What's it all About? A guy and his goons hijack a subway car and demand a cool 10 mil or they'l start offing the hostages. Yawn. Oh yeah, the head scum bag Ryder (Travolta) will only talk to train dispatcher Walter Garber (Washington).
 |
| A Chief pet hate. Movies that feature civilians with guns |
Did it make you think thoughts? Within 30 seconds of this film starting I knew it was a Tony Scott flick. Slo-mo, sped-up, fast edits, blurry shots, it's all there and it's all very repetitive.
I was initially intrigued where this was going as I knew nothing of the original flick but it quickly turned into a run-of-the-mil hostage heist movie. Obviously with this being a Hollywood production it was inevitable there would be a twist and I waited patiently. I waited and waited and when the credits rolled I was still waiting. Hhmm.
 |
| 'You make a lot of films, you gotta expect some to be turd' |
Among all the mudanity we get a copy of the, wildly superior, John McLean-Al Powell dynamic from Die Hard with Travs refusing to speak to anyone but Denzil who is strangely at ease chatting with the terrorist. Also, why is no one on the train scared of the guys with the guns threatening their lives? In fact everyone in the whole film exudes a sense of clam and composure. Maybe it's a New York thing.
As the film neared the end I was still struggling to understand what Travolta's ultimate plan involving stocks and shares was. I shall lump it in with, why does toast always fall butter side down? as an unexplained mystery.
 |
| 'What was my plan again' |
Rating (out of 100%): The main problem here is that nothing interesting happens. It is literally a paint by numbers affair. It's not a complete turkey but doesn't add anything new or exciting to the genre. I give The Taking of Pelham 123 a lacklustre 55%
Better than: Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)
Worse than: Die Hard (1988)
