Rating 15 length 1h 45 Release 18.8.2006 Director David R. Ellils About Sean Jones, a witness, is a on a flight to LA to testify against a mob boss, Eddie Kim. However, Flynn, the FBI agent accompanying Sean, must save the passengers from a disaster.
Samuel L Jackson. This film doesn’t work without Samuel L Fucking Jackson. I briefly entertained what it might be like had Nic Cage signed on. Then I remembered he’s done Tiger King on a boat and it just wasn’t the same. Jackson is that sensible chaos you need in this sort of situation. One who will have fun and work with all of the players around him.
I love our introductions to everyone. From the two kids flying without their parents for the first time and the Paris Hilton complete with cabin dog all the way to the cabin crew member on their last flight before law school and the snotty Brit who is so put-out by first-class being unavailable. Of course we also get a sexed-up couple and much more reserved Honeymooners. By giving us such economical meetings with them all, you’re invested and also predicting who’ll make it to the final destination.
Bobby Cannavale and his B-plot of being the FBI agent in charge of anti-venom really impressed me when I first watched it and that still hasn’t changed. I think this was one of the first things I saw him in and he left me wanting a little more of his narrative in this film.
It’s snakes, on a plane. They fuck that shit up and the only person left to land the plane is a man who has logged flying hours on a computer game! What is not to love about that? Okay, it’s not going to win awards, you’re not leaving the cinema with some life affirming wonderment. But you’re going to laugh. I mean, a snake biting a tit or a penis is funny when it’s not you.
The barely-there plot really is laughable when you even pause for a second to think about it. I mean, I’m no Ian Malcolm, but I can tell you that there’s no way you can predict those snakes would have anywhere near that sort of impact.
We get creature feature cam. I’m not sure I ever really picked up on it so much before, but bloody hell it bugs the hell out of me now. At least for this, it was used sparingly.
Nathan Philips as Sean; the target who triggers all of the snakes, on the plane. He’s just a bit wet. There’s nothing really about him that stands out and really, he’s just a walking talking plot prop.
Some of the CGI snakes and dead passengers haven’t aged well. This was a movie done on a budget, so it is understandable.
It is a fun film, but it does, at times, come across as ‘how to hijack a plane’ film. I mean, how many weapons did they fashion from innocent items?! It actually doesn’t hit as hard as it did watching it back in 2006, but the memory of thinking this still sticks with me.
It’s a well-made bad movie. You need to switch your brain off and not look too deeply because if not, it’s so stupid your brain hurts. If you do switch off, you’ll enjoy this for the bat-shit crazy ride this is.
Rating: PG Length: 1h 45 Release: 23.6.2006 Dir: Alejandro Agresti About: Love blooms when Kate, a doctor, exchanges letters with Alex, an architect who is fed up with his life. Unknown to them, they lead lives two years apart.
Who doesn’t want to see Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves reconnect onscreen? If that’s what you’re after, I’m not sure it matters about the plot or quality of the film, so long as that chemistry between the two is still there.
It’s essentially Jumpin’ Jack Flash, but with letters and time travel instead of the internet and global espionage.
I don’t like the characters of Kate and Alex. They’re both really boring.
The film feels very clinical and sterilised of all emotion. perhaps it is the separation of the two main characters and their isolation within their time periods. The interaction they each have with other people feels artificial and for exposition only.
The time travel aspect is just shit and doesn’t make sense. At the heart of it is a massive paradox that, as a fan of all things sci-fi, I can’t ignore. The magic of time travel falls flat and also seems too integral to the plot. I know, I know, suspend belief and all that shit, but I have too many questions about what I saw leading up to the changes in the timeline and they’re not answered.
Who gave that shockingly back haircut to Sandra Bullock?! It does nothing for her and, while very circa ’06, has not aged well at all.
You manage to get two people together who have chemistry and they physically share a screen within the same time zone for less than five minutes?! What the actual fuck?! I want to see them together!
I think I’ll just rewatch Speed in future. Love Bullock and Reeves, but this was underwhelming.
Rating 15 Length 1hr 50 Release 06.06.06 Director John Moore About Robert agrees to adopt a baby after his wife Katherine delivers a stillborn. They name him Damien. Father Brennan informs Robert that Damien is the son of the devil and so Robert attempts to kill him.
There’s a pretty decent cast involved: Schreiber gets the rare opportunity to play the lead in a movie and fairs pretty well considering he’s filling Gregory Peck’s shoes. Schreiber has that charm that allows you to believe that someone so young could hold the position he does while also able to pull off the doubt, anger and determination to do what is necessary.
David Thewlis takes on David Warner’s photographer, bringing his northern tones and gritty anger to character and Postlethwaite takes on the ill fated Father Brennan who was originally played by Doctor Who himself; Patrick Troughton. I’d have love to have seen more of Postlethwaite, but I’d probably say the same about any film he’s in.
For those Horror fans out there Mia Farrow is perfectly cast as the clues-in nanny. Little bit of a nod towards her movie background, given she birthed the son of Satan in the painfully boring Rosemary’s Baby.
I did like the incorporation of some modern disasters into the Damian prophecy that gives that chilling sense of ‘this could happen’
Julie Stiles looks in pain throughout the film. Yes she’s portraying someone who has suffered post natal depression and a strong sense of disconnect with her son, but her performance doesn’t make it feel like it’s part of the character.
Lazy film making/ script… it doesn’t divert enough from the original to justify its existence. It’s nearly a shot for shot remake and takes no risks to be its own movie. Quite sad when you consider the potential it had.
Well, if you’re going to redo a film, you really have to at least meet the quality from the original’s key scenes. Case in point: the visit to the church scene. It just lacks any of the power, fear or response from the viewer. Lacklustre is putting it mildly.
It feels rushed in order to meet a gimmick opening date. Great for initial box office, but feels cheap 14 years later.
About In the wake of a national tragedy, the prime minister and royal family find themselves quietly at odds. The initial reluctance of Buckingham Palace to mourn Diana is seen by the public as a sign of cool emotional distance, but Tony Blair, perceiving a potential public-relations disaster in the making, takes it upon himself to persuade Queen Elizabeth to pay tribute to the dead princess.
This film is almost the best of British that didn’t get cast in Potter. Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen are worth watching this for alone; they might physically look like those wax figures you squint at to work out who they are, but they have everything else about their respective figures down to a fine art.
As always, James Cromwell is a wonderful addition to the cast and does what I’d imagine is a pitch perfect private-life Prince Philip. Helen McCrory does a remarkable job with Cherie Blair’s northern accent and clashing views on the monarchy.
The film’s approach to the events surrounding Diana’s death provide a unique film: the narrative is supported by existing newsreel coverage from the time. While tonally, I think it has issues, I must admit it is visually a perfect way to frame the film.
Alex Jennings sticks out as an almost Spitting Image version of Charles. Perhaps it’s the mannerisms, or the contrast of the other’s acting styles but his performance feels more like satire.
It’s a very British film, but I’m not certain it’s for a British audience. I’m not really sure who it’s for as it is all rather neutral in its presentation of the characters and institutions. It’s a presentation of a very sterile not-quite-history and that’s perhaps the problem; it was too soon.
I don’t quite get the purpose of the film and I didn’t gain anything other than wasting away 2 hours. If you’re looking for ballsy finger pointing check out Scandal S5 Ep1.