The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

While director Tony Scott's brash and boisterous take on the material may lack that certain '70s quirkiness, it gets just about everything else exactly right.

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.

Gripping and compelling, and doesn't make us wish we had checked our brains at the theater entrance.

The movie is slick, predictable and, thanks mainly to Washington's canny underplaying, fairly diverting.

Yet most of the film's energy is generated by flamboyant cinematography and music-video cutting, and much of that energy is false.

Pelham One was first class. Pelham Two stuck to the schedule. Pelham Three needs a bus pass.

Loud, abrasive, and featuring performances seemingly calibrated to be heard over the cacophonous roar of Travolta's mad, bad overacting.

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.

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 .

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 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.

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.

A good Denzel, an acceptable Travolta, some action and a mediocre script. It was with little expectation that I saw this movie, since I already guessed that, being a pure action movie, it would not be particularly remarkable. I didn't know it was a remake of an older movie, nor did I bother to see that movie because I didn't even find it. The movie basically talks about a hostage situation inside a New York subway carriage. Nothing original, we've seen better things in other movies. There are dead, there are innocent victims, there are good doses of action for those looking for it, but there is no firm plot behind it. What we have are basic premises that lead to the situation that is happening. There are two characters who stand out (the cynical and ruthless kidnapper leader and the innocent subway traffic technician he insists on negotiating) who dominate the film, and everything else boils down to action, an attempt of permanent tension where everyone's lives are at stake. But the tension is so artificial that I never truly felt it because it was already guessed that all, or almost all, would save themselves in the end. Denzel Washington and John Travolta bring the film's central characters to life, and their relationship is truly strong and can keep audiences interested in what's going on. Proof of this are the careful and interesting dialogues between both characters. Travolta, nonetheless, is an actor who does not work hard, leaving the hard work to Denzel. The rest of the actors are doing what they can, but the material given to them is small and bad. James Gandolfini, John Turturro and others are strongly affected and I doubt they have fond memories of this movie. Technically, the movie is regular, not to say rather mediocre. From this negative scenario, however, there is a very decent soundtrack that goes against what we expect in an action movie, and an interesting cinematography, with good light and shadow, the faded colors at the expense of greater camera movement. Effects that would have accentuated the audience's sense of discomfort ... if they had not already fallen asleep with the boring, predictable and slow script that is presented.