keithdavid-31173 This is a remake of an older film made in the 1070s and judging by other reviews- an improvement. It is an intense ride and both Denzel Washington and John Travolta shine. The late Tony Scott excelled in making certain types of films and this is the kind of film that he was happiest making, as opposed to elder brother Ridley who tends to choose more cerebral fare. Taking of Pelham 123 is a ride you don't wanna miss. Go see it.

Michael Ledo I enjoyed the action in the movie and the inter-play between Washington and Travolta. Travolta comes across as a guy who has thought of everything, up until the movie gets into the end play. At this point you have to wonder what the character was thinking about how he could make an escape with the money, and get away with it. At this point the movie breaks down.

Scott LeBrun Author John Godey's premise gets reinvented for the technology-driven 21st century in this second screen adaptation of his work. Denzel Washington stars as Walter Garber, an NYC subway system dispatcher who just happens to field the call of the movies' villain. That man is "Ryder" (John Travolta), who holds the passengers of a subway car for ransom. $10,000,000.01 to be exact. But the catch is that the money must be delivered in exactly ONE HOUR. And Ryder is willing to kill hostages as punishment for not meeting his demands to the letter.Washington and the late director Tony Scott once again team up for undemanding, technically slick thrills. Part of the problem, though, is that the presentation is often TOO flashy, with a camera that sometimes refuses to stay still. For this viewer, that approach always seems to be saying that the filmmakers don't quite trust the material. Scott is able to generate some excitement, and tension, but the story doesn't have the same impact as it did in the 1974 version.In terms of the bad guys, Travolta really is the only one to leave an impression. The Brian Helgeland script gives Luis Guzman, as a participant in Ryders' scheme, precious little to do, and the other two guys who are in on it come across as one dimensional ciphers. Travolta is definitely good, and charismatic, in a fairly flamboyant portrayal, but it's Washingtons' efficient, low key performance as a working man caught up in an escalating situation that holds the movie together.An excellent supporting cast is on hand to provide their expertise: John Turturro as a crack hostage negotiator, James Gandolfini as the mayor, John Benjamin Hickey as the deputy mayor, Michael Rispoli as Garbers' boss, Gary Basaraba as a motorman, Aunjanue Ellis as Garbers' wife, etc.There's some cringe inducing dialogue along the way, but some decent moments as well. But this version of "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" really starts to derail once it insists on turning Garber into a typical action movie hero.Watchable but uninspired.Six out of 10.

aramis-112-804880 Just to clear the air: I read the novel before seeing the 1974 version, and found it unfocused and therefore uninteresting. As for the 1974 movie, it was okay but not a flick I ever warmed to. I'm all for remakes from novels, especially when the first versions were dogs.So I came into this "The Taking of Pelham 123" without any prejudices against it.Touted as a post-9/11 version of the story, I was interested in seeing the changes made to the story. It was nicely updated, as it had to be. But I had no sense of characters, only types. In the novel, in the first movie, as poor as they were, they at least had passengers stand out as people, and therefore one could feel for their situations. Not here. And the first movie had actors like Martin Balsam and Robert Shaw, capable of investing their slight roles with characterizations that stood out even in their disguises.The strangest change is in the main characters. Rather than mere cops-and-robbers fare (as in the book and the 1974 movie, where Walter Matthau was the cop tracking down the bad guys who are willing to kill innocents for money, the "good guy" (Denzel Washington) is some sort of dispatcher (not being a New Yorker and never having ridden on a subway, I don't know the proper terminology). And the script, and the characters, keep blurring the lines between the "good guy" and the "bad guy." But whereas Robert Shaw in the original movie (I don't remember what he was in the book) was a mercenary soldier who teamed with a disgruntled and unfairly fired transit. And here is where it gets interesting. The movie makers raised the point of 9/11. On 9/11 New York and Washington were bombed by extremist Islamic terrorists, killing innocents in two cities who had done no worse crime than going to work in the morning. In this version of "Pelham" the lead baddie, who takes over the train and threatens to kill, is a Catholic, who likes to debate a perverted version of Original Sin. He's so philosophic you'd think he'd have boned up on it and got it right (I wonder how Travolta would have liked it if the lead terrorist had been a Scientologist debating a twisted notion of what L. Ron Hubbard said).Not only is the bad guy Catholic, he's also no longer a soldier of fortune teamed up with a disgruntled former worker. The worker unfairly fired by the government is no longer an important part of the story. The leader is a former Wall Street investing bigwig who did time and who is cleverly manipulating the stock market.While protesting that the update is a post 9/11 take on the story Hollywood has managed to plug in their bigotries (Christians, Wall Street types, etc.). Though no expert on the matter, I'm not even sure a devout Christian would be a Wall Street type at all, much less a dishonest one. The whole thing makes sense only in Hollywood.Or in New York, apparently. Living out in the wholesome, fresh-aired, clean countryside I don't enjoy "gritty city" movies. It's hardly an advertisement for New York and it only makes anyone dwelling on the other side of the George Washington Bridge wonder why folks want to live in such a hellhole.