Joel Lindhorst Absolutely, Joel. Never has so much been said with one facial expression! It made me sit in the theater seat, part of me wanted to cry at the simple beauty of it, and the other part wanted to bray laughter at that genius face Walter puts on (one of a few killer "takes" we get in this classic treasure). I settled on a satisfied bundle of tasteful guffaws.
People miss the most obvious reason why the remake fails. The novel and the 1974 version of the movie are period pieces. Elements of the suspension social unease and urban paranoia that existed in NYC in the late 1960's and early 1970's. And that's really why the 1974 version holds up in spite of the fact that some things are dated. It is a product of its time, but so is the story.
@squirrelystew, your point seems to me exactly right. Pelham is the great urban paranoia film of all time, a New York counterpart to All The President's Men. Quite a few people have remarked that no other movie so encapsulates the New York of the early-to-mid-70s - a city at its nadir. The huge, boldly drawn cast of minor characters creates a wonderful Greek chorus of New York cynicism. The dysfunctional city gives the calm, cool Garber a second antagonist to play against; he's fighting both Mr Blue madness and the city's. Location matters in films, and it has never been more powerful than here. That said, Pelham has several other remarkable elements. David Shire's superb soundtrack is already famous. Screenwriter Peter Stone's trademark mixing of suspense and comedy is less famous, but the barbed dialogue delivers line after line - including one of the great closing lines of all time. Not famous at all is the cinematography, by New York subway regular Owen Roizman, who shot using an anamorphoic format. He pre-flashed the film so that the crew could keep the ceiling on the carriage, put more powerful lights in the existing fittings and shoot with a relatively small group of additional lights. The result was a train interior like nothing seen before, and the same documentary-style realism as All The President's Men. Footnote: Nobody paid much attention to this when it came out. But Elvis Mitchell of the New York Times revisited it in 2003 and gave it the rave review for which it had waited 29 years. "This extremely effective adaptation ... was directed with hard-nosed authority by Joseph Sargent from Peter Stone's sourly witty script. With steely efficiency, the movie flaunts the filmmakers' fascination with, and revulsion for, the Manhattan of the 1970's. And the Sargent-and-Stone alternation of danger and comedy give the film a staccato flair that is still admired. David Shire's intriguing jazz score, which uses that rhythm as a backbeat, deserves more attention than that of rabid cultists. Stone, who died in April, understood that tempo was the way to keep the movie alive."
@@DavidWalker1 "the great urban paranoia film of all time?" okay, you're the boss... i like the original too, but jesus, people have some serious rose colored glasses on when they watch it.
Denzel's a fantastic actor, and I don't mind Travolta. But nothing beats the original's jazz soundtrack that added to a gritty new york feel. It's nostalgic; and I prefer the villain's portrayal better. Hell, the remake is almost exclusively about the relationship between Garber and Blue, whereas the original at least gave character to the other villains (well, two of the three). Also, the original is actually pretty effin funny. To paraphrase: Blue:''49 minutes'' Garber:''You've gotta give us more time than that'' Blue:''49 minutes'' Garber:''repeating '49 minutes' isn't gonna get the money faster to you'' Blue:''48 minutes''
No contest. The original was the best IMHO. As a NYer who saw this in 1974 and actually rode the same subway line the story is based on-- it was truly unique.
The later remake missed that classic ending, which was one that could only come from the characters played by Walter Matthau and Martin Balsam. All through the original movie, Matthau's Lt. Zach Garber had been hearing one of the hijackers sneeze over the radio. That silent door reopening ending tells more about real-life, grind through the list of suspects police work than a pile of modern, high-concept films. They don't even need to waste a word on the ending, just Matthau's hangdog, weaned-on-a-pickle look that tells you that he knows all. And it's funny and satisfying at the same time, not the paint-by-numbers exercise of the modern screenplay, which had to be streamlined to fit some studio executives weird little fetishes. Travolta's bouncing off the walls crazy in the modern movie is not the sort who could lead or inspire anyone, while Robert Shaw played the tough, competent and committed baddie who might be bent and completely amoral, but is still a clear leader. I'm not always against remakes - after all, that 1941 "Maltese Falcon" with Humphrey Bogart was the third try at getting it right. But sometimes a film gets it so right that it really can't be improved, and you end up making an inferior copy that will always come up short. Think the 1988 remake of "Psycho," which failed on nearly every level, even though it was practically remade shot-for-shot to Hitchcock's classic.
@Sky Gardener Sky, with all due respect, I can tell that you were raised on "modern cinema". The movies I grew up with, like the 1974 original has what you are describing would not have; HUMANITY. The humor that occurs in TOP123 '74 is incidental. Arising out of the characters personalities. When Matthau's Garber picks up the guy who says "I'm not lifting a finger to help the animals that killed Kaz Dulowitz." Matthau responds: "You listen to me you dumb son of a bitch, you do what I tell ya or tonight you'll be havin' DINNER with KAZ DULOWITZ!" A good laugh from the cinema audience, it was a RELIEF VALVE. This is called GREAT SCREENWRITING. I have found Tony Scott to be not overly impressive as a director. The remake was an absolute abortion. You saying the first whatever portion of the film was what, absorbing, interesting? The SECOND Travolta opened his mouth and non-stop sewage emitted from it in the form of Mother F this and Mother F that...really non stop. And it was nothing to the purpose. This is a bankruptcy of the imagination. Finally, the Mnyeh ending of the remake with the CLASSIC Matthau "Gotcha" expression that is the final frame...not in the same universe. Take care.
Seen both and really like how you break it down here. Pelham 1974 is a rich film. And in this video you show hollywood where they went off the rails. It's harder and harder to find a movie with good storytelling. Sorry for the rails pun, had to do it.
As remakes go, the 2009 film was a good effort. The 1974 original shades it for me. The score adds to the tension. The 2009 film, added some new twists - Garber's story, the broadening of the Ryder character with his Wall Street past. The use of the internet to access what was really happening above ground, so the hijackers also knew this. This gave this a fresher 21st century feel to it. Though the 1974 film was of it's time it is still a powerful film more than 45 years on !
Why has no-one ever tried to remake "Gone with the Wind" or "Casablanca"? That's right - because they are already perfect examples of their genre. People know the original, and no remake could ever compare. If something ain't broken, don't fix it.
@@ColonelFredPuntridge I didn't even know there had been remakes of those. They must have been good because they were both superlative films to start with. Like To Have and Have Not. Could you imagine ANYONE comparing with Lauren Bacall telling Bogart to whistle? She was sex on legs and even as a straight female I fancied her! Nobody could compare!
I was in a classroom at Pace University when they were shooting the scene of the police car with the money speeding up I think it was Nassau Street towards Park Row in the original 1974 version. We were watching it out an upper floor window. They did about 10 retakes, about every half hour.
The original was much better because it took advantage of the fact that in the 70's, the NY subways were a gritty, dirty, disgusting, and dangerous place. Nowadays, it's a little bit better.
Your review was SPOT ON! Nothing compares to the true grit f 1970's NYC. The original 'feel' of typical NYers and how they work with and against each other. Each person doing what they are supposed to do in the tone they do it in. As a train buff, the 2009 version had a lot of technical issues I had to ignore, albeit my OCD was raging by 2/3rds into the movie. As with you, I also showed friend that don't like 'classic' movies for one reason or another and they are in awe with the original and then pick apart the new version. This movie has been and always be my favorite movie. Plus you have to admit, that musical score can't ever be reproduced the same way, and mean what it stood for. NEW YORK CITY.
I get upset every time a NYC subway movie doesn't portray the train lines or stations accurately. Pelham 2009 did that along with money train and any modern movie with NYC as the setting.
The original is perfection. There is not one iota of the movie that isn't needed and thoroughly enjoyable. I agree with this review fully. On the technical side, Tony Scott did what Tony Scott usually does with the remake; use a lot of circular camera dollies, quick zooms in and zooms out (but far less than he did in Unstoppable), and employs annoying editing techniques in an attempt to make his movies seem stylish and edgy (which Man on Fire did to excess). (Edit: I was typing this as I listened to your review and just realized you covered the editing and cinematography side of it. And may I add I'm so glad I'm not the only one who finds this annoying. Again, great review!)
+Thom Florio The time periods are totally different also. Hijackings and terrorism in the 70s was pretty new and the attitude was different towards it. Nowadays the collective shits their pants any time terrorist or hijacker is mentioned. Its a movie that just doesn't work in the times we live in now.
I understand your point but am not sure the film would compromise as much in today's world. The 1970s saw the terrorism during the Olympics and hijackings. I think it's the approach a filmmaker chooses that mutes the impact of this story. I haven't seen the 1996 movie Daylight since I caught it on television but that was pre-911 and I remember how "Hollywood" and less real that movie felt compared to the realistic feel of the original Pelham, especially in both their command control scenes. The funny thing now as I watch the 1970s Pelham is how foreign that New York looks to me even though I spent a lot of time around midtown Manhattan during those years.
Robert Shaw was so good at that. The only very slight weakness of the original movie is that we never hear him shout. His Shakespeare-theater-trained shouting voice was amazing. You hear it in _A Man for All Seasons_ when he rants to Thomas More about "treachery, treachery, treachery! It is a deadly canker on the body politic, and I WILL HAVE IT OUT!!!" Also in _The Sting_ when he shouts "but my MONEY'S in there!"
I was one of the motorman who helped make the sequel. We shot for about 8 weeks the underground scenes. I was telling a buddy there's no way can surpass the 1st Pelham. I didn't know Tony Scott was in earshot. He said "this is gonna be better". I said how? You gonna dig up the great Robert Shaw!
I feel the same way as the reviewer. The most I miss in the new version is the richness and 'texture' of the 74 version. The tiresome quick montage and modern cinematography are more of an annoyances then substitutes for all that.
the original is criminally one of the highly underrated LOST gems of 70s cinema. as intriguing as it is to have Travolta and Denzel co-starring in a movie...the remake doesn't even come near the original.
Original is much better and more clever than the remake. Even the ending of the original is significantly better. Actually, the last scene of the original is a classic.
I think the reason the first movie works so well is that it makes New York itself the third main character. The city feels live, and you can feel the city itself through every character in the film, no matter how small their part.
The director of the original film, Joseph Sergeant, also directed an episode of the classic Star Trek. His wife, Carolyn Nelson, was one of the passengers (she was the one meditating to herself). She also was in one of the classic Trek episodes, 'The Deadly Years,' as Yeoman Doris Atkins.
Wait til you see the remake of The French Connection starring Adam Sandler & Chris Rock as Popeye & Cloudy, there's a new love interest, Kate Upton as a model who dates Popeye but wants him to quit his job, John Travolta as Frog One (doing this same character), a new musical score by Taylor Swift & Lil Wayne and a cute happy ending ...
All you really to know is, THERE is no comparison. The Original is a one of a kind. The mold was broke and some director in the 21st Century had an day dream to attempt to re-make this classic. You see, the 1974 version is for All Time. The re-make was for the moment it came out and as you can see as of 9/8/14, unless you look at this video or a poster, people couldn't even tell you who the stars were. SMH... Matthau and Shaw were BRILLIANT!
+Baltimorehop Now it's 10.12.15 as I type this, and your words are still as completely true as they were when you typed them. The original was/is perfect the way it was/is-period, end of story.
Sad to hear that some folks now consider films made before 1990 as being "old" ( I remember when the cut off use to be the 70's).... Tell these philistine clowns that there is no such thing as old vs. new movies- there are only good, or bad, films.
When I was a kid, I had no idea what this movie was about. I just saw the title, but when I heard the first few notes of the theme tune to the original, I just knew "This is a heist movie." This has been my all time favourite heist movie since I was 10. Forty years later, there is still NO substitute.
Love the mashup you do at the beginning. It's the only way any footage from the remake is palatable. I adore the original, and that steaming turd of a ripoff defines everything wrong with modern Hollywood.
The original had a subtext that would necessarily have been missing from the remake. At the time the original movie was made, New York was facing bankruptcy, which is part of the reason that the mayor is so reluctant to cough up the $1 million -- he doesn't have $1 million to cough up.
Great analysis. Original was true to the 1970s thriller/suspense genre, while the re-make chose the predictable Hollywood action film blueprint with much worse results.
I have named all of my dogs after characters in Pelham, mostly obscure, mostly from the Grand Central Tower. Caz Dolowicz, Marino, and Checkers. The original was great, I watch it over and over and try to place the scenes with present-day Manhattan, where my wife and I frequently visit. I take the #6 Pelham train any time I can work it into my itinerary. While I'm a fan of John Travolta, the remake was terrible. I almost asked for my money back, it was that bad.
In the past movies were driven by writers creating interesting characters and putting them into compelling situations, today its driven by director/editors who are into creating one continuous action scene that never pays off.
Also, I really don't mind the political incorrectness of the film; because it honestly adds a sense of realism to the film. The old guy harkening on about women and people calling the asian guys 'Chinamen' (which isn't necessarily an insult) sounds like everyday language. While talking with friends or close ones people don't usually watch their tongue, but they also don't insinuate vile hatred either. And words don't do that. Who in here DOESN'T use the word 'faggot'.
WHATISUTUBE it's 2017 man. The fact that you actually say "who doesn't use the word "faggot"?" Is actually as stunning as it is sickening. I don't speak for all of America I speak for myself man, but I for one don't use the word "faggot". It's called social evolution, not "political correctness "!!
Paul E. Quinn get off your high horse buddy. I’m so sick of this “holier than thou” attitude people like you have today. Make no mistake, you are part of the problem
Once again .. great commentary .. I said it before and I'll say it again ... some movies should never be remade .. and this movie is one of them ... thanks again
It's kind of ironic that the original *"Taking of Pelham One Two Three"* starred Robert Shaw (Mr. Quint) from *"JAWS"* and is directed by Joseph Sargent who later directed *"JAWS:* *The Revenge",* a heavily-flawed sequel that's definitely not-as-perfect as the first two films, but - in my humble opinion - is still a better film than all the other shark films of today, with a few exceptions of course.
"What the hell do they expect for their lousy 35 cents, to live forever?" - always loved that line. So much 70s NYC cynicism. You are right, the original was excellent, a satire on NY at the time. The new one is Hollywood formula BS. The original is one of my all-time fav movies.
While I think the older one is better, I think you missed the point of why Ryder did what he did in the newer version. He couldn't care less about the $10 million they gave him. He did all of this to manipulate the market and drive his portfolio up, that's why he did everything that he did
Just saw the original for the first time tonight and really liked it. Was interested in seeing the remake, but not so much now, after seeing what they did with it.
Absolutely fabulous review of both films. Unlike most critics who bashed the remake, you give concrete and convincing reasons for its shortcomings, while praising its one big plus. You also deliver it in an interesting manner. I'll start looking for more.
If I had to rank the three Pelhams, it’d be so: 1. 1974 Served its purpose as a true staple of the 1970s, being quite dramatic while still finding itself grounded in some reality. 2. 2009 This movie sought out to do basically a completely different thing the 1974 movie set out to do; it was more action-focused but loses a lot of its tension due to the rather strange way certain elements of the movie link up. I still wanna watch the whole thing - I’ve admittedly only watched the MOVIECLIPS of the movie - but the original is definitely better. 3. 1998 …it’s just an exact remake of 1974 Pelham except it does away with a lot of what made the 1974 version actually good, even trying to copy scenes exactly without the same atmosphere. I get it was a TV show adaptation filmed in Toronto, but it greatly lacks. A very watered down version of the source material it was trying to base off of.
The four subway hijackers from the original 1974 movie "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 Grey: Troublemaker Villian Brown: Stutter, but well mannered Villain Green: Congested Fever Villian Blue: Cool,Calm Collective Villain These are the original characters of the 1974 movie...... I post some more comments later
I think this is your best 'Remake Recon' yet. Very clever editing and some very good suggestions, e.g the casting choices for the three leads being reversed.
Thanks for that. I just saw the remake tonight for the first time and I agree with your assessment, especially regarding the comparison between Robert Shaw's character and that of John Travolta.Another example of remaking a film and not doing a very good job of it. The finalle was also poor by comparison. Garber, a relatively mild guy has just shot someone and five minutes later is chatting and joking with the mayor like a hardened killer...OK I know it's Hollywood and I should suspend disbelief
I always look forward to your film analysis videos HaphazzardStuff. You have a very sharp and concise way of breaking films down, both in production quality and its sustaining impact. I agree, the original beats out the new film, though I give the 2009 version credit for attempting new motivation and not following the original's example to a tee. However, an ensemble film would've been a stronger approach. The city of New York should be a character not just a setting for something like this.
I love the bag lady who is sleeping on the train throughout the entire train hijacking. They really made a great use of her in the original Pelham 1 2 3 film. I just recently bought the original film on Blu-Ray and this was the first time I noticed her.
I haven't seen the remake, but I have seen enough movies lately to know what happening there. Is Hollywood so strapped for cash that they can't afford to pay writers to come up with new ideas and can only push out remakes? Then there's the cast: I only see a bunch of celebrities phoning in their performances. Maybe the special effects in Hollywood have advanced so much that actors HAVE to distance themselves as much as possible from each other and the movie.
Thing just is, that they don't make anything cool anymore. The cool is simply dead. Young people are far from cool, cars, motorcycles, clothes, movies, music,... nothing is cool anymore.
Remaking P123 is like remaking Casablanca or 2001: A Space Odyssey. "Foolish" doesn't even begin to cover it. The original theme music ALONE is reason enough to burn every print of the remake.
Agree. The original i so much better. The remake emphasized cartoon action over characters. The original is great because of the casting, those really look like guys who work there and the story was believable enough to really engage the audience.
A very fair assessment of both films. Just a heads-up, the 1974 version has recently been re-released as a Special Edition (Region-A locked) Blu-Ray from Kino Lorber.
When the first Pelham was made just the setting of the movie at the time, New York City was a tense, dangerous environment without any hijackers, just walking the streets and riding the subway was enough to get adrenaline pumping, getting that way again. By the time the 09 remake was made, nyc was a different place, the makers of the movie had to artificially inflate tension, hence his overacting throughput the film, it had to ramp up anything so the audience would feel tense just because of the acting and quick cuts of video and sound to further the drama. NYC of 1974 was a totally different place than the NYC of 2009. Movies have to appeal to a worldwide audience, certain aspects have to be emphasized to those not familiar with the NYC way of life. A New Yorker doesn’t need the phony drama to feel the terror. I also thought the single car on an elevated structure, detracts because I ride the Lexington Ave line. Only elevated is way up in the Bronx.
The older version wins HANDS DOWN!!!!!
Much better movie.
The original has one of the best endings I've ever seen in a film. It's classic.
Joel Lindhorst Absolutely, Joel. Never has so much been said with one facial expression! It made me sit in the theater seat, part of me wanted to cry at the simple beauty of it, and the other part wanted to bray laughter at that genius face Walter puts on (one of a few killer "takes" we get in this classic treasure). I settled on a satisfied bundle of tasteful guffaws.
@@michaelg-ux1moagreed 🎉
Gasunheit!
People miss the most obvious reason why the remake fails. The novel and the 1974 version of the movie are period pieces. Elements of the suspension social unease and urban paranoia that existed in NYC in the late 1960's and early 1970's. And that's really why the 1974 version holds up in spite of the fact that some things are dated. It is a product of its time, but so is the story.
@squirrelystew, your point seems to me exactly right. Pelham is the great urban paranoia film of all time, a New York counterpart to All The President's Men. Quite a few people have remarked that no other movie so encapsulates the New York of the early-to-mid-70s - a city at its nadir. The huge, boldly drawn cast of minor characters creates a wonderful Greek chorus of New York cynicism. The dysfunctional city gives the calm, cool Garber a second antagonist to play against; he's fighting both Mr Blue madness and the city's. Location matters in films, and it has never been more powerful than here.
That said, Pelham has several other remarkable elements. David Shire's superb soundtrack is already famous. Screenwriter Peter Stone's trademark mixing of suspense and comedy is less famous, but the barbed dialogue delivers line after line - including one of the great closing lines of all time.
Not famous at all is the cinematography, by New York subway regular Owen Roizman, who shot using an anamorphoic format. He pre-flashed the film so that the crew could keep the ceiling on the carriage, put more powerful lights in the existing fittings and shoot with a relatively small group of additional lights. The result was a train interior like nothing seen before, and the same documentary-style realism as All The President's Men.
Footnote: Nobody paid much attention to this when it came out. But Elvis Mitchell of the New York Times revisited it in 2003 and gave it the rave review for which it had waited 29 years.
"This extremely effective adaptation ... was directed with hard-nosed authority by Joseph Sargent from Peter Stone's sourly witty script. With steely efficiency, the movie flaunts the filmmakers' fascination with, and revulsion for, the Manhattan of the 1970's. And the Sargent-and-Stone alternation of danger and comedy give the film a staccato flair that is still admired. David Shire's intriguing jazz score, which uses that rhythm as a backbeat, deserves more attention than that of rabid cultists. Stone, who died in April, understood that tempo was the way to keep the movie alive."
You miss the obvious reason why the remake fails. Poor acting and bad writers and of course the score sucks.
To a lesser degree but comparable
I think : early Kojak episodes seem to capture some of that essence ?
it doesn't fail, it just shouldn't be taken seriously.
@@DavidWalker1 "the great urban paranoia film of all time?" okay, you're the boss...
i like the original too, but jesus, people have some serious rose colored glasses on when they watch it.
walther matthau was so awesome in the original.
The 1974 original is incomparable! One of the greatest movies EVER!
The original was better in every way. Comparing Shaw to Trevolta. Shaw demonstrates why less is more when it comes to acting.
From the bad ass soundtrack to Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw's gritty performance, the original will always standalone as the BEST of the two.
Denzel's a fantastic actor, and I don't mind Travolta. But nothing beats the original's jazz soundtrack that added to a gritty new york feel. It's nostalgic; and I prefer the villain's portrayal better. Hell, the remake is almost exclusively about the relationship between Garber and Blue, whereas the original at least gave character to the other villains (well, two of the three). Also, the original is actually pretty effin funny. To paraphrase:
Blue:''49 minutes''
Garber:''You've gotta give us more time than that''
Blue:''49 minutes''
Garber:''repeating '49 minutes' isn't gonna get the money faster to you''
Blue:''48 minutes''
+WHATISUTUBE 49 minutes
+Arthur Bishop 48 minutes
Agreed the original movie was better 📼
They are great actors, but some how it doesn’t stand up to the original. The 1974 is a classic.
No contest. The original was the best IMHO. As a NYer who saw this in 1974 and actually rode the same subway line the story is based on-- it was truly unique.
The later remake missed that classic ending, which was one that could only come from the characters played by Walter Matthau and Martin Balsam. All through the original movie, Matthau's Lt. Zach Garber had been hearing one of the hijackers sneeze over the radio. That silent door reopening ending tells more about real-life, grind through the list of suspects police work than a pile of modern, high-concept films. They don't even need to waste a word on the ending, just Matthau's hangdog, weaned-on-a-pickle look that tells you that he knows all. And it's funny and satisfying at the same time, not the paint-by-numbers exercise of the modern screenplay, which had to be streamlined to fit some studio executives weird little fetishes.
Travolta's bouncing off the walls crazy in the modern movie is not the sort who could lead or inspire anyone, while Robert Shaw played the tough, competent and committed baddie who might be bent and completely amoral, but is still a clear leader. I'm not always against remakes - after all, that 1941 "Maltese Falcon" with Humphrey Bogart was the third try at getting it right. But sometimes a film gets it so right that it really can't be improved, and you end up making an inferior copy that will always come up short. Think the 1988 remake of "Psycho," which failed on nearly every level, even though it was practically remade shot-for-shot to Hitchcock's classic.
@Sky Gardener Sky, with all due respect, I can tell that you were raised on "modern cinema". The movies I grew up with, like the 1974 original has what you are describing would not have; HUMANITY. The humor that occurs in TOP123 '74 is incidental. Arising out of the characters personalities. When Matthau's Garber picks up the guy who says "I'm not lifting a finger to help the animals that killed Kaz Dulowitz."
Matthau responds: "You listen to me you dumb son of a bitch, you do what I tell ya or tonight you'll be havin' DINNER with KAZ DULOWITZ!" A good laugh from the cinema audience, it was a RELIEF VALVE. This is called GREAT SCREENWRITING.
I have found Tony Scott to be not overly impressive as a director. The remake was an absolute abortion. You saying the first whatever portion of the film was what, absorbing, interesting? The SECOND Travolta opened his mouth and non-stop sewage emitted from it in the form of Mother F this and Mother F that...really non stop. And it was nothing to the purpose.
This is a bankruptcy of the imagination.
Finally, the Mnyeh ending of the remake with the CLASSIC Matthau "Gotcha" expression that is the final frame...not in the same universe.
Take care.
Seen both and really like how you break it down here. Pelham 1974 is a rich film. And in this video you show hollywood where they went off the rails. It's harder and harder to find a movie with good storytelling. Sorry for the rails pun, had to do it.
As remakes go, the 2009 film was a good effort. The 1974 original shades it for me. The score adds to the tension. The 2009 film, added some new twists - Garber's story, the broadening of the Ryder character with his Wall Street past. The use of the internet to access what was really happening above ground, so the hijackers also knew this. This gave this a fresher 21st century feel to it. Though the 1974 film was of it's time it is still a powerful film more than 45 years on !
Why has no-one ever tried to remake "Gone with the Wind" or "Casablanca"? That's right - because they are already perfect examples of their genre. People know the original, and no remake could ever compare. If something ain't broken, don't fix it.
@Bobbie Charles Lol. I bet they worked.
Amen, sister! Although there have been a few good remakes of really good movies. Like, for instance, _The Maltese Falcon_ and _Twelve Angry Men_ .
@@ColonelFredPuntridge I didn't even know there had been remakes of those. They must have been good because they were both superlative films to start with. Like To Have and Have Not. Could you imagine ANYONE comparing with Lauren Bacall telling Bogart to whistle? She was sex on legs and even as a straight female I fancied her! Nobody could compare!
One of those 1970s gritty police action flicks.
I was in a classroom at Pace University when they were shooting the scene of the police car with the money speeding up I think it was Nassau Street towards Park Row in the original 1974 version. We were watching it out an upper floor window. They did about 10 retakes, about every half hour.
The original was much better because it took advantage of the fact that in the 70's, the NY subways were a gritty, dirty, disgusting, and dangerous place. Nowadays, it's a little bit better.
Your review was SPOT ON!
Nothing compares to the true grit f 1970's NYC. The original 'feel' of typical NYers and how they work with and against each other. Each person doing what they are supposed to do in the tone they do it in. As a train buff, the 2009 version had a lot of technical issues I had to ignore, albeit my OCD was raging by 2/3rds into the movie.
As with you, I also showed friend that don't like 'classic' movies for one reason or another and they are in awe with the original and then pick apart the new version.
This movie has been and always be my favorite movie. Plus you have to admit, that musical score can't ever be reproduced the same way, and mean what it stood for. NEW YORK CITY.
I get upset every time a NYC subway movie doesn't portray the train lines or stations accurately. Pelham 2009 did that along with money train and any modern movie with NYC as the setting.
That edited mashup in the beginning was pure art, man.
The original is perfection. There is not one iota of the movie that isn't needed and thoroughly enjoyable. I agree with this review fully. On the technical side, Tony Scott did what Tony Scott usually does with the remake; use a lot of circular camera dollies, quick zooms in and zooms out (but far less than he did in Unstoppable), and employs annoying editing techniques in an attempt to make his movies seem stylish and edgy (which Man on Fire did to excess). (Edit: I was typing this as I listened to your review and just realized you covered the editing and cinematography side of it. And may I add I'm so glad I'm not the only one who finds this annoying. Again, great review!)
+Thom Florio The time periods are totally different also. Hijackings and terrorism in the 70s was pretty new and the attitude was different towards it. Nowadays the collective shits their pants any time terrorist or hijacker is mentioned. Its a movie that just doesn't work in the times we live in now.
I understand your point but am not sure the film would compromise as much in today's world. The 1970s saw the terrorism during the Olympics and hijackings. I think it's the approach a filmmaker chooses that mutes the impact of this story. I haven't seen the 1996 movie Daylight since I caught it on television but that was pre-911 and I remember how "Hollywood" and less real that movie felt compared to the realistic feel of the original Pelham, especially in both their command control scenes. The funny thing now as I watch the 1970s Pelham is how foreign that New York looks to me even though I spent a lot of time around midtown Manhattan during those years.
hes style fit very well in man on fire it was perfect with great soundrack here he used it out of place, but i enjoyed the movie
I didn't even bother to see the remake. It is not possible that the remake would outdo the original.
My father saw the 2009 remake he said it was good I told him to watch the original movie it was better📼
The older one is honestly much better, especially with the fact Robert Shaw plays mr blue and just plays it so calm
Robert Shaw was so good at that. The only very slight weakness of the original movie is that we never hear him shout. His Shakespeare-theater-trained shouting voice was amazing. You hear it in _A Man for All Seasons_ when he rants to Thomas More about "treachery, treachery, treachery! It is a deadly canker on the body politic, and I WILL HAVE IT OUT!!!" Also in _The Sting_ when he shouts "but my MONEY'S in there!"
I was one of the motorman who helped make the sequel. We shot for about 8 weeks the underground scenes. I was telling a buddy there's no way can surpass the 1st Pelham. I didn't know Tony Scott was in earshot. He said "this is gonna be better". I said how? You gonna dig up the great Robert Shaw!
Very interesting, if true.
@@jre617 Not true because I'm a psychopath. I like to tell lies for no reason because I'm a giant loser of the 1st magnitude.
Why remake a classic that can never be bettered?
+Ed Shed same thing happened to the italian job.
+Ed Shed Absolutely agree, Ed. Nothing can touch this movie-it's perfect the way it was done originally.
Plus, the music from the original...totally untouchable!
tony scott pulled it off.
@@plasticweapon Wrong.
I feel the same way as the reviewer. The most I miss in the new version is the richness and 'texture' of the 74 version. The tiresome quick montage and modern cinematography are more of an annoyances then substitutes for all that.
the original is criminally one of the highly underrated LOST gems of 70s cinema. as intriguing as it is to have Travolta and Denzel co-starring in a movie...the remake doesn't even come near the original.
Original is much better and more clever than the remake. Even the ending of the original is significantly better. Actually, the last scene of the original is a classic.
I agree, The filming in 2009 just doesn't do the movie right. The 1974, does the movie right for sure.
Robert Shaw was the better Ryder in the original. Cold and calculating lead bad guy.
I think the reason the first movie works so well is that it makes New York itself the third main character. The city feels live, and you can feel the city itself through every character in the film, no matter how small their part.
The director of the original film, Joseph Sergeant, also directed an episode of the classic Star Trek. His wife, Carolyn Nelson, was one of the passengers (she was the one meditating to herself). She also was in one of the classic Trek episodes, 'The Deadly Years,' as Yeoman Doris Atkins.
The remake can't hold a candle to the original.
Wait til you see the remake of The French Connection starring Adam Sandler & Chris Rock as Popeye & Cloudy, there's a new love interest, Kate Upton as a model who dates Popeye but wants him to quit his job, John Travolta as Frog One (doing this same character), a new musical score by Taylor Swift & Lil Wayne and a cute happy ending ...
ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa mr blueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I don't think that film was ever made. I haven't found it anywhere; no reference to it online.
He's obviously joking!!! 😆😆
Careful, with posts like this Hollywood will be calling you for the rights.
All you really to know is, THERE is no comparison. The Original is a one of a kind. The mold was broke and some director in the 21st Century had an day dream to attempt to re-make this classic. You see, the 1974 version is for All Time. The re-make was for the moment it came out and as you can see as of 9/8/14, unless you look at this video or a poster, people couldn't even tell you who the stars were. SMH... Matthau and Shaw were BRILLIANT!
+Baltimorehop Now it's 10.12.15 as I type this, and your words are still as completely true as they were when you typed them.
The original was/is perfect the way it was/is-period, end of story.
Arthur Bishop Thank you Mr. Bishop, as they called Charles Bronson that in the original The Mechanic.
The music in the original is WAY better!
It's like comparing the legacy of the NY Yankees to the legacy of the San Diego Padres
Sad to hear that some folks now consider films made before 1990 as being "old" ( I remember when the cut off use to be the 70's).... Tell these philistine clowns that there is no such thing as old vs. new movies- there are only good, or bad, films.
Lt. Rico Patrone will be missed and cannot be replaced. Classic line: "Even great men have to..."
When I was a kid, I had no idea what this movie was about. I just saw the title, but when I heard the first few notes of the theme tune to the original, I just knew "This is a heist movie." This has been my all time favourite heist movie since I was 10. Forty years later, there is still NO substitute.
There should be a law from people from trying to duplicate/remake classics.The 1974 version is a classic....try to be original
Original was good and gritty. Great job on the review
Great review Travolta's over acting was painful He ruined the movie
I agree with your analysis. Good job! This remake certainly lacks the nuances of the original, and pales by comparison.
Love the mashup you do at the beginning. It's the only way any footage from the remake is palatable. I adore the original, and that steaming turd of a ripoff defines everything wrong with modern Hollywood.
They just knew how to make heist movies in the 70s, man.
The original had a subtext that would necessarily have been missing from the remake. At the time the original movie was made, New York was facing bankruptcy, which is part of the reason that the mayor is so reluctant to cough up the $1 million -- he doesn't have $1 million to cough up.
All of it. Soundtrack, ending. An absolute classic.
Great analysis. Original was true to the 1970s thriller/suspense genre, while the re-make chose the predictable Hollywood action film blueprint with much worse results.
this is a phenomenal video for being made in 2012, the editing is pristine, the audio is clear, the writing is impeccable, great job man✌
Films set in NY in the 70s are great,French connection,Dog Day Afternoon,Mean Streets etc
NY movies are just the BEST....especially from the 70's....Black Caesar, Super Fly, The Warriors, Saturday Night Fever etc
Also Death Wish.
Also Tarintino took the Mr(color) names in resevoir dogs from this movie!!
I have named all of my dogs after characters in Pelham, mostly obscure, mostly from the Grand Central Tower. Caz Dolowicz, Marino, and Checkers. The original was great, I watch it over and over and try to place the scenes with present-day Manhattan, where my wife and I frequently visit. I take the #6 Pelham train any time I can work it into my itinerary. While I'm a fan of John Travolta, the remake was terrible. I almost asked for my money back, it was that bad.
In the past movies were driven by writers creating interesting characters and putting them into compelling situations, today its driven by director/editors who are into creating one continuous action scene that never pays off.
tony scott always knew how to make action pay off. and in case you haven't noticed, the remake was way more character heavy than the original.
@@plasticweapon Wrong.
The original is better on so many levels: the acting, the New Yorkness, and lastly the attention to accurate subway detail it had.
1974 film is one of my all time favs. Cant bring myself to watch the remake.
personally, i prefer the Walter Matthau original over the Vince D'Onofrio remake & the Denzel Washington remake.
Ironicly, John Travolta could have played the hijacker in the original movie as well, after all he was already in his 20's back then.😁
The Original!!!
Also, I really don't mind the political incorrectness of the film; because it honestly adds a sense of realism to the film. The old guy harkening on about women and people calling the asian guys 'Chinamen' (which isn't necessarily an insult) sounds like everyday language. While talking with friends or close ones people don't usually watch their tongue, but they also don't insinuate vile hatred either. And words don't do that. Who in here DOESN'T use the word 'faggot'.
WHATISUTUBE it's 2017 man. The fact that you actually say "who doesn't use the word "faggot"?" Is actually as stunning as it is sickening. I don't speak for all of America I speak for myself man, but I for one don't use the word "faggot". It's called social evolution, not "political correctness "!!
Paul E. Quinn get off your high horse buddy. I’m so sick of this “holier than thou” attitude people like you have today. Make no mistake, you are part of the problem
The first film is such a gift.
I love the original just a great film.
He is right about the supporting characters. Nothing in the 2009 version could match Rico Patrone or Caz Dolowicz.
You’re absolutely right, the original was much better.
Once again .. great commentary .. I said it before and I'll say it again ... some movies should never be remade .. and this movie is one of them ... thanks again
Truer words were never typed...ten years later....👍
Agreed. The first is the best. Everyone in it is memorable.
It's kind of ironic that the original *"Taking of Pelham One Two Three"* starred Robert Shaw (Mr. Quint) from *"JAWS"* and is directed by Joseph Sargent who later directed *"JAWS:*
*The Revenge",* a heavily-flawed sequel that's definitely not-as-perfect as the first two films, but - in my humble opinion - is still a better film than all
the other shark films of today, with a few exceptions of course.
The first TWO Jaws films? The second one is a piece of crap. It had me rooting for the shark!
Nicely put together.
Well done, very well done.
What's wrong dude? Ain't you ever seen the sunset before?
Big love from the UK.
I saw a comment on a movie reaction channel that said, "with a few notable exceptions, there are no good movies made before 1980"
"Screw the passengers. What do they expect for their 35 cents? To live forever?"
"What the hell do they expect for their lousy 35 cents, to live forever?" - always loved that line. So much 70s NYC cynicism.
You are right, the original was excellent, a satire on NY at the time. The new one is Hollywood formula BS.
The original is one of my all-time fav movies.
i like the original..all those new york flavour...screaming and swearing ....
While I think the older one is better, I think you missed the point of why Ryder did what he did in the newer version. He couldn't care less about the $10 million they gave him. He did all of this to manipulate the market and drive his portfolio up, that's why he did everything that he did
I've probably seen the original close to 50 times. I wouldn't give 10 seconds of my time to the remake?
Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw hugely entertaining.Great dialogue all round.
There is no contest. Pointlessness.
When the original is a brilliant masterpiece, WHY BOTHER!
There is not even a competition..the original BLAZTING EVERY MOVIE OUT THERE!!!! ON ALL LEVELS. BADDEST FILM ON THE PLANET..NUMBER 1.
Just saw the original for the first time tonight and really liked it. Was interested in seeing the remake, but not so much now, after seeing what they did with it.
Absolutely fabulous review of both films. Unlike most critics who bashed the remake, you give concrete and convincing reasons for its shortcomings, while praising its one big plus. You also deliver it in an interesting manner. I'll start looking for more.
I like the 2009 version but the 1974 version is COMPLETE MASTERPIECE!
If I had to rank the three Pelhams, it’d be so:
1. 1974
Served its purpose as a true staple of the 1970s, being quite dramatic while still finding itself grounded in some reality.
2. 2009
This movie sought out to do basically a completely different thing the 1974 movie set out to do; it was more action-focused but loses a lot of its tension due to the rather strange way certain elements of the movie link up. I still wanna watch the whole thing - I’ve admittedly only watched the MOVIECLIPS of the movie - but the original is definitely better.
3. 1998
…it’s just an exact remake of 1974 Pelham except it does away with a lot of what made the 1974 version actually good, even trying to copy scenes exactly without the same atmosphere.
I get it was a TV show adaptation filmed in Toronto, but it greatly lacks. A very watered down version of the source material it was trying to base off of.
I worked for NY transit for 32 years. Trust me, the original was 100% authentic.
The four subway hijackers from the original 1974 movie "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3
Grey: Troublemaker Villian
Brown: Stutter, but well mannered Villain
Green: Congested Fever Villian
Blue: Cool,Calm Collective Villain
These are the original characters of the 1974 movie......
I post some more comments later
I think this is your best 'Remake Recon' yet. Very clever editing and some very good suggestions, e.g the casting choices for the three leads being reversed.
seriously, ur channel is one of the most inspireing and interesting current channels on youtube, keep up the excellent work.!.
You've hit this one right on the head man! Very accurate review!
Thanks for that. I just saw the remake tonight for the first time and I agree with your assessment, especially regarding the comparison between Robert Shaw's character and that of John Travolta.Another example of remaking a film and not doing a very good job of it. The finalle was also poor by comparison. Garber, a relatively mild guy has just shot someone and five minutes later is chatting and joking with the mayor like a hardened killer...OK I know it's Hollywood and I should suspend disbelief
The original hands down! That stupid remake doesn't even come close!
I always look forward to your film analysis videos HaphazzardStuff. You have a very sharp and concise way of breaking films down, both in production quality and its sustaining impact. I agree, the original beats out the new film, though I give the 2009 version credit for attempting new motivation and not following the original's example to a tee. However, an ensemble film would've been a stronger approach. The city of New York should be a character not just a setting for something like this.
I love the bag lady who is sleeping on the train throughout the entire train hijacking. They really made a great use of her in the original Pelham 1 2 3 film.
I just recently bought the original film on Blu-Ray and this was the first time I noticed her.
Excellent analysis--right on the mark!
I haven't seen the remake, but I have seen enough movies lately to know what happening there.
Is Hollywood so strapped for cash that they can't afford to pay writers to come up with new ideas and can only push out remakes?
Then there's the cast: I only see a bunch of celebrities phoning in their performances. Maybe the special effects in Hollywood have advanced so much that actors HAVE to distance themselves as much as possible from each other and the movie.
I'm afraid to look at the comments for fear of someone saying the remake was good and the original sucked.
Thing just is, that they don't make anything cool anymore. The cool is simply dead. Young people are far from cool, cars, motorcycles, clothes, movies, music,... nothing is cool anymore.
Remaking P123 is like remaking Casablanca or 2001: A Space Odyssey.
"Foolish" doesn't even begin to cover it.
The original theme music ALONE is reason enough to burn every print of the remake.
Mr. Blue reminds me of Hans Gruber, they're both exceptionally intelligent baddies
Who in their right mind would remake this?? It couldn't possibly be improved!
The original is a total masterpiece. The remake is pure CRAP! like 99% of all the remakes hollywood does.
6:23 this is actually really hilarious
Agree. The original i so much better. The remake emphasized cartoon action over characters. The original is great because of the casting, those really look like guys who work there and the story was believable enough to really engage the audience.
A very fair assessment of both films. Just a heads-up, the 1974 version has recently been re-released as a Special Edition (Region-A locked) Blu-Ray from Kino Lorber.
When the first Pelham was made just the setting of the movie at the time, New York City was a tense, dangerous environment without any hijackers, just walking the streets and riding the subway was enough to get adrenaline pumping, getting that way again. By the time the 09 remake was made, nyc was a different place, the makers of the movie had to artificially inflate tension, hence his overacting throughput the film, it had to ramp up anything so the audience would feel tense just because of the acting and quick cuts of video and sound to further the drama. NYC of 1974 was a totally different place than the NYC of 2009. Movies have to appeal to a worldwide audience, certain aspects have to be emphasized to those not familiar with the NYC way of life. A New Yorker doesn’t need the phony drama to feel the terror. I also thought the single car on an elevated structure, detracts because I ride the Lexington Ave line. Only elevated is way up in the Bronx.
You could definetly use a job at CinemaSins.
Seriously, they could use a guy like you.