Flight of the Phoenix

Plot synopsis:
Flight of the Phoenix is a remake of the 1965 film The Flight of the Phoenix starring James Stewart. Captain Frank Towns (Dennis Quaid) pilots a C-119 cargo plane full of oil workers who are returning home after shutting down an oil field in Mongolia's Gobi Desert. The plane is overloaded on take off, and soon they hit a violent sandstorm that causes them to crash. They are now stranded over 200 miles off-course and in the harsh desert terrain. Frank must maintain order and ration the little food and water among the survivors and wait for someone to rescue them. As time goes by, they realize their chance of being rescued is zero. An odd man named Elliott (Giovanni Ribisi) who caught a ride with them suggested that they build a new plane out of parts from the undamaged cargo plane. He just happens to be a plane design engineer. They think he is crazy, but what else can they do. Under Elliott's command, the survivors begin to construct the plane, which they name the Phoenix. Douglas Young (the-movie-guy)

Tags: murder

Review:
This version has new actors filling the shoes of established characters, and yet none have the quality to hold the story on course, causing it to crash like their airplane.
Dennis Quaid assumes the role, originally filled by Jimmy Stewart, of the pilot who, against all odds, endeavors to lead his passengers to safety.Although the new version follows the original fairly closely in terms of both character delineation and plot development, the story doesn't seem quite as fresh today as it did when we first encountered it close to 40 years ago.
Thus, he is a leader and a hero more by default than by design.Although the crash itself is fairly impressive from a technical standpoint - despite a rather phony-looking, computer-generated sandstorm that brings the plane down - once we end up on the desert floor, the movie doesn't do a particularly effective job conveying the truly grueling nature of the predicament these individuals are facing.
The main weakness with a film like "Flight of the Phoenix" is that, when the plane goes down, we're stuck in the desert right along with the characters, and if they don't have anything particularly interesting to say to one another, we can feel just as stranded as they.Thus, despite a few quality moments, this "Flight" never manages to get off the runway.
The opening sequences with the plane flying over sand dunes are superb, and then when it hits the storm the effects are excellent and it's at that point the action really kicks in, before that we were introduced to the varied multi-national characters and their initial roles.
I know that when I see a lone Scotsman in a movie it usually grates like hell with me, partly because they are usually played by Americans, but also because it just doesn't seem to fit, here it does because the entire cast is a mishmash of people.
It really does feel like a group of remote oil workers.The plane designer, played by Giovanni Ribisi is a terrible character, slimy, loathsome, and someone that you would expect to be a serial killer.
The airplane crashes on desert of Mongolia (in first version was Sahara) and they must survive and hold numerous risks , odds , dangers , hardships and try to rebuild their aircraft from the wreckage in order to prevent the suffering caused for hostile elements : sandstorms , burn sun and Mongolian enemies.
Misfortunes on desert atmosphere filling one with revulsion for the conditions in that unlucky are forced to exist stranded at uninhabited place : famine , warming , thirsty , bandits (in this adaptation have more importance than the first) and taking on themselves .Movie is a thoughtful change about the Hollywood screenplay of the plane that crashes in far countries as : ¨Alive : Miracle of the Andes¨ or ¨Airport¨ series .
It's an intelligent and dramatic movie developing the narration about the plane construction of riveting manner and with a semi-male star-studded , exception of the enticing Miranda Otto but in the original adaptation was totally masculine .
So why do so many directors do remakes of classic movies that deliberately do away with the qualities that made the earlier version(s) as great as they are?
In the original "Flight of the Phoenix", there are several aspects of the film that are essential to the movie; the complete absence of women, the contrast of the claustrophobic setting of the crash site against the vastness of the desert, the lack of backstory for the characters, the revealing of the hidden hopes and fears of the characters through pure dialogue, and the total isolation of the men from outside influences (with the exception of the encounter with the Bedouins.) The 2004 version of the movie basically does away with all of these elements, and the result is not positive.The original movie was basically a stage play, with limited special effects and a setting that could easily be reproduced on a stage.
I don't believe that John Moore improves the movie in any way other than the introduction of some brief, but impressive, special effects.I also have to point out that some of the reviewers have obviously never seen the original 1965 version, or, if they did, they paid little attention to it.
Flight of the Phoenix is a boring and predictable film and as a remake its far from the original in terms of quality.
The crash of an airplane in the Mongolian desert forces the captain (Dennis Quaid) and his passengersa crew of laid-off oil workers--to band together behind a mysterious stranger (Giovanni Ribisi) to rebuild a new plane out of the parts from the wreck while fighting off sandstorms and desert smugglers.
Back in 1964, Robert Aldrich stranded James Stewart, Richard Attenborough and Peter Finch in the desert after their plane crashed in the film Flight of the Phoenix.
What we do know is that some 40 years later, fairly untested director John Moore was given a hefty budget to remake the film appropriately named, Flight of the Phoenix.
With the exception of the plane crash (to which I give credit as being one of the best ever filmed) the movie updates the language, but everything else is relatively the same.
All this did was leave me to care nothing about any of the characters and I couldn't give a rats ass whether they survived or not.Flight of the Phoenix therefore falls in the same category as Get Carter, Sabrina, The Jackal., as films that were just mediocre when released decades ago and are amazingly given more of a disservice in the remakes for the new MTV generation.
This version of "Flight of the Phoenix" was released at the end of 2004 and is a modern take on the 1965 film with Jimmy Stewart.THE PLOT: A group of mostly oil workers crash land in the Gobi Desert where being found by a search party is unlikely.
Although an outlandish idea, it may be their only legitimate chance at survival.The plot is exactly the same as the original version with a few notable differences: It takes place about 40 years later; it includes a woman (Miranda Otto); it features a more racially mixed cast; and it takes place in the Gobi Desert rather than the Libyan Desert (although it was shot in Namibia, while the original was filmed in the deserts of SE California).I'm not one of those people who hates the very idea of remakes.
Despite the fact that the majority of viewers could not notice it, it reflects the degree of sincerity and devotion of the makers of this movie, let alone professionalism.As good plants cannot be grown from bad soil, everything else went down naturally-- the acting, the characters, and the atmosphere.
Like the original, this is about plane crash survivors rebuilding their plane in the desert for a desperate escape plan.Like the original, the pilot has a conflict with the slide rule man who designs planes.Unlike the original, it is horribly written, horribly directed, and horribly acted.Three strikes, you're out.There just isn't anything going for this movie.First, it is horribly directed.
These are all one dimensional stereotype characters we could care less about, and we even have the bigger cliché of the ones we care the least about being the survivors.I don't pan movies for being remakes, and try to be forgiving, but a remake should at least be as good as the original or offer something more.
Thankfully, it didn't try to be anything more (in fact, Dennis Quaid's character made fun of the inspirational talks in the movie), allowing it to be something to see on a boring Friday night.When an unsuccessful oil drill is abandoned in a remote place in Asia, Frank Towns (Quaid) and others are sent to fly them back to civilization.
However, Elliot mentions that he designs airplanes (of course), and now they're hell-bent on rebuilding their plane (dubbed "The Phoenix"), while going through tough weather, low supplies, bandits, and interpersonal relationship hardships.One almost expects Jerry Bruckheimer's name on this-it's mindless fun, with any plot being stupid, any special effect being fake, and any characters being underdeveloped.
The fate of this movie, in my opinion, was in the hands of director John Moore, who last made Behind Enemy Lines a hit for Fox. During the so-called "action" scenes, Moore switches over to hand-held camera (as if he tries to get the audience to get into the movie-makes us think that a situation like this could happen in real life?) and really makes the movie disjointed at those few points.
When you have characters just randomly be introduced (like that person of unknown Middle Eastern descent and the black guy with an eyepatch), you realize that the plot is not important, and you focus on having fun.I've seen a few ads that talk about the "HUGE" plot twist, and although the twist at the end was pretty good, it's not really noteworthy.
The soundtrack is distracting and inappropriate and the acting wooden, (even from Giovanni Ribisi, normally a fine actor and one of my favorites) I don't believe in any of these characters and I don't really get to know any of them except Dennis Quaid as the inexplicably pissy Captain.
This is a modern remake of the 1965 original, and we follow a group of misfits who must play on one another's strength, and one man's ability to think out of the box, in order to make it out alive.Dennis Quaid plays cocky pilot Frank Towns, who together with his co-pilot AJ (played by Tyrese Gibson), are tasked to fly a group of oil-riggers out of their just-closed outpost in the Gobi desert.
Questions like food and water will ring throughout the movie, but I suppose one can gloss over the fine details and accept that they had enough to tide them through.The Code 1 DVD contains deleted and extended scenes, and one almost 45 minute long making-of documentary titled the "Phoenix Diaries".
Perhaps this will play better on TV but for now, on the big screen this film sort of misses.You ever watch a movie thats really good or should be, but just misses the mark by inches?
Wondering who these people are and why should I care.I should note that I really don't like the original version of this movie.
Nevertheless, "Flight of the Phoenix" is still a very enjoyable film.After a devastating plane crash in the Mongolian desert, the survivors of the crash must band together to build a new plane from the wreckage.
Facing a brutal environment, dwindling resources, and an attack by desert smugglers, they realize their only hope is doing the impossible...building a new plane from the wreckage of the old one.This film is good and bad.
Who would know a film so bad with the characters have some really good scenes?I really didn't like the witty dialog to make the movie humorous.
The special effects from the scene where the plane falls is fantastic!If you have seen the original, don't bother seeing this one because it's the same movie.
Ack!) Yes, Dennis Quaid might not be Jimmy Stewart, but he is more than capable as an actor, and the way this remake is scripted makes him perfect for the role Jimmy played, Captain Frank Towns, since Towns is a tougher guy in this version than in the original.
It is more action/adventure oriented than the original, which was more a character study in a hostile environment, which is a good change, considering the current taste for action/adventure that propelled flicks like the last two "Matrix" movies to beau coup dollars-ville.
The only thing that kept me in the theater was the fun in predicting every single occurrence that happened throughout the course of the movie, and quite simply I feel stupider for having waited out the terrible monstrosity that is Flight of the Phoenix.
Coincidently, the 1965 original version of this movie was running in marathon mode on TV all day long so, I had this impression fresh in my mind when viewing the 2004 "remake".
Flight of the Phoenix (2004) is visually slick at times, but is critically flawed in how it handles the theme of the original movie, including the critical points of the 1965 movie that heightened the drama of the crew's plight of being marooned in the desert.
Like the numerous electric sand storms.In short its a good movie to watch on a Saturday night and maybe watch a second time..
All of this however doesn't really matter and it's no complaint, for "Flight of the Phoenix" is well made, fun entertainment.Of course the movie doesn't come close to the original from 1965 with James Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Hardy Krüger and George Kennedy.
If you go to see this movie be ready for a disappointment if you've seen T\the original Flight of the Phoenix.
The Movie is about a group of Oil well engineers who are stranded in the Gobi desert after the plane that came to evacuate them crashes.
When Dennis Quaid as the Captain and pilot refuses to build the plane, he walks out into the desert to show his determination to "try" something and gives his memorable quote " All a man needs in this life is love.
The real talent comes from Giovoni Ribisi(I know, it's probably misspelled.) He has mostly been limited to small roles in films like Cold Mountain, but he is a great actor.
The Flight of the Phoenix is a remake of the 1965 film of the same name starring James Stewart.
At least the creators and directors of the film can feel good about not offending anyone...I thought I was watching a Disney Movie at some points.
Instead get the original 1965 version and watch great actors like Jimmy Stewart, Richard Attenborugh, Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine and George Kennedy embark on a journey of great story telling.
The characters had no depth whatsoever, most of the lines were awful, and it even made actors that are typically very good look very, very bad, EX- David Quaid and Hugh Laurie.
Soooo Bad. I hadn't heard much about this film prior to watching it, but it had Giovanni Ribisi in (a very talented actor), and a story of deserted survivors looking to....well survive and become un-deserted.
I haven't seen the original FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX - I'm still waiting for it to show up on television - but when I saw this remake was on I decided to give it a go.
I picked this film to watch largely for the cast - in particular Dennis Quaid and Hugh Laurie - and had no idea until after I watched the movie that it was a remake.
If you have seen the original, then watch this movie for its own merits and try not to do a comparison with the original film..
Seeing this dreadful animation spoilt the whole film and it was impossible to take anything very seriously after that.The special effects should have been up to the task - but compared to the original film where the sandstorms in the desert were real, well certainly looked real, the special effects in this lame movie made the sandstorm look like something out of a caricatured version of the mummy.Lastly, if all that was not enough...the music was totally in appropriate for the film.Well this is a 3 out of 10, and this is with respect to the IQ of the director..
When they realize that they will not be rescued, they decide to build a new plane from the wreckage of the old one.I found "Flight of the Phoenix" a great action movie.
I have not had the chance to see the original movie, and I did not know that this is a remake.
Well, in my humble opinion, Dennis Quaid and crew do an every-bit-as-good-if-not-even-better version with this dynamite action movie!!
And, of course, these days in a movie such as this one would expect that stupid bit of a love story --- for Hollywood taste's sake -- or for the sake of Political Correctness, as there is a woman character in what used to be a all-guys film in 1965.
An unnecessary remake with an implausible plot, Flight of the Phoenix is, nevertheless, a reasonably effective adventure movie.
With a likable cast, some incredible special effects, terrific cinematography and a great soundtrack, there is just about enough good stuff in this film to make it worth a viewing, so long as you don't worry too much about the lack of logic or compare it too much with the original.Dennis Quaid plays Frank Towns, the captain of an aircraft downed in the middle of the Gobi desert.
With no radio and a limited supply of food and water, the survivors decide that their only chance of survival is to use the wreckage to build a new plane, and fly their way out.Without a doubt, the best part of the film is the incredible crash scene, which is visually stunning and alone makes the film worth giving a go.
The struggle with the characters, as well as with a lot of the rest of the film, I think, comes when people who have seen the Jimmy Stewart version try to compare it, as if the new filmmakers were going to do a shot-by-shot, line-by-line recreation.
The screenwriters chose, out of their rights as artists, to rework and update an old story, and they did quite well.I have not seen the 1965 Phoenix, as I'm sure most of the contemporary movie-going public has not, so there's nothing for me to "compare" the new film to.
The movie makers succeeded in what they set out to do - bring the story of the Flight of the Phoenix to a new generation of film audiences.
Thank God for great writers, and actors!What I wonder about is did they film this movie in a desert?