The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

I love this movie so much

Why so much hype?

Best movie ever!

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Regular start, promising progression, disappointing ending

By and large, the types of films that Denzel Washington sticks his name on provide viewers with incredible acting, great character development, and a plot that sucks you in and makes you really care about what is going on. Unfortunately, "The Taking of Pelham 123" does absolutely none of those things.Acting: The film focuses on Washington's "good guy" (a New York subway line coordinator) matching wits with John Travolta's "bad guy" (who hijacks a subway car in exchange for a large ransom). However, neither of them are able to act anywhere near their full potential. Whereas Denzel is at his best when his passions/convictions get the best of him, in this movie he is not once allowed to emote wildly. Instead, he turns in a ho-hum performance where he stays cool, calm, and in control the entire time. While that may have been the character that was written on the page, it didn't suit Washington at all and thus should have been cast differently. As for Travolta, he is too busy dropping F-bombs and maniacally raving to really be allowed any sort of acting maneuvering. His character is the same from the first time that we see him until the last.Plot: Though hyped up to be an incredible, fast-paced film, the plot really is no different than anything that has been done a thousand times before. Crime, hostages, ransom, banter, rescue attempt. That's all it really boiled down to, and those same themes were covered in much more riveting fashion in mere minutes of, say, "The Siege" (another, much better, Washington film).Character Development: This area was easily the biggest weakness of the film. Though it seems as if, in the beginning, the film is moving towards some interesting developments for both the Washington and Travolta characters, the "revelations" come and go in seconds and are never touched upon again. It's as if the writers had some good ideas in mind, but never really got everything ironed out.Also odd was the strange dialogues throughout the film. At times, in the middle of what should have been a tense hostage crisis, Washington (or his co-workers/superiors) were often seen laughing or joking with each other in a fashion that didn't at all seem to fit the tense mood of the film. I kept expecting the tension to pick up as the minutes ticked by, but before I knew it the movie was over and it seemed as if nothing substantial had happened.Thus, despite my liking of most films starring Denzel Washington, I would have to steer other viewers clear of this one. The plot is shallow, the acting isn't anywhere near fully realized, and the character development/dialogues are just plain stupid or non-existent. I have not seen the original version of "Pelham", but I'm willing to bet that this remake didn't live up to it.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 is Tony Scott's flashy and expensive remake of a stone-cold classic of 1970s cinema. The original had Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as hero and villain respectively, while this remake sees Scott regular Denzel Washington and bad-guy-for-hire John Travolta stepping into those lofty shoes. And, unsurprisingly enough, this turns out to be a redundant remake that can't hope to better - or, indeed, even come close - to the quality of the original.I'm not a hater of remakes per se. Occasionally certain films will be flawed or dated and the remake works better than the original; I found this with THE HILLS HAVE EYES. However, the original PELHAM is a great film and anyone who's seen it will end up just watching this version and criticising it by comparison. I'm sure if the original didn't exist I would have enjoyed the updated PELHAM a lot more, but as it stands it's a waste of time.It's not all bad. Washington is the slick master of professionalism as always and never disappoints this viewer. Travolta gives another fun villainous turn, following on from FACE/OFF and BROKEN ARROW. Scott certainly knows how to make a fast-paced movie and this is a thriller that's never dull. But compared to the original, it's vapid, shallow, and way too superficial.

Im not going to say much.My opinion is that the film was really good in terms of script and produced the action and intensity I was looking for but there were some things that totally ruined my experience.First of all, the music was awful and did not much at all with was being depicted from the screen. Really bad music selection.Secondly, there were parts on the film that the camera would - i don't know how to say it - "lagged", moving slowly, shaking and ruined the whole part. Its like watching a horror movie and at the point where the door slowly opens, the camera man shakes the camera for like 5 seconds and you miss everything.Travolta and Washington were really great in that movie and I believe that if the team behind the scenes was better, it could have hit an 7.5-8 overall.