User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 135 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 90 out of 135
  2. Negative: 21 out of 135

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 29, 2011
    7
    Despite the fact that the movie suffered painful cliches during the whole time, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is a great,fast paced remake of the 1974 original (never saw it though). The movie's highlight you would want to watch is the frenzied cinematography of director Tony Scott as well as the tense acting of John Travolta and Denzel Washington.
  2. Sep 10, 2010
    7
    The perfect rental. Not very substantial, but always entertaining and very intense when it needs to be. Denzel and Travolta's good/bad guy relationship is the star of the show here.
  3. Feb 1, 2011
    5
    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 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 losesI'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
  4. Aug 28, 2010
    6
    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 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 personThe 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
  5. Nov 10, 2010
    3
    I'm a Travolta fan, and a big Denzel fan, but together they just plain blew. The whole time you're just waiting for the movie to get good and it never does. Not to mention the ending was horrible.
  6. Jan 6, 2011
    4
    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!
  7. Oct 11, 2011
    6
    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 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 mainNot 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. Collapse
  8. Dec 4, 2011
    4
    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 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 realityThe 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
  9. Aug 25, 2012
    6
    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.
  10. Nov 28, 2012
    5
    Save for the two impressive lead performances, it's pretty ridiculous.
  11. Apr 17, 2013
    6
    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 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 stylishI'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
  12. Jul 6, 2013
    5
    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.
  13. Sep 1, 2013
    8
    You can wish for more out of a movie, but "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3," is more than fine. The talk between John Travolta and Denzel Washington was very interesting the whole way. Honestly the whole movie is interesting all the way to the end.
  14. Nov 16, 2013
    5
    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.
  15. Apr 23, 2014
    7
    The remake of this great action caper isn't as bad as most will say. It might not be that faithful to the original's methods of storytelling and thrills, but it is still a good effort. It's nice to see present-day actors like Travolta and Denzel pull this thing off.
  16. Aug 22, 2014
    8
    Only posting this because I think this movie is a bit underrated. I haven't watched the 1974 original, but I must say that this is expertly crafted, with two great actors on the main roles - Denzel Washington and John Travolta - performing outstandingly, with great charisma. The movie, while presenting a pretty straightforward hostage situation plot (and some awkward subplots, like theOnly posting this because I think this movie is a bit underrated. I haven't watched the 1974 original, but I must say that this is expertly crafted, with two great actors on the main roles - Denzel Washington and John Travolta - performing outstandingly, with great charisma. The movie, while presenting a pretty straightforward hostage situation plot (and some awkward subplots, like the teen couple), is very intense with suspense being almost palpable at certain moments.
    So, know this: Tony Scott (rest in peace) didn't make bad movies. And Denzel Washington doesn't star in bad movies. So when Washington stars in a film by Scott, it just can't go wrong. And it didn't.
    Expand
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 34
  2. Negative: 4 out of 34
  1. Curiously, despite the ever-energetic Tony Scott at the throttle, the sleek new edition isn't as transporting as it should have been.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    More than anything a fascinating portrait of how much New York has changed in 35 years, the film delivers the goods in excitement and big-star charisma.
  3. Watching this Pelham--a money job from its conception--you can believe that there's no other motivation on Earth.