The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1998 TV Movie) User Reviews

I Miss Walter Matthau

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 23 March 2009]

Keeping up with the times this 1998 remake of The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three had to change certain things and deliberately changed others. One indisputable fact was that in 1998 the New York City Transit Police had ceased being a separate entity and was now just part of the NYPD. Hence Walter Matthau's character as a Transit Cop would not have existed any longer. For this version Edward James Olmos is not only a regular NYPD detective, but he's a hostage negotiator specialist.

The change out the Transit Police was necessary, but part of what made the first version work so well was Walter Matthau being placed in a situation he wouldn't normally be dealing with. In that version in fact he's shepherding a bunch of Japanese railroad people around the Transit Authority Command Center when the hijacking occurs.

Instead of Jerry Stiller as his partner, Olmos is paired with Lorraine Bracco, certainly women by that time were doing more than administrative work in the NYPD. The mysterious head of the four hijackers is Vincent Donofrio on the other side of the law. We don't know who he is, but he certainly didn't have the air of mystery that soldier of fortune Robert Shaw did in the Seventies. In fact we never really find out anything about Donofrio.

The plot follows pretty much the story in the original version. Since it was shot in Toronto, the streets of New York where a lot of the excitement above ground as the City tries to meet the hijackers deadline is missing from this version.

Seeing Donofrio and Olmos makes me wish for Matthau and Shaw. Maybe the new version that will have Denzel Washington and John Travolta as antagonists will be better.

Tepid TV remake of the '74 classic

[alvin81 · 5/10 · 5 March 2006]

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.

A waste of time

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 26 November 2017]

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 is an ill-advised TV movie remake of the original classic with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Why they keep remaking classics I have no idea, because there's no chance they'll improve on the original. The Denzel Washington version was better than this but still nowhere near close to the original film's quality.

Based on the same screenplay, the story plays out exactly the same here, albeit with a much cheaper budget and scuzzy, dated-looking direction which tries to be hip and stylish in that late '90s way (that invariably looks embarrassing to the modern viewer). The cast is the best thing about this, with solid bad guy turns from the likes of the reliable Vincent D'Onofrio, Donnie Wahlberg, and Richard Schiff, while Edward James Olmos is equally tough as the transit cop. You can't help but wonder why they bothered, though.

good, by why bother when the original was great?

[HBeachBabe · 11 November 1999]

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.

The poor man's remake!

[RodrigAndrisan · 2/10 · 6 January 2020]

I can't understand why they had to make this movie! A remake after a masterpiece (the original with Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam and Walter Matthau), with very weak actors, with little money (you can judge upon sets, action, everything...) They didn't had the money of the next remake, the one with John Travolta and Denzel Washington, which is just as weak. Lorraine Bracco, a fake actress in everything I've seen her, is the most painful. Vincent D'Onofrio, Edward James Olmos, Donnie Wahlberg, Richard Schiff, they strive hard to replicate the script, they only increase the boredom. Tara Rosling, a woman cast as Mr. Brown, played in the original version by a man (actor Earl Hindman), is one of the most unconvincing actresses I have ever seen. In conclusion, if you want to watch a stupid remake of a masterpiece, watch this movie. Those 2 stars are for Vincent D'Onofrio, Edward James Olmos, Donnie Wahlberg, and Richard Schiff, half star each, because they tried hard...

Good enough for TV

[johnmbale · 6/10 · 21 May 2005]

A cold murderous high jacker with three associates, takes a train and holds it and its passengers hostage, killing one at a time to obtain a large ransom. Based on an earlier film of the same title, which I have not viewed, this TV version suffers a little from modest budgets and a less than sterling cast. Vincent d'Onofrios, as the senior high jacker, a quirky rather wooden actor at best, fleetingly looking like a young Orson Welles, does what he can to provide sinister menace to his role, while Edward James Olmos is not a very impressive substitute for the formidable Walter Matthau. However it is fair to comment this is a reasonable thriller for TV, and the grainy dark underground railway sequences are quite suspenseful. Makes me keen to see the original film.

As others have said: What was the point of the remake?

[bpoind · 2/10 · 17 June 2016]

Every single actor in the 1974 movie was better than any of the actors in this TV remake. I guess they needed a New York accent, so they threw in Lorraine Bracco. Nice save.

One thing the TV movie really glossed over was the issue of getting the ransom money to the terrorists on time. You'd really have to watch the 1974 movie to see the difference. Getting things done in one hour was a real nail-biter in the original movie. It's like "meh" in the TV movie.

And that really leads me to the most important point: almost nobody seems to be afraid in the TV movie, including the hostages. You have one woman having one, strangely short-term panic attack. She has to carry the emotional load for her torpid companions, it seems to me. She recovers, inexplicably, without meds. Most of the time she seems perfectly rational.

I have no idea what Stuart Copland had in mind with that score of his, but its pretty meditative compared to David Shire's work. All- in- all, I was not happy with the TV movie.

Some good points

[ColonelPuntridge · 7/10 · 16 November 2021]

I've been a super-fan of the original 1974 flick for a very long time. (I grew up in NYC; in fact, I walked through Astor Place where the accident delays delivery of the money, every day on my way to school.) So I was skeptical of a remake - a Canadian remake, set in safe, comfortable Toronto rather than in rough, chaotic NYC! - and when I first saw it, I didn't like it.

But now, almost a quarter of a century later, I'm finding it much more palatable. James Gandolfini does really excellent job playing the Mayor obviously modeled on Rudy Giuliani; every shot of him is fun to see. (One wonders: did he (Gandolfini) really hate his job, or was he just pretending, in order to build up his image in some weird way?)

Don't overlook another very notable member of the cast: Ingrid Veninger, whom fans of the Sci-Fi Channel's amazingly cheesy late-80s fantasy-horror TV-series "Friday the 13th: the series" (which has nothing at all to do with the slasher movies) will remember as "Helen Mackie", the awkward high-school girl who enchants boys with a magical compact and leads them to their deaths. Now, ten years older, she plays a graduate student on the subway.

Just to see these two performances is worth the price of admission. The late-1990s blaring-metal music is also cool, an interesting update from the tough 1970s street-beat from the original.

Certainlly worth seeing once, at least.

pretty bad

[Mickey Knox · 3/10 · 21 March 2001]

To begin with, I have to say that i have not seen the original and i have not read the book.

Although the subject was totally new to me, i still didn't like it. Take a classic hijacking story, take out the cops (who barely appear in the film), and you get the story for this movie.

Well this remake has even more things that make it bad. Examples? The bad guys are very very poorly built. We don't get to find out anything about them, about their past, about their plans for the future, about the relationship between them. There is no chemistry between them, they barely talk to each other, they give you the feeling that they just met or that they hate each other. Vincent d'Onofrio gives a fair performance as Mr Blue, but also i have to say i totally disliked the ending-- probably you will do the same.

There are many other bad things going with the movie, but i'll end here. My vote? 3 out of 10.

Too Much Profanity and Vulgar Language

[gw333 · 6/10 · 9 July 2022]

I didn't realize this was a remake. I'm watching the original tonight. I liked the movie. I like anything with Denzel in it. But they didn't have to use so much F this and MF that. They didn't used to make movies that way. That's one thing that's contributing to the moral decline of our society. That's sad. But the movie is good and suspenseful. Definitely worth the watch.

Dissatisfied.

[wkozak221 · 5/10 · 10 March 2022]

I only watched this because of Vincent D'Onfrio. He is good here. Really didn't like Olmos, Bracco or Wahlberg. Very poor performances. Also, why did Wahlberg bleach his hair? I watch it every once in awhile.

loved TV version - have watched over & over

[pmppigpark · 10/10 · 11 November 2009]

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.

Why bother?

[oguer22656 · 20 September 2000]

I don't know why Hollywood feels the need to re-do classic movies. Can they not come up with original storylines anymore? This tv movie was lacking in so many areas. The actors had no chemistry, the dialog was banal, and the action seemed contrived. Don't waste your time on this one. Rent or better yet, buy the original starring Walter Matthau.

More intriguing than the original

[chuck-240 · 9/10 · 14 October 2000]

Popular opinion seems to favor the original 1974 version, but I came at it from a different angle. I'd never seen the original. I just happened to catch the TV version one evening -- curiously enough, while in Costa Rica (and with Spanish subtitles). The story unfolded well enough that it kept me hanging all the way and I was aggravated that due to business I *had* to leave just as the train was making its final run.

I sought out the film immediately upon return to the U.S. and was astonished to see the Matthau/Shaw et al. cast. Though some cite Matthau's occasional humor as a plus, for me it detracted from the grimness; it throws the story off balance (except for providing a context for the final freeze-frame). The TV version is darker, more menacing, more suitable to how I experienced the story. And, frankly, the dated soundtrack just irks me; Copeland's fits better. Opinions, opinions.

Lacks The Humour

[RussGrabes · 4 January 2004]

I don't think this 1998 remake was too bad, provided you regard it as a straightforward hostage film.

It uses some of the best lines from the original almost verbatim (eg, "A person likes to know how much he's worth", "Do they still have the death penalty in New York" "I've always done my own killing" etc) which is ok, but I can't believe that Mr Blue in the 1998 film would not know the death penalty status in what appears to be his native New York. In the original, the Mr Blue character was clearly British, and might be excused for not knowing the death penalty status in all 50 US states.

But as one other observer observed, the 1998 lacks .... WALLY MATTHAU (and to some extend George Costanza's dad also).

The 74 version could almost have been sold as a comedy, but not this one. It's a straightforward tradesman like version without the wit, irony, pathos and dulcet tones of Wally Matthau

Certainly worth watching if you love the 74 version so you can do a 'compare and contrast'. If you have not watched either, and you only want to see one of them, see the 74 version.

The final scene is worth the wait (in both versions)

Fairly good remake

[searchanddestroy-1 · 8/10 · 25 October 2021]

Vincent D'Onofrio gives here a terrific performance, the best character of the film and among his best, with of course FULL METAL JACKET. I have already seen worst remakes of genuine material. This one is less spectacular than the Tony Scott's movie, back in 2009, another remake, but maybe more faithful to the original. The real life couple Lorraine Bracco - Eddy James Olmos is totally blank, transparent.

Even if it had the great Walter Matthau, it would still be crap.

[wombat_1 · 15 December 2003]

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.

Nothing like the original

[TC-4 · 4 January 1999]

One of my all time favorite movies was this movie back in the theatrical version in 1974. This TV version was awful. It was a perfect example of a movie that did not need to be remade. I could not wait for it to end as I was bored silly. There was absolutely no chemistry between the characters. I hope this movie gets "shelved" forever.