Tired actor, Terrible plot, Poor execution

Rating: 5/10 (22 June 2014)

There are so many things wrong with this film:

Yet again we have the alcoholic cop, who's really a good guy but has just dealt with too much stress in his life. In a one-liner, mid-way through the movie he blurts it all out in one go ("my daughter died of cancer, and so I drink" - clearly the script writers were out of time.

Liam Neeson, in his 60s, playing a rough-edged hero character in his 50s. This is clearly monopolizing on the Taken 1 & 2 (and now 3, in work!) movies.

If Federal Air Marshals don't go through civilian security screens (as his colleague didn't) then why did Bill?

Did Bill and his colleague really have to fight to the death in the bathroom? Couldn't these guys have had a _slightly_ longer discussion first?

The NYPD cop is the first to lose it and start riling up the passengers? Aren't police professionals taught to keep a crowd calm in stressful circumstances?

Why did the ex-military phone hacker dude give up his window seat so readily. Wasn't that jeopardizing his mission?

Why did the teacher even mention Amsterdam in his brief encounter with Bill outside the airport?

Who _did_ "shoot" the pilot, from the bathroom. And who designs a secure cockpit with that kind of vulnerability.

If all the details of the "hijacking", along with the name of the Federal Air Marshal, can really be broadcast on national news so quickly, is there really any chance of covering up the $150M bank transfer?

What kind of messages are sent to a Federal Air Marshal's pager (if they even carry such a thing) that can't be sourced? Was there really NOTHING in the messaging protocol that identified the source? Every messaging service I've ever seen (phone texts, Apple, Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc.) have a strong notion of identity. With Bill's "pager" there was nothing on the screen to show who's sent stuff.

Bill then starts checking every phone on the plane to see who's "texting" him. So either:

-- His pager receives regular texts, which really doesn't make it a "secure network", and again the source should have been readily identifiable, or ...
-- His pager only communicates on a secure network with special devices, (true, possibly disguised as a normal phone)
-- Either way, wouldn't a sophisticated hijacker have the means to _delete_ the text messages he's already sent to Bill's pager, thus making Bill's search futile?

The Federal "Ground Control" people (Bill's "management") really only needed about 2 minutes of dialog to determine that Bill was the bad guy? Really? I know this is a movie, and plots have to be accelerated to keep the audience engaged, but that was a crazy snap-decision. Why wouldn't they just say "sure, have the money, but we're arresting you as soon as you get to the gate".

And why didn't those same folks on the ground start asking more questions when they didn't get any responses from the other Air Marshal's pager.

The plane pulls out of the dive to 8000 feet, which would add extra downward G-forces, and the gun floats into the air. Have the script writers and director never been on a roller-coaster?

The plane is heading East from the USA to England and takes a right turn which apparently is North? Have the script writers and director never looked at a compass or a map?

Why should the authorities want to prevent the plane descending to 8000 feet _over the Atlantic Ocean_!!!

As a frequent-flier it always amazes me how much space there is on "movie planes". You could play tennis in those aisles.

There were many more issues with this movie that just made it too frustrating to watch.