This list is complied from the films mentioned in Jack Lehtonen's Mubi list on vulgar auteurism, the films mentioned in…
The Taking of Pelham 123
I can't get it out of my head. I'm gonna die today.
Armed men hijack a New York City subway train, holding the passengers hostage in return for a ransom, and turning an ordinary day's work for dispatcher Walter Garber into a face-off with the mastermind behind the crime.
Tony Scott did action films with a real popcorn flavor. This remake of Joesph Sargent's superior 1974 film may have had two headline actors in the shape of Denzel Washington and John Travolta, but it didn't have the gritty tension and flair that Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau delivered in spades.
The plot is simple, a group of gunmen hijack a New York subway train and ask for a ransom. Obviously there's more to the story than that, but it's played out as just that, a hijacking. Political issues and a scandalous backdrop for MTA dispatcher Washington add to the intrigue but it's the shouty hijacker played by Travolta who really takes center stage. He's motivated, full of anger and…
I give this film a fully voiced, resounding and heart felt: 'Meh'
I know all of you will probably disagree with me on this one but i loved this movie, i just love denzel Washington and once again he's delivered a fantastic performance and so does john travolta, I mean seriously denzel Washington is fucking awesome listen to the list of movies he's starred in training day, taking of pelham 123, american gangster, flight, crimson tide, man on fire, the equalizer, glory, de ja vu, ricochet, the great debaters, Malcolm x and the inside man this guy is a legend.
The plot is taking the piss by numbers, Denzel really stretches himself and Travolta plays a much camper version of that guy in Swordfish (so, some would say, less of a stretch for him). Even Turturro seems transplanted in from Transformers. The only character that departs from cliché is Gandolfini's NY Mayor, who shows signs of actual wit and a bit of inteligence (a tribute to Rudy Giuliani no doubt, who's given the position a lick of respect). Instantly forgettable, the trademark T.Scott hyperactive, hyperstylised editing soon gets tiresome. Watch Unstoppable instead or pay to see 'Money Train' again (which is so bad and cheesy it's bordering on good) and help Wesley Snipes pay off some of his tax bill.
Compensation of Invisibility (theme) - In script form essentially just talking heads; conversing, relaying, stating respective New York class ideologies, etc. Yet with T. Scott, their words take on more heft – the camera movements essentially make them travel between each location and physically manifest; they’re bridges between a series of screens. Wholly appropriate that Travolta’s financial gain is seen on a laptop, and failed when attempted to be delivered in person.
Belief in Visibility (decoration) - The pans across the cart; its windows covered in specks of rain. The shutter speeds and freeze-frames; Tony still somehow seeing beauty in stasis. That gotdamn shot of the bullet-hole in the window.
Short Review: I remember when this came out, it seems like I saw nothing but bad reviews, with oodles of people claiming it doesn't beat the 1970s classic.
Now that I've seen the "classic" one, I have to say...so? As good as the original is, I think this remake is still a blast. The pacing is much higher, the style is really slick and cool (if not a tad overbearing), I think Travolta and Washington are way more colorful characters, and the whole plot is still engaging. I can understand people taking issue with the editing and language, but I think this film is quite underrated.
I Think hollywood seems to have run out of ideas when they remake classics like this one. Don't get me wrong I have an admiration for the late Tony Scott but the film whilst paying homage to the original just doesn't do justice to the original and on a side note the 1998 telemovie version was not much better either. For those who haven't seen either the premise was quite simple, subway train is hijacked, ransom demanded from city of New York within the hour and the story pretty much plays out roughly in real time from there.
I have much admiration for Denzel Washington and John Travolta but I feel that John Travolta's character doesn't exactly scream badass. The…
Tony Scott's over directing aside, the remake does a better than expected job when it comes to living up to one of the greatest films of the 70's. Brian Helgeland's script dives more into the characters, I liked the backstory it gave it to Garber (Denzel Washington). Also who knew Travolta could pull off being a big scary dude. I liked it.
The film balanced the drama, action and humor well. I felt the tension even though at time it was a bit over the top. There was just the right amount of similarities and differences that if you've already seen and enjoyed the 1974 version, it's worth seeing Scott's. It will take you for a ride.
Boa ação. Alguns detalhes são deixados de lado e isso faz com que o suspense não seja tão surpreendente. vale a pena assistir
Unnecessary remake. In 35 years we've gone from smart, clever thrills and droll, amusing repartee to flashy camera rotations and noisy crashes and profane temper tantrums. Denzel is as good as ever - and convincing - but John boy's manic turn doesn't signify a criminal mastermind. Still a good story, but stripped of half the suspense and most of the dry humour. Gimme a good gesundheit anytime over this flashy yet hollow piece.
One of Travoltas best.
Falls apart end...
Some of the producers and writers mention in the extras that the original wouldn't play with today's audience and that it needed an update and Travolta's all like this is pretty much the same movie on steroids. It doesn't all work. Some of the second unit stuff with the police cars are boring and over the top and the resolution isn't as strong as you'd expect. But you can tell this movie has ambitious themes and there's also Tony's insane visuals mixed with his extensive research of how things we see on screen work. Still pretty good.
Not great. Watch the original instead, although it was cool to see what happens when they throw A list talent into a remake of a legendary film. Ugh. Some cool visuals but nothing beats Owen Roizman's cinematography in the 1974 version.
While there are certainly moments where the suspense is palpable, The Taking of Pelham 123 is average at best. It focuses too much on fast cuts and frenetic editing, and it assumes that some sad music and cliched dialogue will substitute as character development. This could have been a good film (I've never seen the original, though it is on the list), but it would have needed a director more focused on character and plot than visual flair.
A surprisingly dull and unnecessary remake made more amusing than it deserves by John Travolta's ridiculously campy performance but also made less enjoyable by Tony Scott's bizarrely nauseating camera work and jarring editing. Never thought I'd long for the professionalism of Michael Bay when it comes to moving the camera but it is what it is.
Denzel was already in Denzel-by-the numbers at this stage which is fine but unspectacular and as familiar as ever. Jack Nicholson used to get a lot of snide remarks for essentially playing himself in every role but surely Denzel has him beat by now; he even tends to dress the same in most of his movies. Gandolfini gives the best performance playing his part against type with some dignity and restraint.
The Guardian's list of 1000 books to read before you die is both inspiring and infuriating. Here is their same…
Here's a collection of films which take place entirely or almost entirely over the course of a 24 hour period…