The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) 10/10
A gang of criminals led by “Mr. Blue” (Robert Shaw) kidnap a New York City subway car and hold the passengers hostage for a million dollars. Transit police Lieutenant Garber (Walter Matthau) negotiates for time while trying to discern their plan.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is probably best known today as the source for using color-coded pseudonyms during a heist, lifted by Tarantino for Reservoir Dogs. Which is a shame; the movie should be known for its own merits.
One way to describe Pelham 123 is to tell you what’s not in it. No one on the subway car is related to, or in a relationship with, anyone working in the transit office or for the police. None of the hostages are Lt. Garber’s mother, sister, or childhood sweetheart. There are no coincidences in the plotting or characterization at all. No one in the movie looks like they’re in a movie; no one has perfect features, or exquisite skin tone, or flawless makeup. There’s no romance. But it’s not a “guy” movie, either; the hostages are as likely to be female as male, and there are an unusual number of female roles for a heist movie.
All of which makes it kind of hard to describe. Some movies are great because they have a sweeping theme, or are startling or innovative, or are romantic, or incredibly witty. But a handful of movies are great because they’re just great movies. They tell interesting stories with a rich array of embellishments. You walk away from them thinking not about love or truth or family or death, but about storytelling, and authenticity. The Man Who Would Be King is such a movie, a great yarn, you might say. So is Treasure of the Sierra Madre. And so is The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.
The movie is populated with a terrific collection of character actors; only Shaw and Matthau are anything like stars, and even they are not of the “star” mold. The other criminals are Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, and Earl Hindman. On the transit side are Jerry Stiller and James Broderick (among others). Julius Harris is a cop, Lee Wallace as the mayor is a dead ringer for Ed Koch three years before the real Koch became mayor. But pulling out names sort of defeats the purpose. What happens is a cumulative effect; that you’re looking at real people who are in and around the New York City subways circa 1974. That effect is never diminished, never movied-up. The location footage is grimy and run-down. Everything feels very real, in a way that works for both comedy and drama.
Of course, if you’re going to blend comedy and drama, you want Matthau, who can turn the whole thing back and forth between the extremes with a twist of the wrist and a shift of eyebrows. There’s a lot of laughs, but this is mostly straight-ahead thriller. You never really know what the kidnappers are going to do next, or why, but you’re never confused as they reveal their plan, point by point. The cops are confused, but only exactly as much as the audience.
That’s a tough line to walk. In lesser movies, you either catch onto a plot before the good guys and are stuck feeling like your heroes are stupid, or you never catch on because the whole thing is too obtuse. Here the crooks are just a teeny bit smarter than the cops can follow, but not crazy chessmaster smart.
In sum, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is the kind of smart crime story that is all too rare. Definitely catch it the next time it comes around on TCM.
The 70’s was an amazing film era. And that’s often forgotten now that everything is so shiny.
1975 is one of the greatest years for movies, ever, rivalling 1939 and 1999. Some of the films of the late 60s/early 70s are incredibly dated, especially if they were trying to look shiny, but the period pieces and the gritty films really hold up.
1975 is one of the greatest years for movies, ever
Amen. I started going to the movies a lot in the early 70’s, and by 1975 I was going to see everything. Just off the top of my head, from 1975: One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Dog Day Afternoon, Nashville, Barry Lyndon, The Man Who Would Be King, Jaws, Shampoo, Love and Death, Adele H, Amarcord.
There were a few more I jotted down, but I checked and they were from 1974 or 1976 (which are practically as awe-inspiring as movie years). It’s no wonder I became a movie fanatic
I’m not as enthusiastic about 1999, since I’m among the minority who didn’t like American Beauty or Magnolia. *awaits chourus of boos*
Dog Day Afternoon, Cuckoo’s Nest, Nashville, and The Man Who Would Be King are all on my all-time favorites list. That’s a lot from one year. (The copy of Adele H I saw had screwed up subtitles, so maybe I would have liked it better if I’d have been able to read it.)
I am not a big fan of Magnolia, but I admire its audacity. It is better in effort than achievement. I’m not much of a PTA fan at all, frankly, I really disliked Boogie Nights. And I despise Barry Lyndon, so boo away.
If we’re making confessions about sacred cows, I don’t like any Kubrick films made after Dr. Strangelove, except maybe Full Metal Jacket. I only included Barry Lyndon on the list because of its reputation. But I’m a fan of all the other films I mentioned, especially Nashville and Man Who Would Be King.
I was disappointed in Magnolia, though there are some amazing sequences, and Tom Cruise (of all people!) gives a great performance. But it’s predicated on some great irony that’s supposed to arrive at the end, and the big climax, the rain of frogs, doesn’t mean anything as far as I can see.
I love the rain of frogs. The rain of frogs is my favorite part (and I agree about Cruise). It was just so…loud. Everyone was at such a histrionic level. It was too much.
Okay, I just looked on IMDb so I could get the chronology right.
Kubrick After Dr. Strangelove:
Eyes Wide Shut (1999) — never saw it.
Full Metal Jacket (1987) — saw it 20 years ago and don’t remember it.
The Shining (1980) — hate it very, very much.
Barry Lyndon (1975) — hate it not as much as The Shining, but a lot.
A Clockwork Orange (1971) — love it.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) — love it.
I kept noticing the racism and the sexism. The movie made both very apparent without shoving it in your face or trying to preach to the audience. I’m sure that pages upon pages of essays could be written about the movie just from a feminist perspective.
When Mr. Gray starts fondling a woman’s breast with his gun, and then gives the excuse that she’s just “A twenty buck a trick hooker,” there are so many things to talk about right there. Just off the top of my head, there’s the judgment of a woman by the way she dresses, the assumption that just because a woman sells herself means that you can do whatever you want, there’s the creepy phallic nature of the gun… And then there’s the guy who complains about women being allowed to have a certain job, Walter Matthau’s insistence that they remember that a certain person whose identity is unknown might be a woman…
Arthur, I think all of those things are signs that the movie isn’t sexist. Hector Elizondo’s mistreatment of women is an early sign that he’s dangerous and can’t be trusted, and indeed, Martin Balsam and Robert Shaw don’t trust him.
The casual sexism of the men in the transit office to the woman is incredibly realistic. As they point out, women have only been allowed in that job for a very short time; she’s the first woman any of them have worked with and they’re struggling to adjust. I mean, the fact that they bother showing that instead of just casting a man is fantastic.
And the same with Matthau. The knee-jerk sexists assume an undercover cop is a man, Matthau points out that might not be so, and it’s part of how we know he’s a good guy.
I’m sorry, I must have phrased that incorrectly.
What I meant was that the movie was very aware of sexism and racism and was bringing those issues to the forefront to make a point. If a movie is showing sexism intentionally to show how it’s evil, then obviously the movie itself is not sexist. If done properly.
I agree with everything you said, I just didn’t manage to get my point across. D’oh.
I would have mentioned your last point as well, only I was worried that it might be a spoiler.
It’s not a spoiler. I mean, look at what I wrote: I said Matthau points out that an undercover cop might be male or female. If you watch the movie having read that, I don’t think anything is spoiled.
It’s a delicate art, not spoiling. I blow it all the time in conversation (ask your aunts), but I think I’m good in writing.
“THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE”: AN APPRECIATION…
With a remake in the works, it’s time to look back on the merits of the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three which was released in 1974. Deborah Lipp, author of The Ultimate James Bond Fan Book, reminds us there was once a time when thrillers avo…
[…] and laugh when we need to, but then pushing us right back under water. Pelham 1 2 3 shares with the original movie a gritty, unadorned feel for New York City, and a cast of real characters without any prettiness or […]