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.
In early afternoon, four armed men hijack a subway train in Manhattan. They stop on a slight incline, decoupling the first car to let the rest of the train coast back. Their leader is Ryder; he connects by phone with Walter Garber, the dispatcher watching that line. Garber is a supervisor temporarily demoted while being investigated for bribery. Ryder demands $10 million within an hour, or he'll start shooting hostages. He'll deal only with Garber. The mayor okays the payoff, the news of the hostage situation sends the stock market tumbling, and it's unclear what Ryder really wants or if Garber is part of the deal. Will hostages, kidnappers, and negotiators live through this? Written by
In the novel, the first time we meet the Mayor is at his mansion, having a tryst with a monk, and not on another train like the remake. In the remake, his marriage is in trouble but not for the same reason. The Mayor (Sam in the novel) even considers letting the hijackers keep the train because New York doesn't have a million dollars, which was a lot of money in 1973 when the book was written. See more »
When Walter is chasing Ryder through New York in the taxi cab, the truck makes the sounds of a V8 gasoline vehicle. The truck that he commandeers is a Ford Super Duty with a diesel Powerstroke engine. See more »
Put Garber on the line!
To be honest, Mr. Garber has gone home.
Put Garber on the fucking line or I'll kill the motorman!
I guarantee you, Mr. Ryder, that I am the best person for you to be talking to right now. Just give me a moment and I'll explain why.
You were always going to be the first one to go.
[shoots Jerry several times]
Mr. Camonetti, you have 60 fucking seconds before I kill another, okay?
See more »
At the end of the opening credits, the director's name, Tony Scott, "follows" the train into the tunnel. See more »
Decent entertainment, but doesn't hold a candle to the original
I went to the this most recent remake of Pelham 1-2-3 (most don't even recall the made-for-TV version filmed in Toronto - with good reason) with an open mind. I was weened on Godey's book when 8, and saw the original film when it was released a few years later. I've committed practically every line and scene to memory. I'll admit.... I'm biased. I felt the original could not be successfully remade... the gritty feel, the outstanding David Shire soundtrack, the believable performances of the ensemble cast..... and I was right. I did not go into the theater hoping to hate the remake, but instead to like it. I REALLY wanted to like it. I have always enjoyed both Denzel Washington and John Travolta in their various endeavors and thought the chemistry might work fine here. While entertaining, it became almost tiresome after a while. I felt no tension, no "edge of the seat" sensation that the original brought, I found myself disliking most of the characters and really not caring what happened to them. It passed the time, had some thrills, but that was about it for me.
The '09 version is entertaining, with some excellent action scenes and more than a few decent dialog exchanges between characters, but it is nothing more than a Tony Scott action movie dressed up as "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". While starting off liking Washington's character (now disgraced MTA administrator-turned dispatcher Walter Garber, as opposed to Detective Zachary Garber in the book and original screen incarnation), I found, as the movie progressed, that he went from believable to just another two-dimensional action movie hero who, if he was what as he really started out as being, would not have ended up doing what he did in the film. Sorry, no spoilers here gang. You'll have to go judge for yourselves.
Travolta was dynamic, putting in a great performance, but I found his manic characterization not befitting as the supposed master-mind of the criminal plot involved. Remarkably, there were three other hijackers in the movie. I don't know why Scott even bothered including them. They were not only ineffectual characters with lackluster performances, but totally lacked the dynamic presence and interplay between the hijackers of the original film so much so that you barely even noticed them - or cared. Oh well, I guess it would not have been practical with only one hijacker....
The dizzy camera-work and stylized production were tedious at times and distracting. The soundtrack was, IMHO pure garbage.
Like I said, I found it entertaining, but despite some opinions that the "updated" and "freshened" plot was exhilarating and an improvement on the '74 incarnation, I honestly don't think the Matthau/Shaw/Balsam version need worry about being eclipsed by this remake. Go see it though, as it is fun summer fare and if you have no ties to the original, you'll probably find it relevant. Afterward, do yourself a favor and rent the original. You'll see the way the story was meant to be done.
82 of 115 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?