Critical Reception and Legacy (The Taking of Pelham One Two Three) The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) was well received on release and has steadily gained stature since. It holds a 98% score on Rotten Tomatoes from 44 reviews. The contemporary notices praised it as entertainment; the retrospective criticism has focused on what the film captures about New York as a functioning system under stress.

Contemporary critics treated it as first-rate genre work

Roger Ebert gave it three out of four stars and located the film's appeal not in the mechanics of the heist but in the texture of the performances.

"Walter Matthau is gruff, shaggy and sardonic as a Transit Authority lieutenant; Robert Shaw is clipped and cruel, and the supporting performances are allowed to grow and take on personality." — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times (1974)

"[The movie's appeal] doesn't depend on the plan or on the easily foreseeable plot. It depends instead on a nice feel for New York City and some fine, detailed performances." — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times (1974)

Nora Sayre, reviewing for The New York Times, identified the film's tonal balancing act — a thriller that takes its threat seriously while remaining genuinely funny about the city it's set in.

"Throughout, there's a skillful balance between the vulnerability of New Yorkers and the drastic, provocative sense of comedy that thrives all over our sidewalks." — Nora Sayre, The New York Times (1974)

John H. Dorr at The Hollywood Reporter called it outright:

"Sure-fire entertainment, gripping, exciting and humanly funny from beginning to end." — John H. Dorr, The Hollywood Reporter (1974)

"The large, well-characterized cast is ably headed by Walter Matthau, whose wonderfully weary sense of irony is perfect." — John H. Dorr, The Hollywood Reporter (1974)

Kael was less convinced

Pauline Kael admired the premise but found the filmmaking blunt. Her review in The New Yorker treated the film as competent but lacking finesse.

"The movie must have been an editor's nightmare: the scenes are thudders, and the whole thing was punched together -- with no glue but the basic idea." — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker (1974)

"Sargent doesn't make points, he drops weights." — Pauline Kael, SBS Australia (1974)

The criticism is fair on its own terms — Sargent's style is blunt — but later critics have argued that the bluntness is the point. The film works like the city it depicts: unglamorous, efficient, and not interested in explaining itself to visitors.

Retrospective criticism has elevated it

Dave Kehr, writing in the Chicago Reader, called it a:

"Superior exercise in urban paranoia." — Dave Kehr, Chicago Reader

Mark Harrison at Film Stories placed it among the decade's undervalued work:

"Sargent's film remains one of the great underappreciated thrillers of the 1970s." — Mark Harrison, Film Stories

"Its wicked line of gallows humour never undercuts the broiling tension." — Mark Harrison, Film Stories

Will Thomas at Empire identified the film's period specificity as a strength rather than a limitation:

"The kind of gritty, relentless thriller that could only come from the '70s, Joseph Sargent's subway suspenser is a hardboiled treat." — Will Thomas, Empire

The Rotten Tomatoes critics consensus captures the long-view assessment:

"Breezy, thrilling, and quite funny, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three sees Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw pitted against each other in effortlessly high form." — Rotten Tomatoes

The 2009 remake proved the original's durability by failing to match it

Tony Scott's 2009 remake starred Denzel Washington and John Travolta, cost over $100 million, and scored 51% on Rotten Tomatoes. The consensus was that Scott's kinetic style missed what made the original work: the procedural texture, the ensemble casting, and the faith that a city going about its business is more interesting than a city in spectacle. See The Color-Coded Hijackers for the film's other major legacy — Quentin Tarantino's direct borrowing for Reservoir Dogs.