Flight of the Phoenix

2004

Action / Adventure / Drama / Thriller

54
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 30%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 41%
IMDb Rating 6.1 10 48391

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 39,248 times
July 28, 2012 at 09:11 PM

Director

Cast

Miranda Otto as Kelly Johnson
Jared Padalecki as John Davis
Giovanni Ribisi as Elliott
Hugh Laurie as Ian
720p.BLU
752.15 MB
1280*720
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
1hr 53 min
P/S 10 / 25

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by moonspinner55 5 / 10

"Have you ever seen a compass dance?"

Remake of Robert Aldrich's 1965 film about plane crash survivors in the desert, menaced by nomad tribe while attempting to rebuild the fuselage of their aircraft. Dennis Quaid plays the ornery pilot this time, picking up a wily group of oil-tanker workers in Mongolia, including a female (not a product of the original, but a nice touch here). They run into a hellish storm just over the border into China and fly too high, breaking up their C-119 and leaving them without much food or water. The whiplash crash-landing is an amazing bit of film, sudden and ferocious, but what happens after that is pure formula. If you're attuned to the survival techniques inherent in the plot, or to the testy camaraderie between the mates, you're apt to enjoy the film. The performances are certainly solid, however they don't lend much believability to the final scenes, which play like a Disney feature. ** from ****

Reviewed by hughman55 1 / 10

Giovanni Ribisi finally gives a bad performance...

It was bound to happen eventually. The awesome Giovanni Ribisi who etched his talent into films such as; "Saving Private Ryan" (most moving death scene ever), "The Gift", "Heaven", "The Dead Girl", "Cold Mountain", and many others, succumbed to the weight of this giant sand turd, the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix".

I saw the original in a theater in 1965 when I was ten. They should have left well enough alone. Or rather, I should have left well enough alone. The "buhya's", high fives, "and the crowd went wild" roars, are supposed to pass for dramatic tension and exposition. They don't. Dialogue is flat.

Towns (Quaid): Ya think this thing'll fly?

Elliot (Ribisi): It'll fly.

Towns (Quaid): It better.

Riveting.

It's no knock on Giovanni Ribisi that he's terrible in this film. His character, Elliot, is actually altered in this remake from a cooky genius ('65) to murderous sociopath here. And yet, he's no worse than anyone else who is also terrible in this film; as is the writing, the jungle drum music score, and the ever so derivative "oogabooga - dead hand reaching out and grabbing a woman's ankle" moment. Yes, they filmed that. And then it made it out of the editing department. Can you just imagine what was left on the floor.

If you're interested in a good film called "Flight of the Phoenix" check out the 1965 version.

Reviewed by classicalsteve 7 / 10

Decent Remake of But Not Nearly As Good As the 1965 Classic

As remakes go, "Flight of the Phoenix" (aka "The Flight of the Phoenix") is not bad but unfortunately pails in comparison to the original film of 1965. While most of the important elements from the earlier classic are present in this "updated" offering, the script and acting had major problems. Certainly Dennis Quaid makes a decent Towns, but what made the original character as played by Jimmie Stewart fascinating was his lack of leadership and decisiveness, a bit like the aviator equivalent of the captain of the Titanic. In the original, Stewart is an excellent pilot but indecisive when it comes to leadership. Quaid exhibits some of that in this version, at first rather indifferent to the reality of the plight and reluctant to be a leader.

For those who have seen neither film, the relatively simple plot is about an air-wreck in the desert, this time in China rather than the Sarah in the original. The survivors of the crash resolve to build a smaller plane from the wreckage to save themselves from the unforgiving desert. In this film, aboard the plane is a young man name of Elliot who has aviation designing experience. Through his knowledge, he designs and the men create a working plane from the one working engine of the wrecked plane.

One of the most glaring problems of the this new offering are the characters and their lines. In the film of 1965, we learn about the little eccentricities and shortcomings of the many character-survivors. In the new film, I had trouble getting a handle on the characters. They seemed more caricatures than characters. In the original, there are several members of the British army, one a by-the-book captain and the other a self-interested Sergeant. In the present film, they are all 21st-century "guys" but little about them was very distinguishable, even the one female character (not present in the original) seemed a bit too predictable.

The weakest character in terms of both script and acting was Elliot played by Giovanni Ribisi, the equivalent of Heinrich Dorfman, a German aviation engineer-designer. Elliot's script had many problems, at first acting shy and irresolute while at other times exploding unnecessarily. While Elliot's character could have worked with a better script, and you can't blame actor Giovanni Ribisi for all the problems, it's hard to beat the absolutely stellar performance by Hardy Kr├╝ger in the earlier film. In one of the most crucial scenes of the story, when it's revealed the true experience of the designer-engineer in terms of aviation, the present film played out like a scene from a soap opera. In the original, the scene gradually evolves. Also in the original, the scenes were in two parts whereas in the new version, the scene is one long drawn-out confrontation.

The main saving grace of the present offering is the visuals which are certainly stronger than the original. The wreckage and the subsequent plane built by the survivors is a bit clearer. However, the visuals can't quite make up for the poor script and mediocre directing. The director was certainly excellent in terms of the visuals, but not great in terms of making his characters shine. Again, a decent viewing but probably a one-watch at best.

Read more IMDb reviews

1 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment