Watch
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

2009
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
1h 46m
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 Garbe into a face-off with the mastermind behind the crime.
Your probable score
?

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

2009
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
1h 46m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 35.32% from 2300 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(2300)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 24 Apr 2022
70
38th
Obviously it's not as good as the 1974 original. But director Tony Scott does his usual parts to great impact. I like how this interracial buddy duo has differing views on corruption. The dramatic and tense conversations between action moments rival The Negotiator. And writer Brian Helgeland keeps the twists coming every few minutes. But the movie is bogged down with two silly romance subplots and an ending whose post-racial politics make it seem like sci-fi. Still, recommended for the fun.
Rated 13 Jun 2009
51
33rd
An updated film from the original with an extended and prolonged outstretched roll of pervasive violence and suggestively indecorous language. But after the first partial compartment, it immediately descends and develops into a irritating, exasperating and aggravatedly vexatious crime thriller with an anticlimax. Travolta and Washington are decent, but they can't save this trainwreck.
Rated 22 Jun 2009
2
15th
A fun movie, if not a particularly good one. Travolta hams it up to the extreme, dropping MF-bombs like they're going out of style and telling Tony Soprano to "eat my bunghole," but for what the movie lacks in subtlety (courtesy not only of Travolta, but of Scott's typically overactive direction), it makes up for in intensity and violence - for whatever its flaws, the movie does have a sense of unpredictability (at least until the predictable ending). Still...original is a lot better.
Rated 16 Mar 2022
50
47th
cliche as fuck, there is no any art there but so entertaining for me.
Rated 19 Dec 2009
71
38th
A fairly standard crime thriller that will easily fade into the abyss of crime thrillers out there, not particularly good, not particularly intelligent, and not a particularly wise use of an hour and forty-five minutes. Check the original first, it's better, trust me.
Rated 15 Mar 2010
1
5th
It's an entertaining ride at least, your casual film goers action flick. It even loosely has themes of loyalty, misconduct, bravery and sin. But I'm not sure these were needed, other than to sugar coat it (in other words make it seem like it wasn't really wasting your time). The action parts are good though, and in some points it is actually slightly unpredictable. It's certainly not slow paced.
Rated 15 Mar 2010
3
61st
Between jarring jump-cuts and over-editing there's a solid thriller to be found. The movie takes a turn for the bizarre when the hitherto milquetoast switch operator (Washington) inexplicably transforms into an action movie star, but if you suspend disbelief long enough to accept it, it succeeds as moronic entertainment.
Rated 22 Oct 2009
10
6th
Stupid slow motion shots and visual effects. Ridiculous police crashes. Useless filler dialog. John Turturro wasted. Key plot elements missing or changed without reason. Pointless one-liners and random cliches. No style. Comparing this version to the original from 1974 really highlights the general decline in writing, direction, production and cinematography that's been gradually taking place in the American film industry. Do yourself a favor: skip this version and watch original instead.
Rated 16 Mar 2010
80
69th
F'ing ok but the f'ing direction and f'ing editing got f'ing annoying. Travolta was f'ing over-the-top while Denzel is more f'ing believable as Walter Matthau. Not f'ing bad but still pales compared to the f'ing 70's version. BTW the f'ing language is pretty f'ing bad but that's just to make it more f'ing gritty I f'ing guess. Either way I give a moderate f'ing middle finger up.
Rated 05 Oct 2009
60
38th
Though Tony Scott made an absolutely superb remake of Man on Fire Pelham 1 2 3 disappoints. It's not necessarily a bad film as it is generally tense and stylish but the film has it's share of silly character choices and downright mishaps. Travolta gives one of his better performances in recent memory and Denzel is quite good as well. Still this isn't a must see by any means and I'm a fan of Tony Scott.
Rated 14 Jun 2009
45
14th
Tony Scott's attempt at remaking the 1974 classic is a failure, showcasing his infamous MTV-style editing, ridiculous car crashes spliced into the dialogue-driven storyline, and a hamfisted performance from John Travolta. His whiny villain is one of the dopiest characters in a serious movie for quite some time. Scott has zero faith in the story's suspense. Not that the '74 version could be improved much, but this should've at least been an intense showdown between two great actors, and it's not.
Rated 01 Oct 2009
80
52nd
If I wouldn't know that this is a remake from one of the best 70's action thriller I might say: "Great", but I think that Tony Scott's new version stands far behind the original. Okay it is very dark and brutal (the execution on the crossroad is awesome) but what's missing is the black humor that made the original so unique. By all means a watchable action thriller with some good actors like travolta and gandolfini for example.
Rated 04 Oct 2009
29
11th
Very unoriginal plot and some bad directing by Scott. The quality cast underperforms.
Rated 26 Dec 2009
4
34th
Overall rather silly and pointless. Blaring shots of the city being fuzzed up, the timer flashing, unnecessary car scenes lead up to an even more disappointing climax. Tony Scott's decisions were only saved by Travolta and Washington who showed at least a bit of spark and charisma in their roles.
Rated 13 Jun 2009
2
14th
The fairly entertaining and extremely fast-paced first two acts get the thriller blood pumping, but the final act unfortunately spirals into increasing absurdity and a real anticlimax. John Travolta's hyperactive villain is nowhere near as interesting or intimidating as Robert Shaw's icy cool in the original.
Rated 01 Mar 2020
43
18th
Taking of Pelham 123 is an overblown mess, and an ugly one at that. Scott has traded tension for busyness, suspense for cop cars crashing all over the city in bewildering, unnecessary chaos. He cannot let any moment rest. Hell, he can’t even let his damn camera rest! Taking of Pelham 123 is a lazy Sunday movie (I actually did watch on a Sunday while sipping a beer), cranked to 11 by Scott’s batshit direction and inclusion of uncontrolled crashes and noise and dead drama.
Rated 05 Oct 2009
45
22nd
Travolta is a stereotype villain with a bad temper and horrible mustache, and Denzel seems just tired and overstrained - adequate for his character, granted, but his transition from good boy to avenger is as unbelievable as the fabulous profit Ryder makes on the exchange market or the fact that none of the passengers in a driverless speeding train has the brains to pull the emergency brakes. Another pointless remake.
Rated 01 Aug 2009
62
18th
Let me make this simple: Watch the original from '74...
Rated 25 Nov 2009
64
30th
Not terrible. Definitely not great. Tony Scott does what he does, keeps up the pace and never spends much time dwelling on anything that might've been compelling.
Rated 02 May 2014
7
65th
Scott does more in 30 seconds of quick cuts than most do in entire films.
Rated 01 Mar 2011
35
19th
Inferior remake that maintains the suspense for the first half, but falls down after that, when the element of time pressure is inexplicably discarded, and the everyman hero unbelievably decides to take up the cudgels himself against the master criminal. While it remains the case that the hyper-editing style preferred by this director is more than anything a mask attempting to conceal a dearth of any truly interesting filmmaking, it is perhaps less irritating in this case than some others.
Rated 24 Jan 2012
48
18th
Adequate thriller. Leads are solid. Ending falls apart. Pretty meh.
Rated 26 Oct 2014
58
10th
Watch the original instead of this one. Denzel Washington gives another good performance in this film. The script however is a let down. There is a supporting cast but many of them are under used.
Rated 05 Nov 2009
45
15th
I hate John Turturro and over using slow motion. SHITTY ENDING to a mediocre film.
Rated 03 Aug 2017
40
18th
Plays like many of its contemporary high concept thrillers, only the obligatory third act twist never comes.
Rated 18 Dec 2009
56
24th
A by-the-numbers thriller featuring nothing outstanding whatsoever. Peppered with heavy handed editing, and pointless and unfulfilling action set-pieces. There's nothing truly BAD about Pelham, it's just so terribly ordinary.
Rated 10 Nov 2009
50
35th
Passes the time.
Rated 22 Feb 2010
42
40th
Watchable
Rated 16 Jun 2009
69
22nd
While the film isn't horrible (despite Scott's usual distracting editing & utterly arbitrary visual flourishes that he STILL thinks look "cool" ) this update scraps the attention 2 detail & palpable sense of time, place & culture that makes the original such a timeless classic. It also 4gets the power of a great score, the dread that comes w/ sitting in a darkened subway car instead of a lit one, & that the less in control of himself the brains of an operation seems, the less believable he is.
Rated 11 Jun 2009
40
16th
Not bad, even if Travolta's "acting" laid it on pretty thick. I guess the car chase at the end of the movie must be a required sequence in action films now.
Rated 18 Oct 2009
81
26th
A easy one to forget. Doesn't bring any new or original ideas. Weak plot and disapointing movie overall. The hole Washington-Travolta confrontation sucked. Had the feeling : This was it ? Uninspiring and unorgignal movie you can easily miss. Get's some allright points for the first part of the movie, but that's because I thought there would be a part filled with action and excitment after that. But there wasn't..
Rated 09 Aug 2009
75
65th
Tense, exciting and enthralling without action layed thickly in every scene, unfortunately the action is layed thickly between a lot of the scenes cutting up what would otherwise have been a brilliant character study. The relationship between Ryder and Garber is the most interesting I've seen on film all year and is worth taking a trip to the cinema to experience.
Rated 11 Aug 2014
60
4th
A possible testament to the notion that Tony Scott relies too heavily on shock and gimmick may lie in the fact that in his star-filled remake of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, when characters are on the screen taking care of the hostage crisis, the movie is absolutely gripping in that fast-paced, bantering, exciting---albeit very hammy---Hollywood action way, and when they're not, we get some of the dumbest and most artificially inflated scenes I've seen from that very action cycle.
Rated 14 Jun 2009
22
85th
Probably John Travolta's most BA role. He's completely awesome, yet the film lacks motivation/captivation. Although the action and situations were cool the film never really grabs you and tells you: you are emotionally on board with this film. (I know I'm a fag.)
Rated 28 Mar 2010
38
17th
The film leans more towards earthbound heroics than the current norm of high-gloss, physics-bending action nonsense. The approach is best demonstrated by Washington's performance, defined by a certain working class slouch. By contrast, Travolta's acting is so hollow it's a wonder his line readings aren't followed by a quick echo. Overall, Scott characteristically pushes hard with nothing much to say, grinding the movie into the audience with the subtlety of a knee pressed into a larynx.
Rated 24 May 2018
63
39th
Washington and Travolta are decent. The plot was moderately thrilling, though this was more down to how the character relationships would play out. The only thing that stood out was Gandolfini. My main issues were with the direction and editing, favouring unnecessary slow-mo and stuttery action. Overall, not great and about 3 years too late.
Rated 05 Jan 2019
67
34th
B-
Rated 21 Jan 2019
67
53rd
A decent remake of an excellent film.
Rated 30 Oct 2020
50
4th
Viewed October 29, 2020. Eminently watchable, but it'd be a stretch to call it good. Feels like a rough draft in scope and theme for Unstoppable, which is much stronger on the whole.
Rated 12 Apr 2021
100
78th
so good
Rated 05 Oct 2009
45
31st
The film is not technically badly done, but it is a remake totally useless. I've seen several movies with a story like this, with these same characters.
Rated 05 Sep 2010
1
18th
john travolta's magnificent scenery chewage cannot save bad films
Rated 28 Nov 2010
58
24th
I just didn't like this movie. Plot didn't make that much sense, especially at the end of the film with the final confrontation. That shit was pretty retarded. Was slow getting into it, and I didn't really care about any of the characters. Just boring.
Rated 18 Jan 2011
64
10th
I was expecting more to be honest.
Rated 20 Dec 2011
30
3rd
Amazing dialogue and stylish use of Google Maps and freeze-frames with text.
Rated 09 Jan 2010
70
54th
Pretty standard thriller. Good performances, but a bit of an epileptic camera at times.
Rated 06 Jun 2010
50
27th
Man oh man do I dislike Scott's directing style. This film's entertaining in a very basic fast-paced lots of dumb violence way, but in no way is it truly compelling. I have a soft spot for thrillers/hostage movies, so I can comfortably recommend that it's worth a look for any similar type persons. Everyone else, look elsewhere for your disposable entertainment.
Rated 17 Nov 2009
35
23rd
that movie wouldnt have been any different without Guzmán, Turturro & Gandolfini and thats a bad thing, the plot was easily forgettable and boring
Rated 16 Jan 2011
80
41st
Not as good as it should have been considering Denzel was in it. The last 10 minutes were simply stupid.
Rated 01 Nov 2009
62
18th
Good dialog, good acting, but poor story. Also unrealistic ending.
Rated 29 Mar 2011
60
55th
Tony Scott's modern remake of the classic crime thriller, Pelham 123 becomes the vehicle of John Travolta and nothing more. Travolta's portrayal stands above the bland superficiality of Robert Shaw's 1974 performance. Ironically, Walther Matheau's Garber carries the original while Denzel plays the role much closer to the page. Scott continues to use the same old tricks he discovered for Man on Fire and does little with them to establish the film's story.
Rated 09 Nov 2009
60
6th
One of the least suspenseful suspense movies I've ever seen. Total cop-out by Helgeland/Scott - every time the script reaches a potential junction, they just took the easiest and most predictable path. They should not have been paid to make this movie - they should have been fined for making it.
Rated 04 Jan 2011
53
23rd
Meh. I guess I was kind of entertained for most of the movie. Rent if bored.
Rated 25 Aug 2016
45
14th
Haven't seen for years. Placeholder score until I can rewatch
Rated 13 Nov 2009
67
36th
Useless remake, but a bit enjoyable at times. Relatively annoying directing from Tony Scott.
Rated 01 Oct 2010
88
63rd
great
Rated 04 Feb 2010
55
22nd
20100203 - So-so. Very weak plot with various holes. Usual Tony Scott style, but seemed out of place here. Travolta is pretty irritating, but not in a "good" way. Denzel and Turturro pretty solid but not much to work with...
Rated 19 Mar 2010
48
35th
Even though I'm quite fond of the original, & I'm not a fan of Scott's directorial style, I didn't dislike this at all. Plenty of screen time is wasted in needlessly stylized & useless scenes that add little to the film & nothing to the plot. But even so Travolta and Washington prop this film up well. It's a relatively enjoyable, simple thriller, with no shocks. What it lacks is true suspense due to the lack of character development and interaction and Scott's time wasting. Still its not awful.
Rated 04 Feb 2010
70
48th
Decent entertainment and worth a watch but neither outstanding nor very memorable.
Rated 26 Oct 2009
79
51st
Enjoyable.
Rated 16 May 2011
40
7th
Disappointing and forgettable.
Rated 22 Jul 2009
85
44th
This action packed thrill ride kept me well entertained all the way down the line. Recommended.
Rated 22 Oct 2009
50
17th
It started out alright, but as the movie went on, the story just got from worse to stupid. The price of gold going up 150-fold in one day? Come on. And Travolta doesn't even remotely look like a banker, even after a couple years of prison...
Rated 01 Nov 2009
35
20th
The Tony Scott who made Man on Fire seems to be long dead. The characters are flat, the story is lifeless and devoid of tension. I couldn't have cared less if every character had died and more often wished they would. A pale imitation of the original with the cool veneer and heavy guitar riffs of the modern generic action film.
Rated 02 Jan 2010
1
9th
Just see the original.
Rated 29 Nov 2014
55
24th
I hate John Travolta when he's a craaaazy whacko.
Rated 12 May 2011
38
21st
Oh man, you gotta love that green color palette (I'm being ironic). Overall, this film looks like someone just installed film editing software on their computer and is having too much fun with presets under 'summer blockbuster' tab - slow-mos, freeze-frames and fast-forwards never stops. Bad guy is horrible both character and acting-wise. Aside from all that, its pretty decent thriller (I'm still being ironic).
Rated 06 Aug 2009
60
40th
Tony Scott, if you know what to expect before hand, you get it. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh, plus Turturro.. I would watch him just farting, and enjoy it..
Rated 15 May 2010
70
14th
This is an OK movie if you don't compare it to the Mathau/Shaw version. Unfortunately if you do it doesn't not stand the comparison well.
Rated 17 Jan 2011
25
5th
+ avoid at all costs
Rated 14 Jun 2009
60
32nd
Travolta can be fun, likable, and witty; in this one he just screams "MOTHERFUCKER!" for two straight hours. Also, apparently every action movie now needs a mandatory car chase, no matter how arbitrary or ridiculous.
Rated 21 Aug 2009
70
58th
Good one. When we see Travolta in a movie we know the film either's great or sucks and this one is really good imo. The story is really not difficult, but really easy to follow, no special things in the plotline which makes it very entertaining and relaxing to follow. Some things could have been better, but nothing really bothered me see that's ok. Realexing and entertaining movie to see
Rated 02 Apr 2017
29
7th
Tony Scott made bad movies. Everyone sleepwalks through this one.
Rated 16 Nov 2009
70
29th
Pretty lukewarm.
Rated 20 Feb 2011
72
75th
I actually thought it would be worse than that: stylish as you can expect from Tony Scott, 1 2 3 is absolutely uncompromised entertaining.
Rated 28 Mar 2011
55
54th
I didn't dislike the film, but I wasn't captivated by it either. There were some thrilling instances, but not enough to carry the entire film. Travolta's character was one that was almost impossible to take seriously just because of how over-the-top he is played, while the story was basic enough and without any real twists to keep you engaged. The dynamic between Garber and Ryder was fun to watch, but the rest falls flat. Somewhat thrilling, but not enough to say it's a "must watch" film.
Rated 17 Jun 2009
58
26th
Yet another loud, obnoxious movie added to the American collection, with a loud, obnoxious, evil-laugh villain. It's watchable thanks to Denzel's mere presence, but it would be interesting watching him read a newspaper so that doesn't count. I guess until 18 to 34 year old's get sick of this type of brainless crap we'll be stuck with it for the rest of our lives.
Rated 04 Aug 2009
60
58th
The update works out okay. The extended depth of story was pretty interesting, although at the cost of other characters becoming shadows. What's fascinating is seeing this 1974 story through the 2009 filter. Overall i would say it's far less realistic, a sort of pumped up showoff, which may be indicative of how we want to see our entertainment, or ourselves.
Rated 11 Jan 2010
40
29th
Feels like I've seen this before. 36 times.
Rated 21 Oct 2010
15
21st
"Are Tony Scott's films actually directed by Google Earth?" - Nick Schager
Rated 03 Jul 2010
30
20th
I wanted to like this...but I felt both actors did not fit in this movie and the dialog back and forth seemed really lame...the movie as a whole had a few tension mins but it was bad
Rated 05 Jun 2013
60
47th
http://gorgview.com/the-taking-of-pelham-1-2-3
Rated 24 May 2016
83
60th
nice
Rated 19 Sep 2010
50
23rd
A mundane movie that Tony Scott tries to spice up with over-stylized editing. A ridiculous antagonist that only memorable quality is his over-emphatic use of the term "mother fucker." A moment where you could tell the writers thought, "Man we could use an action scene to make this movie more entertaining...let's make a pointless car "chase" scene with random crashes." Truly a forgettable movie.
Rated 31 Mar 2010
85
48th
travolta and denzel, killer combo is only reason movie was this good
Rated 12 Jul 2011
50
8th
In every respect worse than the original.
Rated 13 Sep 2012
73
49th
Both Denzel and John were good. Denzel is alwys calm in high pressure situations.
Rated 24 Dec 2010
1
0th
Pelham 123 exploits urban anxiety without relief or understanding. Using exacerbation as entertainment, it is simply an I HATE NY ad.
Rated 18 Sep 2013
60
22nd
60.000
Rated 29 Jun 2009
94
65th
An excellent, suspenseful thriller with a strong Christian, redemptive worldview, but it is marred by a whole lot of strong foul language and some intense, very strong depicted violence where people are shot multiple times.
Rated 31 May 2011
4
2nd
Another mindless action flick. If that's what one is in the mood for on one of those wintery/stormy Saturday nights it works. Get your popcorn or your nachos and watch Travolta/Washington do their bit.
Rated 01 Oct 2009
60
13th
Actually pretty boring.
Rated 28 Aug 2012
47
15th
This movie is fairly watchable, but you never forget your watching a poor film. Travolta is especially bad, while Denzel does his admirable best to add some level of credibility to the film.
Rated 17 Dec 2009
78
44th
Washington and Travolta enough said.
Rated 21 Dec 2009
81
57th
Surprisingly plausible and well played. Good dialogues. Action scenes are exaggerated. Not needed.
Rated 09 Oct 2009
72
47th
It was fairly enjoyable but feels a bit flat by the end, I haven't seen the original. Not convinced by some of the dialog.
Rated 30 Jan 2010
68
16th
This movie was not nearly as good as the original.
Rated 20 Dec 2011
43
5th
hahahhahaha this was really terrible
Rated 17 Dec 2013
40
16th
Lots of blood and cursing to try and make up for really silly scenes that are unnecessary.
Rated 01 Jun 2013
35
39th
Not a terrible remake, but Scott's frenetic editing style doesn't really match the slow-paced tension-builder story that this is supposed to be. Standalone it's not a bad movie, but the original treats the source material way better.

Collections

(22)
Compact view
Showing 1 - 22 of 22 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...