Featured Audience Ratings

• John M

  
  Im not sure how good the original wsa but this was a different take on your normal terrorist/criminal hostage movie. Decent acting, ok action. It was what it was.

• Eric A

  
  I've never seen the original so I can't make a comparison there, but I felt the movie stood alone on its own very well. Denzel was Denzel (great as always), even playing a more relaxed role as a control room operator. I thought John Travolta was very good and convincing,… More
  I've never seen the original so I can't make a comparison there, but I felt the movie stood alone on its own very well. Denzel was Denzel (great as always), even playing a more relaxed role as a control room operator. I thought John Travolta was very good and convincing, especially after not having seen him in films for a while. All in all, I thought the film was great and "at least" average; the scores on RT don't do it any justice....they should be higher.

• Directors C

  
  [img]http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon14.gif[/img] Having nothing more than vague knowledge about the original, I watched this not knowing what i'd get from it, and considering it's a remake of a cult action thriller, I was preparing myself for the… More
  [img]http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon14.gif[/img] Having nothing more than vague knowledge about the original, I watched this not knowing what i'd get from it, and considering it's a remake of a cult action thriller, I was preparing myself for the worst. But what really surprised me about The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is the amount of negative reactions it's actually recieved. It's not as bad as you might think. It's purely a simple, straight forward, above average thriller with a genius premise that gets executed decently, with enough unique traits to make it stand on it's own far enough from it's inspiration. It boasts several good performances, most notably Denzel Washington and John Travolta who aren't seen much on screen together but still share good hero and villian chemistry through out their time playing mind games with eachother over nothing more than a couple of measely microphones. I personally didn't find a problem with Tony Scott's fast paced direction. I think it added to the experience and was an interesting way to go trying to distance this version away from it's predecessors. In comparison to the original it's easily much louder and and by miles a lot quicker. The action is relentless, hard hitting and brutal and made me feel like I was in true, believable physical danger. That works remarkably well for it's isolated plot and even though there's a few problems such as it's lacks of character development it's a hell of a lot more stylish, ambitious and suspenseful than a lot of thrillers i've seen recently. I'd definetely say that this is one of the most easily enjoyable, and coolest suspense thriller vehicles that i've seen in a very long time.

• Anthony L

  
  I liked the original Taking of Pelham but I don't think it so good it didn't warrant a remake. That said, I'm not particularly fond of remakes but I was pleasantly surprised with this one. They certainly updated it and made the story a little more realistic in some ways… More
  I liked the original Taking of Pelham but I don't think it so good it didn't warrant a remake. That said, I'm not particularly fond of remakes but I was pleasantly surprised with this one. They certainly updated it and made the story a little more realistic in some ways but then again, they also messed up in many ways. Not bad but not great, it is what it is, you'll probably know whether it's for you by looking at the poster.

• Ken S

  
  Can some one explain to me why Denzel stopped to call his wife when he only had 7 minutes to get across town and deliver the money? Oh yea I know why, this script blows. Skip this one and check out the original.

• Daniel P

  
  Corny and clumsy but surprisingly exciting. Solid action flick, with another steady "average man" performance by the always enjoyable Denzel Washington. As a bad guy, John Travolta surprised me. He was better than expected. Made me want to check out the original:… More
  Corny and clumsy but surprisingly exciting. Solid action flick, with another steady "average man" performance by the always enjoyable Denzel Washington. As a bad guy, John Travolta surprised me. He was better than expected. Made me want to check out the original: straight-ahead story with some of the cooler editing I've seen lately. Worth a screening.

• Conner R

  
  Honestly, I really like Tony Scott's adaption just as much as the original. He does a very interesting thing here that's sort've polar opposite from the original; making it a character driven piece. A lot of minor characters were dropped and you get to know your two… More
  Honestly, I really like Tony Scott's adaption just as much as the original. He does a very interesting thing here that's sort've polar opposite from the original; making it a character driven piece. A lot of minor characters were dropped and you get to know your two opposing sides a lot better. It doesn't hurt when you have two Hollywood legends like John Travolta and Denzel Washington as your leads; they make these characters their own. John Travolta's scheming mastermind is just as bizarre as he looks. By the end, you're sort've just at odds with what his intentions are. Denzel Washington's job is a lot less difficult, but he always turns in solid performances no matter what. Concerning the plot, it covers a lot more ground and there is certainly more excitement going on. Thankfully it's not just the same old hostage scenario. Visually, Tony Scott uses his classic hyper-saturated, hyper-edited style that seems to really work here. What I like is that this isn't by any means a shot for shot of the original, it has it's own purpose. Given the chance, this is a really good movie that wasn't given the reputation it deserves.

• Jeff "

  
  The remake of The Talking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an average action film that offers good action but with a shaky plot. I enjoyed the film, but felt that there was many things that could have been done better. Tony Scott slightly redeems himself and would later redeem himself fully with… More
  The remake of The Talking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an average action film that offers good action but with a shaky plot. I enjoyed the film, but felt that there was many things that could have been done better. Tony Scott slightly redeems himself and would later redeem himself fully with the 20910 film Unstoppable. I say redeem because before this he directed the crap film Domino, which I thought played out more like a bad MTV music video while the viewer trips out on LSD. But with this remake he manages to recapture some of the fire he previously had with Man On Fire. Though not perfect, The Taking Of Pelham 123 is a good film with a blend of action, suspense and thrills. The film could have been better. But it's certainly entertaining. One thing is for sure, whenever Denzel Washington and Tony Scott get together, they always make something entertaining, and with Pelham 1 23, it's no exception. John Travolta whom I thought has had a rather sketchy career since the glory days of Pulp Fiction give a good performance, and is probably one of his best performances since Pulp Fiction. I certainly much preferred his role here than his role in Swordfish. I thought his character here was more interesting, cold blooded and more developed than his character in Swordfish. This remake of the classic film is an entertaining time waster, nothing perfect, but nothing bad either. A good cast holds the film together and has the best direction from Tony Scott since Man On Fire. Luckily for people that enjoy Tony Scott, his following film, Unstoppable would be even more action packed and thrilling. The Talking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is a good, entertaining film and delivers good thrills and good action.

• erika b

  
  This film is about a guy that hijacks a New York City subway. He keeps people on the subway until he gets a certain amount of cash. Ryder gave subway dispatcher and the cops 1 hour to get the money to him. Will they make it or will everyone on the sub way get killed. Pros Good acting… More
  This film is about a guy that hijacks a New York City subway. He keeps people on the subway until he gets a certain amount of cash. Ryder gave subway dispatcher and the cops 1 hour to get the money to him. Will they make it or will everyone on the sub way get killed. Pros Good acting and plot Fast paced. Cons Lacking action Does not seem real to me.

• Matt G

  
  I absolutely loved this movie. It was so entertaining! Plot: In The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, Denzel Washington stars as New York City subway dispatcher Walter Garber, whose ordinary day is thrown into chaos by an audacious crime: the hijacking of a subway train. John Travolta stars… More
  I absolutely loved this movie. It was so entertaining! Plot: In The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, Denzel Washington stars as New York City subway dispatcher Walter Garber, whose ordinary day is thrown into chaos by an audacious crime: the hijacking of a subway train. John Travolta stars as Ryder, the criminal mastermind who, as leader of a highly-armed gang of four, threatens to execute the train's passengers unless a large ransom is paid within one hour. As the tension mounts beneath his feet, Garber employs his vast knowledge of the subway system in a battle to outwit Ryder and save the hostages. But there's one riddle Garber can't solve: even if the thieves get the money, how can they possibly escape? John Travolta gives an amazing performance as the crazy criminal mastermind Ryder. Though it's no Pulp Fiction, his performance still deserves some recognition. The art direction for this movie is beyond explanation. I was speechless. Director Tony Scott keeps you entertained from the first nine words of the film: "I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." I highly recommend this entertaining thriller!

• xGary X

  
  A ruthless gang of machine gun toting criminals hijack a subway train to extort $10 million from New York City. A remake of the cult classic of the 1970s which went some way to "inspire" Tarantino when he wrote Reservoir Dogs, The Taking Of Pelham 123 is a typical… More
  A ruthless gang of machine gun toting criminals hijack a subway train to extort $10 million from New York City. A remake of the cult classic of the 1970s which went some way to "inspire" Tarantino when he wrote Reservoir Dogs, The Taking Of Pelham 123 is a typical Scott-Washington collaboration and demonstrates the usual glossy skill each possess when making a mainstream Hollywood thriller. I was tiring of the inevitable Tony Scott visual masturbation by the time the credits had even finished but for the most part, it's a very efficient potboiler. It's very much a two man show as the dialogue between Denzel and a rather Village People looking Travolta is the best aspect of the film, affording Scott an opportunity for more of the kind of "personal revelations at gunpoint" he showcased during Phonebooth and the subway tunnel makes a suitably claustrophobic setting. Unfortunately, once the story leaves that location it's just a load of unnecessary and bog-standard car chases and the whole thing lacks the wit and character of the first version. An efficient but altogether pointless remake that's impossible to recommend over the far superior original.

• Jim C

  
  Exciting, but predictable, and slow at times

• Alexis N

  
  It's suspenseful and has a great plot, even if it is a remake. I haven't seen the original yet, but after seeing this one, I want to. John Travolta makes an amazing bad guy, very tough once you get past how awful his just-for-men mustache and his lacefront piece are. It has… More
  It's suspenseful and has a great plot, even if it is a remake. I haven't seen the original yet, but after seeing this one, I want to. John Travolta makes an amazing bad guy, very tough once you get past how awful his just-for-men mustache and his lacefront piece are. It has a happy ending and I love that.

• Taylor B

  
  Decent thriller/drama with good performances. Overall it was a little too predictable at times but also entertaining and realistic for the most part.

• Julie B

  
  Filled with plot holes so big you could drive a ... hey, wait a minute... Now I'm stuck wondering if this is some kind of meta-masterpiece?

• Crash E

  
  Travolta coming back to the villain role, it's more exciting for me ... I like it

• Thomas J

  
  Blah, blah, blah.... hostage movie.... nothing new, nothing interesting!

• Richard C

  
  a really awesome movie. i really liked it a lot. B+

• Mark W

  
  Washington, Travolta, John Turturro and "mr. soprano" himself James Gandolfini. Sounds good, right? Wrong! The film is boring and I'd rather jump under a train than watch travolta highjack one in this. Brilliant actors really wasted and as much as director Tony Scott… More
  Washington, Travolta, John Turturro and "mr. soprano" himself James Gandolfini. Sounds good, right? Wrong! The film is boring and I'd rather jump under a train than watch travolta highjack one in this. Brilliant actors really wasted and as much as director Tony Scott has made some decent films (True Romance, Crimson Tide) his recent style of directing is confusing and off putting. It adds nothing to the film. He made the same mistake with "Domino" which had potential but again too flashy in the directing style. "Crimson Tide" had Quentin Tarantino helping with the script and "True Romance" was Tarantino's script. Two good films but maybe Tony Scott is only as good as Tarantino's writing. Otherwise we end up with this garbage and not to mention "Top Gun".

• Tim S

  
  To judge against the original is really not fair considering the original is genius and this is your ho-hum, run of the mill Tony Scott action movie. However, this movie does have it's moments. Denzel Washington and John Turturro give better performances than this movie deserves… More
  To judge against the original is really not fair considering the original is genius and this is your ho-hum, run of the mill Tony Scott action movie. However, this movie does have it's moments. Denzel Washington and John Turturro give better performances than this movie deserves and the moments between them are probably the most realistic scenes a Tony Scott film has seen in a long time. Their realism is matched by a literally bat shit crazy performance by John Travolta and I mean bat shit crazy in the worst of ways. I do appreciate some of the dialogue hinting to the recent events on Wall Street, but some of the convoluted plot twists make it absolutely ridiculous. It never ceases to amaze me how Scott continually has certain parts of his films which are extremely effective (there is some great writing in this movie that is wasted within the multiple plot twists), but the hires the crew from CSI: Miami to light and edit his films making it at times unbearable to watch. He even has Gandolfini running around doing a terrible Michael Bloomberg/gay guy impersonation.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings