The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.