The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1998)

First, I must admit, I did not see the 1974 orig movie because I did not know it existed until after seeing the TV version and the new 2009 movie and doing some research. When I first saw the TV version (1998), it was re-running on one of my TV stations so I watched it several times and each time was just as captivated as the first time. There's just something about movies made for TV and especially in that time period. Actually, it plays like a movie from the 60's or 70's, not 1998. I thoroughly enjoyed all aspects of the TV-movie and would definitely watch it again & again.After seeing the new movie (2009), I did enjoy it and loved the acting, especially John Travolta, but somehow, I was a little disappointed it didn't follow the storyline of the TV-movie, which I understand is very close to the orig movie (1974). I understand everyone enjoys different things and some liked that it differed, however, I am one of those who like a book and movie to be the same or similar so I can compare.Now I'm really looking forward to seeing the orig 1974 movie ASAP.

Based on the 1974 classic of the same name, this TV version looks very much like a regular TV show, spread out over two hours instead of one. This remake does indeed suffer from modest budgets, a less than sterling cast. Vincent d'Onofrios, stepping into Robert Shaw's "Mr. Blue" ringleader role, seems bored, wooden, and unaffected by the entire scenario. Likewise, Edward James Olmos (filling Matthau's shoes) is equally as bored and wooden as d'Onofrios. Poor Brooklynite Lorraine Bracco is reduced to a supporting role (formerly played by Jerry Stiller) that does not make use of her endless talents.What is most irking is the fact that the NYC-based flick was filmed in Toronto, Ontario. Exterior shots, subway stations, and particularly subway equipment looks nothing like the grimy, intimidating system that is New York's. New York's transit system is as much a celebrity as the city it holds together. Few cities in the world can be quickly identified by their form of subway transport as New York's. One big demerit for the producers on this one (no fault of Toronto, either—it is a marvelous city, to be sure).With the one exception of an emotional relationship established by highjacker "Brown" (Tara Rosling) and her 'angel of mercy' female conductor "Babs Cardoza" (Babs Cardoza), all other subplots among the hijackers and characters were not developed. The deliciously menacing "Mr. Grey" character, played to perfection in the original by Hector Elizondo, was reduced to an angry, almost juvenile person by Donnie Wahlberg.The overall feeling is choppy and suspenseless. One gets the feeling the original movie was being watched closely during filming, with the director causally removing chunks of original script.Even though TV movies are in an entirely different category than those produced in Hollywood, there is no reason for quality scripts to go M.I.A. TV budgets may be limiting, but the believability in the characters need not suffer.Stick with the original. Watch this remake to satiate the curiosity factor only.

What a tedious load of drivel this is. It tries for "suspense", instead it achieves "stilted" and "boring". Almost as if the director was saying "OK, guys, freeze for five more seconds" in almost every scene.Walter Matthau was great in the original. I saw him as a serious actor, in the original of this one and in "Kill Charlie Varrick" long before today's kids saw him as a "Grumpy Old Man" actor. And he really makes the original movie shine. But I suspect that even he, had he been somehow edited into THIS load of rubbish, could not have saved it.

Although it's been a while since I watched this, I seem to recall enjoying it more than the 4.+ rating it has here. However, I also remember thinking "why?" Aside from some minor updates (the original's $1,000,000 ransom isn't much in 1998; more racial & gender diversity among the main players; the expunging of the Mayor character entirely which served only as comic relief in the original) the movie stuck so closely to the original that I had to wonder "why?" Why remake a great thriller unless you have something new to add? (Cape Fear for instance) While this certainly wasn't a waste of my time, and was in fact an entertaining evening of television, if given the choice, just watch the original. My only guess as to why this was made as it was, is because there are people who refuse to watch anything "old" and thus would rather watch a "new" version with current actors.