Don't get me wrong it is definitely not without it's flaws, none more so than the hugely anti-climatic ending, cut-out bad guys (except Travolta) and terrible character writing for James Gandolfini's Mayor but up until the ending I enjoyed Tony Scott's fast paced and stylish direction and Washington's performance. The opening sequence, in which the train is hijacked, is a fantastic sequence of New York both above and below ground, framed through quickly edited long-taken blurred shots of colourful taxis and trains all played out to Jay-Z's 99 Problem's.

Travolta's role see him reprise his familiar, unhinged and over the top villain from Face/Off (as Cage) that I can cope with in reasonable doses. Unfortunately, he is given a really clichéd profanity heavy script that doesn't do the film any favours.

The film works best when Ryder and Garber are separate and playing traditional roles of terrorist and negotiator and begins to stall when Garber leaves the office to meet up with Ryder. The less said about the film's ending the better.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
abhinabJul 6, 2013
The plot is not that interesting but the acting of Denzel Washington is pretty good. The message is not clearly viewed. Th ending is rather stunning and not surprising, overall its averaged.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
CineAutoctonoDec 7, 2015
Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 was a film was almost interesting, because very boring , just, but a ransom for a hijacked train, is a risky mission and somewhat interesting, because there is not much to play cards .
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
EpicLadySpongeApr 4, 2016
Pelham 1 has been found just standing right there without any movement. Pelham 2 is just moving all over the place with no aim to go to. Pelham 3 and their rides have been canceled for these people's safety.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
BroyaxJan 18, 2017
On va commencer par ce qui fonctionne, ça ira plus vite. Travolta (ré)endosse son rôle de méchant cabotineur de Broken Arrow (entre autres) et déroule tranquillement ses dialogues de vilain excentrique tantôt agité, tantôt rigolard avec bienOn va commencer par ce qui fonctionne, ça ira plus vite. Travolta (ré)endosse son rôle de méchant cabotineur de Broken Arrow (entre autres) et déroule tranquillement ses dialogues de vilain excentrique tantôt agité, tantôt rigolard avec bien entendu le grand méchant bouc et les lunettes de soleil trop stylées. Il s'agit donc de son numéro de poseur dont il a le secret mais prenez garde, car il ne fait que ça pendant tout le film (je demande donc aux personnes nerveusement sensibles de garder leurs distances).

En contrepoint, on a le Washington habituel, à savoir le héros qui a pissé à côté de la cuvette mais qui, l'oeil humide de remords, avoue sa faute, sa très grande faute et remporte l'absolution du spectateur parce qu'il est le héros et que le monde a besoin de lui parce qu'il doit sauver le monde (cf A l'épreuve du feu -entre autres). Il porte le gentil bouc du bon père de famille et les lunettes de la Sécurité Sociale (s'il existait une Sécu aux US, cela va de soi).

John Turturro est donc le seul acteur normal qui fait son boulot... normalement. Il détonne du coup considérablement dans ce merdier.

Le scénario perd pied très souvent et se noie dans moult incohérences et on ne lui en tiendrait pas grand grief si la réalisation de Ridley... pardon Tony Scott savait au moins se tenir correctement. Hélas, comme un sale petit morveux qui se lève de table pour faire des conneries, Tony agite sa caméra, la secoue, l'accélère, la saccade au ralenti, lui rajoute du flou et monte le tout un peu trop rapidement. Oh bien sûr, on reste loin des "cadors" Liman, Greengrass ou Bay mais tout de même, ça fait désordre.

En fait, on ne sait plus trop pourquoi on continue de regarder cette pantalonnade hollywoodienne percluse de tics et de tocs... sans doute parce qu'on a pas fini le pop-corn et qu'il faudrait se lever pour chercher une autre bière. Car on doit lui reconnaître ça : on ne s'y ennuie pas !
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews