Every single actor in the 1974 movie was better than any of the actors in this TV remake. I guess they needed a New York accent, so they threw in Lorraine Bracco. Nice save.One thing the TV movie really glossed over was the issue of getting the ransom money to the terrorists on time. You'd really have to watch the 1974 movie to see the difference. Getting things done in one hour was a real nail-biter in the original movie. It's like "meh" in the TV movie.And that really leads me to the most important point: almost nobody seems to be afraid in the TV movie, including the hostages. You have one woman having one, strangely short-term panic attack. She has to carry the emotional load for her torpid companions, it seems to me. She recovers, inexplicably, without meds. Most of the time she seems perfectly rational.I have no idea what Stuart Copland had in mind with that score of his, but its pretty meditative compared to David Shire's work. All- in- all, I was not happy with the TV movie.

Keeping up with the times this 1998 remake of The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three had to change certain things and deliberately changed others. One indisputable fact was that in 1998 the New York City Transit Police had ceased being a separate entity and was now just part of the NYPD. Hence Walter Matthau's character as a Transit Cop would not have existed any longer. For this version Edward James Olmos is not only a regular NYPD detective, but he's a hostage negotiator specialist.The change out the Transit Police was necessary, but part of what made the first version work so well was Walter Matthau being placed in a situation he wouldn't normally be dealing with. In that version in fact he's shepherding a bunch of Japanese railroad people around the Transit Authority Command Center when the hijacking occurs.Instead of Jerry Stiller as his partner, Olmos is paired with Lorraine Bracco, certainly women by that time were doing more than administrative work in the NYPD. The mysterious head of the four hijackers is Vincent Donofrio on the other side of the law. We don't know who he is, but he certainly didn't have the air of mystery that soldier of fortune Robert Shaw did in the Seventies. In fact we never really find out anything about Donofrio.The plot follows pretty much the story in the original version. Since it was shot in Toronto, the streets of New York where a lot of the excitement above ground as the City tries to meet the hijackers deadline is missing from this version. Seeing Donofrio and Olmos makes me wish for Matthau and Shaw. Maybe the new version that will have Denzel Washington and John Travolta as antagonists will be better.

Based on the 1974 classic of the same name, this TV version looks very much like a regular TV show, spread out over two hours instead of one. This remake does indeed suffer from modest budgets, a less than sterling cast. Vincent d'Onofrios, stepping into Robert Shaw's "Mr. Blue" ringleader role, seems bored, wooden, and unaffected by the entire scenario. Likewise, Edward James Olmos (filling Matthau's shoes) is equally as bored and wooden as d'Onofrios. Poor Brooklynite Lorraine Bracco is reduced to a supporting role (formerly played by Jerry Stiller) that does not make use of her endless talents.What is most irking is the fact that the NYC-based flick was filmed in Toronto, Ontario. Exterior shots, subway stations, and particularly subway equipment looks nothing like the grimy, intimidating system that is New York's. New York's transit system is as much a celebrity as the city it holds together. Few cities in the world can be quickly identified by their form of subway transport as New York's. One big demerit for the producers on this one (no fault of Toronto, either—it is a marvelous city, to be sure).With the one exception of an emotional relationship established by highjacker "Brown" (Tara Rosling) and her 'angel of mercy' female conductor "Babs Cardoza" (Babs Cardoza), all other subplots among the hijackers and characters were not developed. The deliciously menacing "Mr. Grey" character, played to perfection in the original by Hector Elizondo, was reduced to an angry, almost juvenile person by Donnie Wahlberg.The overall feeling is choppy and suspenseless. One gets the feeling the original movie was being watched closely during filming, with the director causally removing chunks of original script.Even though TV movies are in an entirely different category than those produced in Hollywood, there is no reason for quality scripts to go M.I.A. TV budgets may be limiting, but the believability in the characters need not suffer.Stick with the original. Watch this remake to satiate the curiosity factor only.

Popular opinion seems to favor the original 1974 version, but I came at it from a different angle. I'd never seen the original. I just happened to catch the TV version one evening -- curiously enough, while in Costa Rica (and with Spanish subtitles). The story unfolded well enough that it kept me hanging all the way and I was aggravated that due to business I *had* to leave just as the train was making its final run.I sought out the film immediately upon return to the U.S. and was astonished to see the Matthau/Shaw et al. cast. Though some cite Matthau's occasional humor as a plus, for me it detracted from the grimness; it throws the story off balance (except for providing a context for the final freeze-frame). The TV version is darker, more menacing, more suitable to how I experienced the story. And, frankly, the dated soundtrack just irks me; Copeland's fits better. Opinions, opinions.