Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

betty dalton Subways are subways. Nothing much changed in decades. In this story a New York City subway gets stolen and the passengers are taken hostage only to be released for 1 million dollars in ransom demand. How will they get away with it?This classic hostage flick goes back to the seventies, 1974 to be exact. Sound quality is MONO. Does everybody still even know what that means? One channel sound, when today there are 7 or more. Besides this the photography isnt grandiose either. It really has got that typical cheap early seventies feel to it, the period however Quentin Tarantino was so found of and is now going back to with his new movie. And for good reason, because in this period a lot of classics were born. And "The Taking of Pelham 123" is one of them. Although it certainly is no masterpiece. It is just a good hostage movie with excellent acting by Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw.You can also choose for the modern remake of this movie with Denzel Washington and John Travolta. I tried that myself but got bored with it within minutes. Maybe kids would love the modern version better, but if you are more of a cinephile then the seventies version is the more popular one that gets the highest ratings.Seen it many times now and besides some cheap effects and poor sound quality it is still a movie I go back to every year or so. I just love the New York cussing and complaining in it,I love the dirty New York strreets and subway and I really dig the great seventies soundtrack however bad it technically may sound in MONO lol...

writtenbymkm-583-902097 Okay, first the good things. Robert Shaw was good as the main hijacker. Walter Matthau was fairly good as the subway cop who was frustrated by everything (including, I'd guess, the plot). Photography was good. I liked the musical score. Now the bad things. SPOILERS AHEAD. The whole plot boils down to this: bad guys hijack a subway car filled with riders who become hostages, and demand one million dollars or they will murder the hostages. That's it. That's the plot. And it just does not work. I knew from the very beginning that the hostages would never be murdered. I knew from the start that the hijackers would not get away with it -- either they would wind up dead or arrested, or they'd lose the money. That was the entire basis of the "suspense." So for me, there was no suspense. This made the entire remainder of the movie an exercise in futility. I can hear the director and producers saying, "How many different complications can we stick in this movie to keep the audience worried? Let's have the hijackers demand a million dollars in an impossibly short period of time, so that it's obvious it won't be delivered and all the hostages will be killed. Let's have the mayor sick and weak and stupid and unable to make a simple decision, unable to decide to pay the ransom and save the lives of innocent hostages. Let's make the main hijacker (Robert Shaw) really really smart, but so stupid that he makes one impossible demand after another, despite the fact that what he supposedly wants is the million bucks. When the cops finally try to deliver the ransom, let's put every conceivable roadblock in their way, literally, to make it appear that they will never reach the subway on time. Meanwhile, let's inject a lot of absurd "comic relief," like maybe having some Japanese people visit and be treated in a racist manner. When the hijackers finally leave the subway car with their money, let's not end the movie there, let's have the subway car become a runaway car, so now the audience has to worry about whether they will all be killed when the car crashes. Let's not end it there, either -- let's have a shootout at the subway corral, and then the hero (Walter Matthau) can get the drop on the bad guy (Robert Shaw). No, wait, what if the bad guy refuses to give up, and instead electrocutes himself on the notorious third rail? Wow! No, wait, let's not end it yet -- what if one hijacker is still at large, the one who sneezes all the time, and Walter Matthau tracks him down and thinks he's innocent until he sneezes? Bottom line, I can't believe I'm in such a tiny minority here, I can't believe people were entertained by this stuff. One of the most irritating, unbelievable, and annoying "thrillers" I've ever seen.

classicsoncall Many years ago, make that many decades ago, I stumbled into the middle of this picture and was intrigued enough to watch it to the end. I never bothered to try catching the entire movie until it showed up on cable the other night. I have to say, this is one of those Seventies action flicks that just grabs you and doesn't let go until the red lights come on. Another picture that did the same for me back then was the original "Assault on Precinct 13" with John Carpenter at the helm. You have to catch that one too.Probably the first thing I noticed in the film were the names of the four subway thugs. I had to wonder if this was the source of Tarantino's inspiration for the criminals in "Reservoir Dogs". In fact, there's a Mr. Blue and a Mr. Brown in both pictures. And as for the mayor of New York City (Lee Wallace), I couldn't help thinking that he might have been selected for his resemblance to Ed Koch, until I realized that Koch wasn't mayor until a few years later. So that was interestingly prophetic.Like everyone else who watches the movie while trying to figure out how the hijackers would get away with it, it never occurs that the simplest solution would be the best - just get off at some point along the way. I thought it was just a bit too coincidental the way Garber (Walter Mattthau) second guessed the bad guys, but there was still enough suspense to keep one invested in the story. With nice dollops of humor thrown in every now and then, the picture still holds up pretty well after forty years, and will make you think twice the next time you board a subway train.

sesht Confession - I watched the Tony Scott remake of this Sargent flick with Denzel Washington and John Travolta first. Another - that, in no way diminished from my enjoying this on TV recently. Yes, there are those repartees that are more a norm, them being organic and all, though they were rehearsed, of the 70's staple, that could be found in movies of any genre (with a few not-too- notable exceptions, of course). Yes, like many movies of that period, it looks like 'French Connection' (the first one). Yes, 'Payback' got the 70's period soundtrack right. This one has the pounding score throughout, except when it's all silent for us to get the sound design. Very nice.The plot's the same, with the plan being the same, and the dead man's feature being the linchpin of the gig. It's been a while since I watched Robert Shaw man it up as the suave baddie. He does one more fantastic job, that evokes memories of his other good roles, in 'From Russia with love' and 'The Sting', among others. he would have made a great Marlowe, along with the other Robert.Speaking of evocative turns, Matthau pretty much mans it up too, throwing politically incorrect barbs all the way, while Jerry Stiller is very much himself, and Hector Elizondo playing the kind of character we have not seen him play in a long, long time, wishing he'd had more screen time. Balsam is, as always, fantastic, and his 'tic' (Hic) that's used very much for effect, and a key twist as well, is super- endearing.The focus is on the narrative throughout, and this has to be one of the best edited features out there, and does not seem dated a bit. Mattahu plays the kind of reluctant and recalcitrant hero we have seen before, but the way he kind of eases into it allows us to get into his shoes quite a few times, and there's no doubt about who's actually in control in all the exchanges he has with Shaw, even though things on the surface might indicate otherwise.Not to be missed, and worth repeat viewings. The remake's pretty decent too, but if I were asked to choose, in spite of my fondness for Tony Scott movies, and the Washington-Travolta combo, I'd have to say that the original's the better movie of the two, even though I saw it after the remake.