We’ve spoken often about the formula that drives a strong horror film, which is remarkably similar to the process that goes into the creation of an excellent action film, a genre that we have not explored in nearly as much depth, despite it containing some terrific and unforgettable films. The key comparison between the two is that they often centre on a particular fear or worry, and build an entire story around them, just aiming at provoking different reactions, and therefore having quite different methods of telling their story. There are even some action films that play like horror, and vice versa – and one such example is The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, Joseph Sargeant’s ambitious and exceptionally well-made adaptation of the novel by Morton Freedgood, which centres on the tense relationship between a New York City transit officer and his colleagues as they negotiate with a mysterious criminal and his team, who have hijacked a subway train and are holding its occupants hostage – and what initially seems like a clear case of criminal extortion actually develops into a deeper game of cat-and-mouse, made even more unsettling due to the fact that they are racing against time, as the villains have set a time limit on the delivery of their demands. It sounds like the premise for a number of moderately successful action films (and it is not surprising the novel did spur two further adaptations in later decades, both of which are far more conventional in terms of honouring the genre before the source material), but under the guidance of a solid and deeply gifted journeyman director like Sargeant, the film is an absolute triumph, an exhilarating and often wickedly funny examination of greed and the capacity to cause chaos through the search for an easy solution to major social issues. One of the most entertaining films of the 1970s, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is an astonishing achievement, a brilliantly well-constructed film in terms of both visual style and the sensations evoked along the way, which all converge into one of the more awe-inspiring thrillers of this era.

Something that very few filmmakers seem to realize is that, while it is tempting to challenge themselves and present their work as being complex and original, the reality is that very few truly successful films (particularly those that exist at the nexus of having both commercial and critical success) can ever truly attest to be entirely bespoke, and that it is increasingly rare to find a pure action film that is unique and inventive, since even the best in the genre borrows liberally from its forerunners in some way or another. This isn’t to suggest that action cinema is driven by thievery or a lack of effort, but rather that there are a limited pool of ideas and theoretical resources that these films can employ, meaning that they usually need to seek out ways to tell their stories that aren’t constantly striving for innovation, but rather reliability. This is ultimately what makes these films so enjoyable, since the formulae they follow are tried and tested, and are known to be very successful. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is one of the most purely entertaining films I have seen in quite some time, so much that I ever found myself tempted to evoke that well-worn adage of “they don’t make films like this anymore”, which is not an unprecedented expression when talking about such a film. What everyone involved in adapting this novel realized is that a simple premise can yield the most fascinating results when done correctly and with some thoughtfulness, which is exactly why putting this material under the direction of Sargeant was a smart decision – he’s a director with a lot of skill, but not to the point where he is inflexible when it comes to experimenting with certain elements, and the result is a fluid, compelling action thriller that delivers exactly what it promises, and still has time for a few additional surprises scattered in between, which is one of the many reasons it is never anything short of monumental when it comes to riveting, actively engaging cinema.

The filmmaking itself throughout The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is absolutely remarkable. Sargeant’s direction is incredible, especially in how he firmly establishes a clear tone from the start – it doesn’t necessarily mean that he intends to maintain the same tone throughout, but at least forming a foundation from the very beginning allows us to acquire some idea of what to expect from the film, which makes the occasional surprises or shifts in tone so enthralling, since they usually come out of left-field, and may not necessarily bear too much consequence on the plot, but make the film so much more interesting on a cinematic and theoretical level. The direction is sharp and extremely tight, with everything fitting into the compact 100-minute running time, which is a solid amount of space for this story to develop, since it contains enough detail to be compelling, but never overstays its welcome, reaching the apex of its suspense at the right moment, and then allowing for the latter portion of the third act to be spent chasing after the final remaining loose ends, which is something usually overlooked in other action films, since there is a general belief that once there has been some kind of resolution (such as the villain being apprehended), there is nothing more to say. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three proves that there is always something to add, which eventually comes to form the basis for the more endearing moments of the film, which depend on the emotions almost as much as the action that surrounds them. The film is not a comedy, but there are several moments of levity that help soften the suspense, almost as if Sargeant himself was reminding us that this is a fictional work, and that the audience shouldn’t expend too much energy by focusing on the supposed plausibility of the film in comparison to the few substantial broad flights of fancy it takes. It has a strangely humorous tone at some points that feels entirely intentional – and while the subject itself is quite dark and sinister, this doesn’t preclude the film from going in its own direction in certain parts, which is perhaps why it feels so invigorating and original, despite following quite a familiar structure.

Unsurprisingly, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three adds so much more impact to the proceedings by casting the story with actors who are perfect for the material, but still somehow unexpected. At this point in his career, Walter Matthau was seen as one of the most reliable actors in the business, someone who had mastered comedy and drama with equal aplomb, and who could essentially play absolutely any role, granted that it contained something valuable and worth his time. Part of a short run of more serious films that he was doing around this time, ranging from crime thrillers to action-packed dramas, Matthau was clearly interested in challenging himself and showing that he could take on a truly heroic role without it being defined by his quirks. However, we are always aware that we are watching him, as he wasn’t someone who could easily disappear into his roles – but mercifully, Matthau was such a magnetic screen presence, even when essentially playing himself, he was beyond spellbinding. He consistently brings an everyman charm to every performance, and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is not an exception. In fact, this film benefits from his incredible ability to balance comedy and drama, and some of the most memorable moments come when Matthau is allowed to riff on the material in his own way, delivering the kind of crumple-faced appeal that frequently defined his work and made him such an unquestionably gifted actor. Robert Shaw is fantastic as the film’s villain, playing the true embodiment of evil with such poise, while the supporting cast (consisting of the likes of Jerry Stiller, Martin Balsam and Hector Elizondo) steal every moment they are on screen, bringing the appropriate amount of humour and tension to a film that relies very much on its actors to support the sense of despair that looms over every scene.

From its first moment, in which the tension is already at a fever pitch, to that iconic final shot (which proves that the most satisfying conclusions are often simple and unexpected), The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a film that knows how to entertain and enthral the audience, all of whom are vitally important to the proceedings that surround the story, adding wit, nuance and complexity to a story that would usually not be nearly as compelling as this one, which is one of the many reasons why it is not at all difficult to celebrate this film as one of the better action films of its era. It somehow sets the standard for the genre, showing that a film like this can be wildly entertaining without needing to resort to excess, and that we can glean a genuine sense of excitement through straightforward, unfurnished storytelling that depends on the emotions that are evoked by the actors, and the overall experience that comes when seeing a well-crafted film that doesn’t take itself all that seriously, but still manages to stir quite a poignant reaction. There were two further adaptations of the novel, but neither of them seemed capable of capturing the darkly comical tone that skirts around outright absurdity, nor were they even close to being as entertaining as this film was, since there is an element of enduring charm that pervades throughout even its most harrowing moments. Entertaining and provocative, and filled to the brim with a kind of subversive intrigue, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is one of the more captivating action films of this period, and a work that still feels engaging and relentlessly enjoyable films to come out of an era where seeing people in peril was quite a fruitful industry.