2009's The Taking Of Pelham 123 Is...Fine, But Here's Why The 1974 Original With Robert Shaw Is Better

Last year, I wrote about the worst movie I've ever seen, 2002’s Rollerball, noting how it was a remake of a far better film, the 1975 original starring James Caan. Horrible Hollywood remakes tend to outnumber the rare cases of remakes that are arguably better than the original, so it's never an expectation for modern iterations to stand taller. When it comes to the vast majority of them, though, I'd argue that most remakes are…just alright.

Such is the case for the 2009 remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, which I think is a serviceable enough movie with a cast of talented actors. However, it doesn't come close to the 1974 original with Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau, and here's why.

First, The Original's New York Setting Feels A Lot More Raw Than The 2009 Version

As a New Jerseyan, I love films set in New York City, and even though we didn't include this '74 classic in our list of great New York City movies, I would personally consider the original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three to be one of the best representations of the Big Apple. Largely because the movie is so…grungy, so raw, so much like the New York City that I envision existed before I was born in 1983. Just like The Warriors, which is another favorite ‘70s film of mine.

It's just that everything about this film screams New York. The city streets, the accents, the “screw you” attitude, the dirty subways where I can practically smell the urine. It all just culminates in one of the most authentic and real portrayals of New York that I have ever seen.

And then, you have the Tony Scott remake. Wall Street this. Dow Jones that. I mean, sure, when it was released, it was a pretty decent representation of the New York financial situation at the time, but it already feels like a dated outlook on the city nowadays.

It doesn't have the same grit of the original; the same energy. Which is strange, since Tony Scott's version is way more frenetic than the original. And yet, it doesn't feel as authentic, or like it has the same spirit of the city. So, the remake is fine, sure, but the original truly feels like it has the heart of the city beating throughout its 104 minute runtime.

John Travolta Is Great In His Own Way, But He Can't Touch Robert Shaw's Performance

Look, depending on the movie, I like John Travolta as a villain. He was great in Face/Off. And, while I’m not in love with the Thomas Jane Punisher movie (I think there are far better versions of the character, you see), I think Travolta was a highlight of that movie as Howard Saint. However…

I don’t like him in this film. Besides the fact that he’s needlessly dropping F-bombs left and right, he’s just too erratic and loud for my liking. Take the scene where he wants Denzel Washington’s character, Garber, to get back on the line. Travolta’s character kills someone, and then, angrily starts counting down over the radio, practically yelling at them to meet his demands.

Robert Shaw did not have to yell. Not once. In fact, his quiet, almost stoic demeanor is what makes him terrifying. When his character, Mr. Blue, hijacks the train, he calls the transit authorities and patiently gives them his orders. All of his men wear fake mustaches and glasses, and when one of them gets out of line, Mr. Blue takes note of it, and then shoots him in the back later when they all get their money.

Shaw honestly makes this movie, but he’s got one hell of a protagonist to go up against.

I Also Love Denzel Washington, But I Much Prefer Walter Matthau In The Original

Now, while I like John Travolta in most movies, I LOVE Denzel Washington in ALL movies, and that's also the case here. He plays a subway dispatcher who's up to the challenge of playing both calm and ready for action when the time calls for it. He can pull that role off in his sleep.

That said, I’m not in love with how the movie often feels like a tug of war between Travolta and Washington’s characters. I much prefer Walter Matthau from the original as a transit police officer as he feels more like a cog in a very large wheel rather than the driving force. Matthau’s version of Garber doesn’t really seem too harried or like an action hero. He seems more like a man who came into work one day, and just so happened to had to deal with a terrorist situation.

Matthau is incredibly deadpan, often just siding with Mr. Blue because it seems like the most logical thing to do. When Blue says that he wants a million dollars or he’s going to start killing people, Garber is like, okay, get the mayor on the line, and let him handle it. Because what else is he supposed to do? This is way above his pay grade.

But, it’s not like he’s not willing to get his hands dirty. He actually goes into the subway terminal and confronts Mr. Blue, only for Blue to kill himself since he doesn't want to be taken in. Matthau does not give a bombastic performance, but he doesn’t need to. The movie is bombastic enough.

The Pacing Is Slower In The Original, But More Effective

As a film fan, I miss Tony Scott. Some of the best scenes of all time come from his body of work. Whereas his brother, Ridley, often makes slower-paced, somewhat atmospheric movies (which really depends on whether it's sci-fi or historical), Tony Scott usually made quick-paced action movies like Top Gun, Days of Thunder, and True Romance. So, I usually LIKE that aspect of Tony Scott’s filmography.

That said, not this time, as I think his remake moves way too quickly. The same frenetic energy in a film like True Romance doesn’t necessarily fit with this movie. Or rather, it works, but I think the slower-pacing of the original is way more effective.

The negotiation aspect back at transit feels like the true heartbeat of the film in the original, whereas the remake makes it seem like the more exciting aspects are on the ones on the subway train, which just isn't the case for me.

I also like the banter between Matthau and Jerry Stiller. I enjoy the sense of confusion back at base, and the constantly ticking clock. I like all of that. But, what I like the most is that the movie still feels like it’s moving even after the main antagonist is gone, which brings me to my last point.

And The Ending. You Just Can’t Beat That Ending

Lastly, the original movie has the perfect ending. After Robert Shaw's character is toast, there's still more to go for the movie, as there's one more survivor on the loose, but they have no clue who he is. They have some leads, but that's it.

However, throughout the film, Matthau overhears somebody sneezing whenever he talks to Mr. Blue, and every time, Matthau says “Gesundheit.” Well, by the end of the film, when Matthau is going from suspect to suspect, they find the real culprit, but they don't know it's him.

In fact, the culprit quickly gets Garber out of his apartment, and it looks like he's going to get away with it, but that's when he sneezes as Garber is stepping out the door, and Garber casually says, “Gesundheit.” But, that’s when he pushes the door back open and gives him the perfect “I got you” look.

It's one of my favorite endings of all time, and the remake just can't compare.