The remake of Tony Scott, or rather the next adaptation of the novel by John Gowdy, did not make a strong impression at the time. Yes, the movie was not bad, but only that. With Joseph Sargent’s version, things are quite different. The tape is the golden '70s! The director masterfully keeps the tension and does not slow down the rhythm, but in fact after the capture in the frame, roughly speaking, nothing really happens, and negotiations are just underway, but you can not break away from the narrative! The director skillfully pumps and leads to the proper catharsis, and in technical terms everything is filmed perfectly! An interesting plot with surprises, an excellent soundtrack, juicy dialogues with interspersed humor and chic artists complement the already cool action, because in the frame such sturdy bison as Robert Shaw, Walter Mattau (rarely he was seen not in comedic roles) and Martin Bolsam. It was funny to see the young Hector Elizondo, who came to fame after the age of “Pretty Woman”. Very well made genre film with a cool ending.
- Why don't you go and hijack a plane like everyone else does?
- Because we are afraid to fly.
I’m a big fan of the action movies of the 80s and 90s when this genre took a second wind. At the same time, there were many cult films, as well as movie stars. But below the 80s I rarely go down, because then the genre of action was a bit primitive, and few films of that era can impress me now. The only exception is Rocky. Or the originals of modern remakes like this one.
Several criminals have taken over an entire subway car. They are holding 18 people hostage. Criminals demand a ransom of $ 1 million and the police only one hour. In case of delay, they promise to kill one hostage per minute.
I didn't really like the movie. It was too simple and primitive, even for that time. I’ve seen a remake of 2009, and it’s one of the few times that a remake is clearly better than the original. At least because the modern version is much more interesting in terms of plot. I don't quite know where the gunman is. For me, an action movie is chases, shootouts, fights. What did I see here? Over an hour and a half of endless dialogue. One dialogue, almost no action. The art house was barely there. Personally, I would not consider such a movie to be an action movie, although there are a couple of moments with a claim to action, but this is clearly not enough to call the film an action movie.
The story begins to unfold from the very first minutes. Less than ten minutes after the start, the start occurs. The story is gradually developing, gradually throwing new details and details. It would seem to be a standard template for this genre, but “Pelham Train Capture 1-2-3” does not use this template in full force. I’m a big fan of pushing the story forward, but this time I didn’t manage to do it. And it is not the complexity of the plot, but rather simplicity. It's too obvious. The creators didn’t care much about the story, so it’s as straight as a stick. Such a monosyllabic plot was a rarity before, and now it does not occur at all.
The cast is unknown to me, for obvious reasons (the film is too old), and the actors were not able to impress me with their performance. As I said before, “Pelham 1-2-3 Train Capture” consists almost entirely of dialogue. But even with such a simple task, the actors coped only by three. Almost the entire caste simply mechanically pronounced the memorized text, without even bothering to show any emotions. But still there are among the cast and those who at least pretended to play. This is Martin Bolsam and Hector Elizondo. Of course, their game does not reach the Oscars, but compared to the others it is quite tolerable. Three plus.
If we talk about the visual component, then there is nothing to catch. No word at all. I don't know why this movie is called an action movie when it doesn't pull at all. No shooting, no chasing, no even the most ordinary running here in mention. So fans of the above should pass by this movie.
Overall, the film isn't that bad. Yes, there is not a single component of a good cheerful action movie, which everyone is used to. The plot is simple, too. But the film is not long, and it looks easy, in one breath. So it's not that bad. I liked the remake much more than the original.
Surprisingly little known even in the States, but, nevertheless, an excellent and sharp tape about armed bandits. Maybe the issue of terrorism in the distant 1970s, our foreign friends were slightly worried, or maybe I just liked the picture very much, although it is by no means good - you can go into the reasons for the small success at home for a long time, but there is no great sense in this.
And despite this, the film became an important and successful stage in the development of the genre of conversational thrillers as a whole, and in its influence and significance - approximately the same as the Godfather for gangster films or the French Connection for police detectives.
The feeling of freshness left by the film, ignoring its venerable age by the standards of cinema and the amount of stolen and adopted into other films on similar subjects, is successfully achieved by brilliant walking and sitting in front of the camera of the famous actors Walter Mattau and Robert Shaw. The nature of humor and jokes, freely walking from the level of subtle English to black American, coupled with a high-quality translation by Peter Kartsev, allow you to dilute this rather unfunny picture from the point of view of the plot to an acceptable composition and see it as a good attraction.
And, of course, no good expensive expensive remake of 2009 even do not want to remember, but mention it is still worth it, and only in the context of the fact that it can not be compared with a finger!
Shoot in the film is not enough, it talks more, but I will definitely recommend it to everyone who is simple, but sufficient from the point of view of informative synopsis will seem a little bit interesting, and the psyche already allows you to sleep at night with the lights off.
Good to see you!
After reading the 2009 film Dangerous Passengers of Train 123, I learned that this is a remake of almost (thanks to localizers) the eponymous film of the 70s. And since the original was the only more or less sane action movie of 1974, I decided to include it in my list.
I will not write a synopsis from myself, because it is difficult to do without spoilers. So let me focus on the movie itself. This film was far from a pioneer in this genre, but as one person has already written - the legs of this genre grow from this film. That is, Keanu Reeves and Steven Seagal are far from the first to face hostage-taking in transport. Well, since this story has already “rolled” everyone who is not lazy for 50 years, I will try to evaluate this film with eyes not washed away by the modern film industry.
The plot was not new for those years, but this time it was presented in a different way. There are no superfluous details, superfluous microscenes, which are usually fooled by the viewer, trying to distract from the puzzle "how will it all end." The film is simple as five kopecks, but at the same time is stuffed with plot twists and directorial multi-movements, which does not allow you to relax while watching. A powerful effect on the film gives a great acting. The most distinguished were Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. But the others also fit well into their images and played well. Previously, the actors were able to create the mood of the film, and captivate the viewer in their atmosphere.
Classic.
The film “Pelham 1-2-3 Train Capture” of 1974, directed by Joseph Sargent, who has a track record of more than 80 (!!) works, was the first adaptation of the novel by New York writer John Gowdy “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three”, written in 1973, that is, the film version was released the next year after the publication of the book. Later, the book received two more adaptations, the most famous of which is one of the last works of Tony Scott with Denzel Washington and John Travolta in the lead roles. But according to many critics, the first adaptation is the best reproduction of the novel by John Gowdy on film.
In fact, the film, which in 2015 (the year of writing this review) is more than forty years old, has a steady tension that builds from scene to scene as the film develops. He will talk about how a certain Mr. Blue (all the criminals in the book and film have nicknames similar to different colors) and his three henchmen seize the subway car. They threaten to kill all passengers if they are not paid an impressive amount for the time. It would seem that Mr. Blue’s plan is calculated to the smallest detail, besides, he has the character of a real soulless killer and for the sake of profit he will not stint with bullets for ordinary subway passengers. At some points, he will demonstrate this without sparing his own accomplices. To negotiate with the invaders at their own request, a certain Zachary Garber was called, who was about to be trampled from the organs, since it became too obvious that he took bribes. While negotiations are underway, while the police and security services are trying to eliminate the terrorists, the mayor himself is in charge of the operation, but this will actually be a fierce fight between Mr. Blue and Garber and, mainly, it will be a psychological fight.
The whole action of the film will be accompanied by a rather rich sound, where in addition to the echoes of the subway tunnel with its inseparable echo, as well as no-no sounds and bullets bursting through, all this was successfully accompanied by the composer David Shire with his music (in six years he will receive the coveted Oscar for best song, and, interestingly, in the same year, when he received this cherished award, he was once again nominated in the same category, but only for another song in a completely different film, maybe that year he had a muse on his shoulder or his fan of the jury). However, sometimes such a rich sound set somewhat interfered with the full focus on viewing. But this method did not disdain and the great master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock, remember his brilliant tape “Psycho”. By the way, according to this suspense, it was noticeable that the director Joseph Sargent is a follower of the traditions of the great master, and in the film “The Capture of the Pelham 1-2-3 Train” you can even find the atmosphere of Hitchcock’s painting “Strangers on the Train”, but this is if you look very closely at it and it concerns only, I emphasize, the atmosphere.
And we can’t help but talk about the actors in this movie. The main antagonist, the cunning and cruel Mr. Blue, was played by Robert Shaw. The figure for many is very unknown, but may be familiar to big fans of "Bondiana", as he played a killer in the second part of the immortal spy saga "From Russia with Love". And here he is again in the villainous “outfit”. There was an almost pervasive danger coming from him, and it is understandable why the trio of his accomplices could only occasionally say something against their boss. I note that among the criminals there is Hector Elizondo - a frequent guest of the film Harry Marshall (" Pretty Woman), "Escaped Bride", "Valentine's Day" and others. And among the police noticed Jerry Stiller – the father of Ben Stiller. The role of Garber was given to Walter Matthau, better known for comedic roles, and his appearance favors that. Here he is serious, only occasionally allows himself to taunts, and also the character with a double bottom: is he a policeman or a bribe? And he is connected with a beautiful final scene, when the search for the robber goes on: behind him the door closes, but suddenly he comes back and looks up at the one who slammed the door behind him. There is no better ending!
"Pelham Train Capture 1-2-3" - at one time almost flawless thriller, which has everything: tension, and a dangerous villain, and dynamics, and brutality, bordering on cruelty. Add to this a good game of actors and you can get a real classic of the genre. The film, in general, is considered such, but for the current generation of viewers it will seem very outdated. But this should not prevent you from getting acquainted with the history of the seizure of the Pelham 1-2-3 train.
8 out of 10
P.S. Do you remember another classic of the crime movie "Reservoir Dogs"? There also all robbers were called nicknames of different colors of the rainbow.
When comrades do not agree, their business will not go well.
In this film I expected to see a twisted detective story with the preservation of intrigue and elements of suspense. Unfortunately, I didn’t find anything like that. My favorite genre of cinema is high-quality detective. Which makes you think. Give birth to a lot of questions while watching. Which you find your own answers to. A true detective should constantly keep the viewer in a state of slight panic, and every development of the plot for him should be unexpected and exciting. The standard in this regard of detectives for me is “Chinatown” by Roman Polanski with Jack Nicholson. But there were no questions for me when watching this tape. Everything was obvious, primitive and boring. The director clearly did not fully understand what genre of his film. Detective? Then why the incomprehensible elements of comedy with representatives of the Asian subway? A drunk sleeping woman all the time. Including shots and speed. And in the end, woke up with a question à la, "Are we here yet?" Strange behavior of the mayor.
From the first minute we meet the main characters of the story. Good. Interesting. There's a seizure going on. Stupid behavior of engineers monitoring the location of the train. Criminals behave in places noble to passengers and at the same time cruelly, committing murder. Absurd! A clear discrepancy, or rather a lack of clear characters of terrorists, which is then confirmed in the conflict within the gang. The incomprehensible role of the police force in the depot. Why did they show? The behavior of a disgruntled metro employee is also unclear. There's been a seizure! And he expresses his discontent with the attempts of the main character in the investigation. For which he receives justified physical suggestion. The incomprehensible behavior of an old hostage. She says she's been on the subway since that passenger was gone. The train must stop at a red light. And he will definitely stop... And the fact that the train is rushing at breakneck speed - it does not pacify him at all. And at the end of the stop, the grandfather shoots, "I told you I'd stop!" What did the director want to show you? I don't understand... Next. Similar absurd behavior of the station chief, who does not believe and does not care about the hijacking of the train and criminals! Who has ten lives behind his bosom, and who climbs up! The unpleasantness of viewing adds to the conflict within the company of criminals. In my opinion, it became the main vector of failure. The high-profile titles “Mr. Blue,” “Mr. Grey,” “Mr. Green,” and “Mr. Brown” did not give criminals significance or fear. When there is no agreement among comrades, their business will not go well. The conflict turned into tragedy. It is absurd that suddenly a long-haired police officer in plainclothes appeared in the way of antagonists. Who is heroic. And the ending is the most predictable. The revelation was obvious to me personally. And a stash of money, or all the money, didn’t make you nervous. In general, a talentless detective with disgustingly spelled characters and the main storyline.
In the distant 70s, having experienced colossal upheavals, a person was sure that all the most interesting things had already happened. It's just sad to live through this fucking century. People are stuck in a routine of monotony, fascinating work turned into a shadow of once thundering life. Boring morose fell even into a crowded subway. When asked what an experienced warrior with 20 years of experience can say about interesting episodes in his work ... - nothing, from boredom he only shrugs. Day by day, faceless trains rush from station to station, constant are Chinese tourists arriving on a mission to see "how you have here." They are also tired of everything, they have long mastered the English language, but continue to gratefully bow to the insults of the “monkey”. There was a misunderstanding. A woman was hired as a dispatcher. The talk came to life. The suspicious men immediately decided to wait for trouble, because the woman in the subway = the woman on the ship. Trouble happened. Not even trouble, but a global disaster in narrow circles with a resonance of 10 years of discussions - a real pro had to occupy the toilet in the hope of getting a new employee's ring that fell into the toilet. For a long time this incident brightened up the history of the subway. And then something happened.
As an observational psychologist, Joseph Sargent noted in time that peacetime produces non-peaceful heroes. Either from a good life pulled to the shotgun, or from boredom wanted adrenaline, or on the eve of the millennium woke up hunger, so, just in case, stock up on paper. It doesn’t matter how or what, it matters who the elite are. In appearance, they are ordinary unpretentious intellectuals who have gathered the audacity to open a bloody account. And only the distorting face of gum gives them a predatory essence. Hiding behind a vulgar philosophy that “it is better to kill than to trade insurance policies,” the new heroes find the easiest way to solve all problems in the most vulnerable place – a subway car racing into the darkness.
It doesn't matter why a pack of predators needed a million. No cause can justify such a desperate bloodthirsty move. Well, the invaders came to the car, threatened with weapons, attracted attention, it would be worth putting a fat cross on this. But that wasn't it. Began a real film epidemic with a desperate story about the children's redivision of the world and tough and daring, spontaneous and original, beating at once heroes. Complete chaos is a paradise of bad guys, in which after a “century”, like a spoonful of tar, John McClain could not but appear, restoring justice and giving further interpretations of an unpretentious plot.
On the details and light irony, Sargent managed to show the confusion of people before an unexpected incident, the unpreparedness of law enforcement officials for such an exotic situation. Each character is a collective image of representatives of different professions and sectors of society. Each image is an apt metaphor, a mark of those times. Ironically drowned New York measures, whose life is full of comic cliches, does not lag behind him the image of saluting disarmed police. The leitmotif of visual culture is the cash bill. Probably in those days money was seen as often as an alien, so Sargent decided to show them weighty and large-scale. So that every spectator of those wild years could enjoy a bunch of green notes and say, "I saw $100."
Today we live in an unstable world, when the fate of tomorrow is unknown, the ideas of the apocalypse so pierced the self-consciousness of an ordinary person that waiting for a catastrophe becomes almost the only way of psychological discharging, when nervously descending into the subway with a ghostly desire to get out of it, and if lucky, then become an eyewitness to some interesting events, but only without traumatic consequences. Today... What seemed like a fantastic story about hostages is inspiring! Special effects superficially clothe that real event in more and more spectacular action, and the whole story begins with the clumsy angles of the cars and the birth of a new hero in Pelham.
Exactly. First, the well-known progressive American writer and journalist John Gowdy wrote the best-selling novel “Darkness at the End of the Tunnel”, which was published in Russia since the end of the Perestroika years. And only then the “daughter” of the monster “MGM” “United artists” (already long dead in the bose) shot an adapted film on it. And I really didn't like how adapted, because I had the pleasure of reading the original. At the heart of the novel is built on short fragments representing the thoughts, state and actions of the main characters of the novel at a certain point in time, which are increasingly tightly tied into one knot. Of course, to film the novel in this form would have been insanely difficult (even reading it, it is not easy to keep track of who-where-what-why), but, I think, working Tarantino at that time with his current “troubles”, he probably would have done so (especially since, as reported here, he dragged some of this film to himself, therefore, was not indifferent to him!), despite the availability of the creation for the average American audience and commercial success... But, as they say, if only the Cabs... So let's leave Mr. Tarantino alone and turn to Sargent. He acted, in his opinion, rationally and simply, throwing out the whole "psychedelic" and putting the development of the action at the forefront, that is, the plot line, as it should be in action films and detectives: the capture of the train, general panic and confusion, a smart lieutenant of the transport police who took matters into his own hands, etc. So it turned out exciting (yes!), dynamic (yes!), serious (yes!) action movie, deservedly ranked among the almost classics of the genre. It is only a pity that the psychological depth of the novel to this classic is like walking to the moon. It cannot even answer the questions of elementary logic: where did these bandits come from? Short "explanatory" dialogues can not be taken as normal answers.
But social satire seems to be fine. Here you and American great-power chauvinism (cool lieutenant drags almost by the neck of the directors of the Tokyo subway, calling them “monkeys”; however, in the film they are the same directors as I am the President of the Russian Federation; however, in the novel there is none of this), and American self-confidence and arrogance, the carriers of which in a critical situation either fooled or put in pants, and bourgeois heartlessness, when cents for travel in the subway become more expensive than the lives of their payers, and much more... Let me remind you that the novel was written by a progressive journalist who knew and once castigated these vices in the press.
In general, if I did not read the novel, I would put the film 8, but only so.
7 out of 10