Maidgethma Wonderfully offbeat film!

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

keithdavid-31173 This is a remake of an older film made in the 1070s and judging by other reviews- an improvement. It is an intense ride and both Denzel Washington and John Travolta shine. The late Tony Scott excelled in making certain types of films and this is the kind of film that he was happiest making, as opposed to elder brother Ridley who tends to choose more cerebral fare. Taking of Pelham 123 is a ride you don't wanna miss. Go see it.

inspectors71 Yeah, I know. I started the review with a bad pun.This Tony Scott remake of 1974's great, great The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is just awful. Much worse than any pun I can come up with. There's literally nothing to praise here. It's as if the screenwriters broke down the script from the original and the John Godey book, and found almost nothing usable.Then they put it back together, leaving out, well, everything important. So much for reverse-engineering. You're supposed to figure out how something works when you do that, not how to screw it up.So, we get John Travolta playing his Swordfish baddie again, Denzel Washington looking disconnected and bored behind some sort of phony nerd-glasses, and not a single character to care about. It's just an opportunity for Tony Scott, a hack right down there with Michael Winner, to use a bunch of fancy-shmancy graphics and camera tricks, and tell a story that was told infinitely better in 1974.Garbage, garbage, garbage. I never once cared for anyone in this movie. I never once was engaged with the story. It's as if Scott set out to make the crappiest remake possible.He made it.

Lola A I was looking forward to this movie for a very long time now and I must say that it was a bit disappointing. The story line is very predictable. One could tell from the beginning that Walter Garber will be the big great hero at the end of the movie. Ryder's character starts to develop in the beginning in the right direction and makes you curious about his reasons for doing what he was doing. It leaves the impression that maybe something personal and emotional, a wrong doing or an injustice has led him to respond in this wrong way. But, in the end the character development takes a complete disappointing turn. Ryder was doing all this because of money. So, overall the very end of the movie can be anticipated. Even the fact that Ryder's plan A will fail and a plan B is needed, is also what one would expect from movies like this. In terms of the message that the movie was trying to convey, I must say that all it got to me was that in the end the bad boys always lose.

vagg-fm Im not going to say much.My opinion is that the film was really good in terms of script and produced the action and intensity I was looking for but there were some things that totally ruined my experience.First of all, the music was awful and did not much at all with was being depicted from the screen. Really bad music selection.Secondly, there were parts on the film that the camera would - i don't know how to say it - "lagged", moving slowly, shaking and ruined the whole part. Its like watching a horror movie and at the point where the door slowly opens, the camera man shakes the camera for like 5 seconds and you miss everything.Travolta and Washington were really great in that movie and I believe that if the team behind the scenes was better, it could have hit an 7.5-8 overall.