Rate It
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
Not rated. () |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
(19239) |
|
|
|
|
(7944) |
|
|
|
|
(11295) |
|
|
If you liked this, then you'll also probably like...
Got another recommendation for someone who liked this movie? Add it to the list!
Got an opinion? Use the buttons to vote on all the suggestions people have added.
If lots of people vote, the best suggestions will rise to the top.
| Rocky Balboa (40%) |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| The Flight of the Phoenix (89%) |
|
|
| Sahara (80%) |
|
|
| Radio Flyer (0%) |
|
|
Plot: Survivors of a plane crash in the Mongolian desert work together to build a new plane.
Flight of the Phoenix was a decent movie, Dennis Quaid could've been more exciting in it, but I did like the ending.
I have this on dvd and have watched it and it is an awesome movie because of Jared Padalecki one major hottie
gud movie. its fun to watch. i jus found out that this is a remake. obviously the critics wud say its not as gud. but i havnt seen the original and as it was released in 1965, who wants to watch it anyway? i liked this version and you will too.
I honestly didn't think a film that pretty much takes place in a single portion of the desert would be this good. Flight of the Phoenix isn't anything original, but it isn't crap either.The plot takes no time in the beginning to build up characters, but rather gets to the meat of the story rather quickly. Less than 15 minutes into the film you are already in the middle of the desert and this is where you stay until the very end. The only unfortunate part about this is that the setting stays the same. The inside of a plane and SAND. If you remember a few sentences ago, I said that the character buildup doesn't come at the beginning. Instead it comes in the middle as the characters figure out a way to get out of the desert. This offsets the lack of depth in the story.
There is little to no action in this film, but it doesn't need it. Like I said, this takes place in the desert, not a war zone. I can only imagine how this film could have gone if Michael Bay was attached to it. No character development and unnecessary action sequences.
The acting is better than expected. Dennis Quaid is alright and Miranda Otto pulls off the only female nicely. Surprisingly, Hugh Laurie finds a way to fit in. The most memorable character belongs to Giovanni Ribisi. Not only is he different, but you love him, you hate him, and then love him again.
The story for this film is pretty thin, but the variety of characters and the good ending more than makes up for it. If you don't mind looking at sand all day, then this is the film for you.
Acting was so bad. I don't know how so many inconsistencies can fit into a single film. Here's a thought: Don't make the antagonist more likable then the protagonist. Elliott was right 100% of the time and Quaid's character was a douche. Despite all of this it had an element of entertainment to it, so I won't give it a half star.
Something you see at daytime when you wanna kill time. Sure had lots of good actors Dennis Quaid (from the wonderful movie Undercover Blues), Mirando Otto (Eowyn from LOTR), Giovani Ribisi (Kid brother to Nicolas Cage in Gone in 60 seconds), Hugh Laurie (Dr. House) and Tyrese Gibson (Roman in 2 Fast and 2 Furious), but the plot itself was a little weak. Good have been a little better.
Also Jared Padalecki (Dean in Gilmore Girls) was in a little at the beginning.
If you're making a remake of one of the best and most memorable movies of the 60s you gotta live with being compared with it. Surely this new version aims a different audience, using Outkast and Massive Attack songs, a few sometimes neat sometimes over the top camera tricks and merely really well built men. It's actually the scenes that are very different from the original that are most convincing, especially the pretty exciting first encounter with the bandits and its disturbing outcome. But the movie lacks the same charm, the powerful dialogues and interesting characters of the original, despite of a pretty convincing cast. So in all, an entertaining but not really necessary remake for a hipper audience.
This wasn't too good.. not worth watching actually.. but if I'm not mistaken I've seen some parts from the movie on the TV a couple of years ago.. didn't remember much.. so I watched it again today.. not really worth watching! So stay away... =)
DTS mixes can get you only so far and even though the plane crash is impressively mixed, the film is ridiculous in the way it picks off it's cast members like a teen horror flick. Dennis Quaid is better than this.
decent movie, good cast. i don't know if adrenaline pumping is really the right choice of words here but i enjoyed it anyway. dennis quaid is always cool and it blew my mind to see hugh laurie in there. worth a rent
Good entertaining film. Really cliche and predictable, but a fun ride. I would have enjoyed it if rather than just sticking to the formula the director would have done something more interesting with his characters, rather than making them all the stereotypical characters that usually appear in films like these.
while i was watching this all i could think about was the old version of this movie and while i like Hugh Laurie i was expecting him to talk about the hospital or something.. the old one i believe is better.
Decent movie with an ok plot, but too many random additions that didn't make a lot of sense, and a completely unbelievable aspect to it.
I only saw the last half, but that's all I needed. Especially for how each song is played WAY too long.
A simplistic and superfluous remake which relies too much on plot, even though this is in itself less than captivating. Giovanni Ribisi and Hugh Laurie add some entertainment value, but the adventures of a crew who attempt to rebuild a plane in the remote Gobi desert doesn't captivate.
I watched this movie the other night cause there was nothing else on, but it turned out to be ok. I havent the original so i cant comment on that. But i thought the movie was good, there were some parts i didnt like, but otherwise, an ok movie.
Not too bad but if you haven't got anything better to add to a classic, you shouldn't bother remaking it.
Not a terrible movie, but not that good. Sticky Fingaz was in it, which definitely was weird, especially given the role he played. The nomad part would have been cooler if they had made something more of it.
To be honest, the only reason I watched this movie was that it was on cable and there was nothing on. That and the fact that Hugh Laurie looks exactly like Dr. Gregory House throughout the movie. Seeing as how he sent in his audition tape for "House" while filming this movie, I suppose it was Dr. House, although, unfortunately in a kinda crappy movie.
First dennis quiad movie i watched... and yes. loved it.. but the whole making a plane with pple hanging on the wings...hmm .. still getting my head around that.
Why the FUCK would you want to remake such a classic? Oh right, cos you're a rancid slit being fucked by a brainless horse cock...fuckwits the lot of em
Ribisi's character is a smarmy little weasel in this and easy to hate. This is one of those movies that you know will end well but it still keeps you on the edge of your seat. I watched the deleted scenes and extended scenes and feel it would have been better if they'd left them in. It seemed kinda choppy in parts and after seeing the cuts, I could understand why.
This was updated to occur in our era, complete with ipods, cell phones & PDAs. Now I want to see the older version with Jimmy Stewart and see how it compares. A good rental overall, really enjoyed by my husband and I both and we seldom like the same movies.
Good remake. Strong performances from the cast. Excellent opening with the plane flying with the sun in the background and johnny cash's "I've been everywhere man" playing.
Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !
No skins yet. Interested in creating one?
No quizzes for Flight of the Phoenix. Want to create one?