All Comments for: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > Reviews > 2009

Christianity Today Movies, 2009, reviews |

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Review by Alissa Wilkinson | posted 6/12/2009 08:31AM

Every day, the New York City subways carry over 4.3 million people around town. It's a more or less efficient system, depending on time of day, the weather, the state of the tracks and the train, and ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

San	Posted: August 09, 2009 12:38 PM

I enjoyed the movie until Garber got away, had the gun, and decided to go after the villains on his own. That's when the movie lost credibility to me. I just don't accept the idea that any man with a cloud over his head on his job, a wife and family decides to play hero in this situation with lunatics like these criminals were. All I want to do is be entertained when I go to a movie. The profanity was a pain in the neck--it always is, and I don't want to see a movie that starts to be implausible. And this one was at the point aforementioned. Also, initially Garber was good at appearing to be nervous, unsettled, being put into this kind of situation, but you don't just get used to the situaiton to the point that you decide to play superhero. Talking to the Travolta on the phone is one thing--but going after 2-3 men with powerful weapons and you have just one gun? no way! So i really give it 2 1/2 stars but you don't list that kind of star.

Sally

Posted: June 30, 2009 10:04 AM

My husband and I both thought the movie was worth the ticket price--that's saying something. Yes, the language was appalling, but it pointed up the real civility of Washington's character. We saw D.W,'s ability to portray the mild mannered and humble civil servant who refused to give up when he could and should have, masterful. The theological questions were welcome in an age when professing a faith on the movie screen is out of style, to say the least. I wouldn't take a child to see this movie, either, but a more mature young person could recognize the language for the unnecessary vulgarity it is, and perhaps be stimulated to really ponder and discuss the theological and moral issues presented. The media is a powerful influence on formative minds and we had better engage with the view of the world generated by Hollywood so that we encourage a more realistic and moral view in our children.

Lost in the garbage

Posted: June 28, 2009 3:28 PM

I am absolutely shocked that Christianity Today would even review this movie, let alone recommend it. I was shocked by the lack of moral fiber anywhere in this film. The raw profanity was like 90 minutes of the stupidest exchange of guttural garbage one could ever witness. Despite the total lack morality, the films speeded up cinematography and glaring lewdness, this was a human disaster not worthy of putting to film. Shame on you Christianity Today.

Bob	Posted: June 27, 2009 3:00 PM


While sounding moralistic, and not sorry for it, as a Christian, I could not recommend this movie to anyone due to it's "pervasive" language. It is offensive to watch for entertainment.

margie

Posted: June 19, 2009 3:00 PM


my husband and I watched the movie last night. The story line, the characters, the intensity of the story was excellent. The actors were excellent. The use of the " f " word by almost everyone CONSTANTLY was the main deterrent. I would NOT recommend my children nor grandchildren to see it because of the language.

silverquill

Posted: June 15, 2009 5:04 PM

Wonderfully directed and filmed and seeing Denziel Washington is the film's best feature. Humor and theology? Both get lost in the rawness of the language. The reviewer says "pervasive" and that is no exaggeration - not the occasional expletive, but in every scene - except Garber's sweet wife. I'm not being "moralistic" and I'm not so isolated as not to have heard this all, but it is an assault on the sensibilities so as to nearly rob the movie of value as entertainment or message. And Garber's nonchalant walk home belies all of what just happened. This guy is not shaken to the core?

teekay

Posted: June 12, 2009 10:23 PM


I believe an "indie" film means it is from a smaller independent (outside the mainstream) film company.

profz74

Posted: June 12, 2009 9:10 PM


I haven't seen this movie. However, I have a question. In many movie revues the term "indie" movie is used. What does it mean? From India or an inside joke?

Herb Cooney

Posted: June 12, 2009 8:29 PM


As I just recently saw the orginal movie ;I attended with some reservations. Most remakes are poor imiations. This one is an exception. Great cast, great dialogue and an interesting update on the techn ology made it very interesting. I especially liked the back story of Garber a basically "good man" who succumbed to temptation and was redeemed.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment