Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- ********************
- The Taking Of Pelham 123 Telugu Full Movie Download
- http://urllio.com/qyq9x
- (Copy & Paste link)
- ********************
- In early afternoon, four armed men hijack a subway train in Manhattan. They stop on a slight incline, decoupling the first car to let the rest of the train coast back. Their leader is Ryder; he connects by phone with Walter Garber, the dispatcher watching that line. Garber is a supervisor temporarily demoted while being investigated for bribery. Ryder demands $10 million within an hour, or he'll start shooting hostages. He'll deal only with Garber. The mayor okays the payoff, the news of the hostage situation sends the stock market tumbling, and it's unclear what Ryder really wants or if Garber is part of the deal. Will hostages, kidnappers, and negotiators live through this?
- Armed men hijack a New York City subway train, holding the passengers hostage in return for a ransom, and turning an ordinary day's work for dispatcher Walter Garber into a face-off with the mastermind behind the crime.
- The original Taking of Pelham 123 is a film classic, combining the serious plot of a hostage situation with a light hearted background humour and an array of subtle acting by an all star cast. This on the other hand is just over the top. You would think after his ridiculous performance in Battlefield Earth, John Travolta would have learnt that loudmouth over the top goofiness is not the way to act, apparently he didn't as this shows his constant yelling, screaming, violent mannerisms and general rashness, unlike the impression Robert Shaw left on the audience with his cool, calm way of thinking, his subtle approach and generally more relate-able character. I realise they're attempting to make a different character in this movie, changing him from the mysterious ex-British Mercenary that was Mr Blue into the arrogant and psychotic Ryder, but the reason why Mr Blue is far more likable is because he appears to have more grasp of the situation that Ryder does. Rather than stomping up and down the train randomly shooting every life- form he comes across like Ryder, Mr Blue can calmly take over the train without firing a shot, only stating his demands by pointing his sub- machine gun at the passengers and not having to shoot any unless he had to.<br/><br/>Garber's character has also been heavily downgraded. Again, although they are attempting to make a different character out of this person, the fact that they reused his name was indignant to begin with. Going from the sarcastic and nonchalant Subway Security Lieutenant to the corruptible Train Dispatcher was really not a good turn for this character, and I preferred Walter Matthau's role in the original because it made the film less of an emotionally serious drama story and into something a little bit more laid back. The character as well you can relate to because we all know someone who is sarcastic and cool in our lives don't we, not someone who is relatively uptight and has an overly complex back-story.<br/><br/>The rest of the film plays out similar to the original, with the Subway train being hijacked, demands for money, cops in the tunnel, etc, etc. However he ending has been changed where rather than Garber going down to confront Mr Blue at gunpoint, Ryder demands that Garber bring the money and then take him hostage. Overall, the modified ending is just a mess of sparks and small arms fire that I'd rather not reflect on.<br/><br/>Basically, this movie is a load of gibberish compared to the original, and a failed attempt by film makers to try and recreate the genius of a film that was perfect to begin with and didn't need recreating. From once rather simple characters, this film turns them into overly complex cardboard cut outs, with John Travolta once again topping the Pavlova in the acting department, turning Robert Shaw's cool and sophisticated character into a disorganised, gunslinging madman who has no grasp on the situation at hand. And to be honest, I also think he's an attention seeker as well because unlike Mr Blue, who calmly sat in the cab reading his book whilst the other men watched over the hostages, Ryder goes out of his way to get the attention of Garber and the people on the other end of the radio, calling (more like yelling) them every two to three minutes to make sure their still interested, even holding passengers at gunpoint so he could learn Garber's life story. If that's not a messy Character development, I don't know what is.
- I was at the cinemas last week undecided and confused on which movie to watch. The toss up was between 17 again and Taking of Pelham and I must admit that i succumbed to watching the latter only because it boasted such a stellar cast. Also, because I hoped there would be some breathtaking underground action scenes. I should have known better when my brother sniggered at the idea of how two washed up celebs could offer any stunts. <br/><br/>I agree with the reviewers here on how galling the opening titles had been. The supposedly stylish motion blur continued throughout the movie leaving my eyes sore. I hated the cluttered starting as well when the camera followed through too many actors. It seemed the only intention was to obfuscate as a cover up for the weak plot. For the plot does no justice at all to the initial build up. That point however shall be discussed later on in this review. So as I was writing, the introduction of too many characters ruined what might otherwise have been been a good start had the story been presented through a single character. That the writers grossly neglected John Travolta's character had seemed like a big blow to the movie. His sudden befriending of Denzel's character seems unreasonable and unjustified. For instance, why does he give a chance to Denzel to pull the trigger on him in the climax? No reason to probe into any 'logic' you say well you are probably right( if you watched the movie in the same light as a scrutinizer) The most exciting twist to the plot could have been if Denzel had been presented as the mastermind of the plot instead of Travolta. Would you agree? Now I haven't read the novel, but this plot would have required some crafty storytelling and presentation. Suffice to say, Travolta's character was replete with errors and short on acting. Swearing constantly, doesn't make you a villain! Denzel as a train dispatcher was the only saving grace in my opinion. <br/><br/>Why Travolta's character needs to raise hell by plotting a hostage scene in a metro isn't answered convincingly. Finally in the promise of some action come car crashes when the police travel through the busy streets of New York to deliver the ransom to Ryder but these scenes seem like last minute additions to a racy ending. The ending also includes a tear filled wife who takes a promise of her husband( Denzel) to come back home after he has delivered money to the 'terrorist'(Travolta) with a can of milk. Was this scene supposed to be perceived as comic or sentimental crap? Either ways, I am with the director on this one.It exposes the true psyche of women-"we care only about things!" Hope men got that message right. <br/><br/>Over all the movie lacks substance if it was aimed at being a character driven movie and action if it was intentioned to be racy and fast paced. Probably then I wouldn't have begrudged the 30 dirhams.
- Just plain silly.
- Four armed men—Bashkim (<a href="/name/nm2963873/">Victor Gojcaj</a>), Emri (<a href="/name/nm2963717/">Robert Vataj</a>), Phil Ramos (<a href="/name/nm0350079/">Luis Guzmán</a>), and their leader, Bernard Ryder (<a href="/name/nm0000237/">John Travolta</a>)—hijack the lead car of a subway train in Manhattan. Ryder contacts MTA dispatcher Walter Garber (<a href="/name/nm0000243/">Denzel Washington</a>) in the Rail Control Center (RCC) and demands $10 million in ransom to be delivered in one hour or they will start shooting the 19 hostages, one for each minute the money is late. The Taking of Pelham 123 is based on the 1973 novel The Taking of Pelham One Two Three by American author Morton Freedgood, writing under the pen name of John Godey. The novel was adapted for this movie by American screenwriters Brian Helgeland and David Koepp. An earlier adaptation of the novel, <a href="/title/tt0072251/">The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)</a>, was released in 1974. A TV remake, <a href="/title/tt0140594/">The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1998)</a>, was released in 1998. Pelham refers to a local Manhattan train that departs from Pelham Bay Park. The "123" refers to the time that it leaves 1:23. The "taking" refers to a hijacking. After Garber delivers the money, the hijackers start up the train, having found a way to circumvent the dead man feature. They get off the train at the Roosevelt spur, a derelict tunnel built under the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. The train continues forward, picking up speed until the passengers become alarmed and the authorities at the MTV conclude that no one is driving the train anymore. Fortunately, the train trips a red light and stops. MTV orders all patrol cars to converge at the Roosevelt spur, where they open fire on Bashkim and Emri. Garber follows Ryder, who has hailed a taxi in which he checks his laptop to find that he has successfully shortsold the market and invested in gold, earning a huge profit. Ryder hijacks a truck and follows Ryder's cab to the Manhattan Bridge where Ryder has exited his stalled cab. Garber catches up to him on the pedestrian walkway and confronts him with a gun. Ryder demands that Garber kill him before the police do and gives him 10 seconds to shoot. At the end of the 10 seconds, Ryder reaches for his gun, and Garber shoots him. "You're my goddamn hero," Ryder says as he sinks to the ground. Later, while on his way home, Garber is stopped by the mayor (<a href="/name/nm0001254/">James Gandolfini</a>) who thanks him, informs him that the city will go to bat for him in the bribery investigation, and offers him a ride home in his car. Garber takes the train instead. In the final scene, he arrives home, a half-gallon of milk in his hand. The first drafts of the script faced the challenge of updating the novel with contemporary technology, including cellphones, GPS, laptops, thermal imaging, and a post-9/11 world in New York City. In December 2007, David Koepp, who adapted the novel for Scott and Washington said: I wrote many drafts to try and put it in the present day and keep all the great execution that was there from the first one. It's thirty years later so you have to take certain things into account. Hopefully we came up with a clever way to move it to the present. Koepp's drafts were meant to be "essentially familiar" to those who read the novel, preserving the "great hero vs. villain thing" of the original. Brian Helgeland, the only one receiving credit for the screenplay, took the script in a different direction, making the remake more like the 1974 film than the novel and, as Helgeland put it, making it about "two guys who weren't necessarily all that different from each other." Whereas the novel is told from more than 30 perspectives, keeping readers off balance because it is unknown which characters the writer might suddenly discard, the two films focus on the lead hijacker and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority employee with whom he communicates by phone. The new version sharpens that focus until it's almost exclusively a duel between disgraced MTA dispatcher Walter Garber and manic gunman Ryder.<br/><br/>In the book and original film, Ryder is "cold-blooded and calculating", but in the 2009 film he is a "loose cannon willing to kill innocents, not out of necessity, but out of spite." Also Ryder, in the original film and book, is portrayed as a normal looking businessman, while in the 2009 film he looks like he has adopted prison life, wearing very visible prison related tattoos and very laid back modern style of a biker. In the 1974 film, the main character is named Zachary Garber and is a lieutenant in the Transit Authority police; in the 2009 film, the main character is named Walter Garber and works as a subway train dispatcher. Ryder asks for $10 million dollars instead of the $1 million as in the original film and book and $5 million in the made-for TV movie. Ryder does not use the "Mr. Blue" nickname as the original film does; it is implied that Ryder is a nickname. a5c7b9f00b
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
