MovieChat Forums > The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) Discussion > 7/10. Here's why:

7/10. Here's why:

posted 9 years ago by IMDB_Vits
10 replies | jump to latest

Overall, THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE is well done, but there was such a missed opportunity to make the movie deeper. With all the crazy demands and the monologues about the bad aspects of society, I expected the hijackers to reveal that they didn't care about money; that they just wanted to make the mayor and the police and maybe even the whole town see what's wrong with them. You know, kinda like THE JOKER. This became more apparent to me when LT. ZACHARY GARBER chooses to lie (which is considered wrong) in order to buy more time. Instead, the movie settles on being just a blockbuster. A damn fun blockbuster! The other problem is that Walter Matthau (an actor known for playing grumpy people) was miscast as GARBER (a not-so-joyful-but-still-light-hearted character). You can't hire the person who picks up the dead rats from the rails to be the train operator.

Any thoughts?

Read more at http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com/2015/02/comments-round-up-januar y-2015.html

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 9 years ago

I don't really know how Garber being 100% truthful with murdering hijackers would make this movie deep or deeper. I don't find the Joker particularly deep. He's always been a psychopath. Only recently, with the added, mirthless posturing which merely offsets the hypocricy that has always been inherent in the Batman character.

As for Garber. I can't see in that character what you're seeing and which Matthau didn't deliver.

I also don't see the sense in criticising a movie for what it isn't unless it's what the movie purports to be.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

[–] srklondie 9 years ago

Do me a favor. Get back to me when someone in agreement replies to you. Now, I'm fairly old, so I hope it's within at least 10 years. I've seen the film a minimum of 25 times and never get tired of it. If it isn't a perfect piece of work, it's awfully close.

By the way, I've checked out some of your film ratings and it's pretty clear that you kind of march to a different drummer.

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Do me a favor. Get back to me when someone in agreement replies to you.

Why? And do you want links to the threads?

I've checked out some of your film ratings and it's pretty clear that you kind of march to a different drummer.

What do you mean?

[–] bobn425 8 years ago

. I've seen the film a minimum of 25 times and never get tired of it. If it isn't a perfect piece of work, it's awfully close.
___________________________________________

I've seen it more than that. It is indeed a perfect film
with a dream cast. There is not a single boring moment
in it and the characters act like real flesh and blood
people not like super heroes in a comic book.

Any film this exciting that still maintains a sardonic
and ironic sense of humor is to be treasured.

If every film looked like this, it would be impossible
to even leave a movie theater.

[–] arthurab 8 years ago

I've seen it more than that too-over a hundred times since I bot my DVD in 2000.

This is a 5 star movie, 10 out of 10.

WM was perfect as Garber, incredibly cynical yet willing to do whatever it takes to save innocent people. His wisecracks were funny and perfectly timed. I can't imagine anyone else in the role.

[–] BobbyDupea 8 years ago

I agree that Matthau was perfect in this movie.

My real name is Jeff

[–] kaneforgov 8 years ago

You've totally missed the point of the movie.

Here's why: (isn't that obnoxious?)

This is a great 70's movie based on a great book (remember source material?). It successfully characterizes the climate of desperation and frustration of New York City in the mid-seventies. Matthau's mix of humor toughness fit in perfectly with the tone of the film.

You can't bring a 2015 sensibility to a film made 40 years earlier. It just doesn't work that way.

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

This is a great 70's movie based on a great book (remember source material?).

I didn't read it.

You can't bring a 2015 sensibility to a film made 40 years earlier.

Who said I did that?

[–] kaneforgov 8 years ago

Ignorance weakens your argument: whether you read the book or not, you always have to consider the source material.

You said, "The other problem is that Walter Matthau (an actor known for playing grumpy people) was miscast as GARBER"

You are basing that opinion Matthau's lifetime body of work, not the public perception of when the movie was made; 1973-74.

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Ignorance weakens your argument: whether you read the book or not, you always have to consider the source material.

What do you mean by "Ignorance"? I knew the book existed. When I watch a movie based on a book I didn't read, I do research to see what the differences are. If I don't mention it in my comments, it's because there weren't changes of any relevance.

You are basing that opinion Matthau's lifetime body of work, not the public perception of when the movie was made; 1973-74.

He had already played grumpy characters before this movie.