A tepid and modern version of the brilliant Hitchcock film "The Lady Vanishes" (1938). It's OK, but just that.
Hint: There's a sneaky common bond the two (2) films share. Look to the window ... : )
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: If you haven't seen the film referenced in my opening comment then maybe this won't feel so familiar. Still, I was able to watch this objectively (or so I believe ...), and can say that the story is unique but has massive holes (yeah, like air moving through the turbine engines). I won't give away the story here, but here are my general complaints:
1. The characters lacked ... um, character. It's as if the writers sucked the lifeblood out of the actors, and made them into cardboard organisms that behave like humans, but aren't. There is (essentially) zero character depth.
2. The story seems to hold up very nicely for awhile, and then pitches in a descent like a glass falling off the counter.
3. Some key elements of the whole story are bereft of explanation, and any given are cheap like an afterthought.
4. Cliche. Cliche. Cliches ... please, exercise and study to breathe life into your creativity!
ACTING: Yes, Foster is sufficient in the role, but that's it. This was not her fit. The rest of the cast were flat, but maybe that's because the story offers no opportunity for anyone to express him/her self. Dunno.
ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value, but that's if this is your beverage
TEMPO: Slow and choppy (yeah, like low altitude turbulence, which isn't too bad)
CINEMATOGRAPHY: It's the inside of a plane, so ... don't expect much
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Schwentke's portfolio is not my style, but I don't think it's his European influence. I think he's (probably) a product of his generation of directing hacks, and was trying to give a shallow audience their shallow dose of modern, shallow perception of life ... which is shallow and lacks depth of character. (Yes, that's called a rant.)
Writers: Even worse, the writers have the same tripe rippled through their work, and no, "The Hunger Games" (2012) is not an example of good film (story? Perhaps). Maybe it's a generational thing, but I'd like to find some modern writers that inject some nutrients into their work without sex and explosions.
Is it a good film? It's OK
Should you watch this once? Yes, I suppose
Rating: 7.3.
Hint: There's a sneaky common bond the two (2) films share. Look to the window ... : )
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: If you haven't seen the film referenced in my opening comment then maybe this won't feel so familiar. Still, I was able to watch this objectively (or so I believe ...), and can say that the story is unique but has massive holes (yeah, like air moving through the turbine engines). I won't give away the story here, but here are my general complaints:
1. The characters lacked ... um, character. It's as if the writers sucked the lifeblood out of the actors, and made them into cardboard organisms that behave like humans, but aren't. There is (essentially) zero character depth.
2. The story seems to hold up very nicely for awhile, and then pitches in a descent like a glass falling off the counter.
3. Some key elements of the whole story are bereft of explanation, and any given are cheap like an afterthought.
4. Cliche. Cliche. Cliches ... please, exercise and study to breathe life into your creativity!
ACTING: Yes, Foster is sufficient in the role, but that's it. This was not her fit. The rest of the cast were flat, but maybe that's because the story offers no opportunity for anyone to express him/her self. Dunno.
ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value, but that's if this is your beverage
TEMPO: Slow and choppy (yeah, like low altitude turbulence, which isn't too bad)
CINEMATOGRAPHY: It's the inside of a plane, so ... don't expect much
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Schwentke's portfolio is not my style, but I don't think it's his European influence. I think he's (probably) a product of his generation of directing hacks, and was trying to give a shallow audience their shallow dose of modern, shallow perception of life ... which is shallow and lacks depth of character. (Yes, that's called a rant.)
Writers: Even worse, the writers have the same tripe rippled through their work, and no, "The Hunger Games" (2012) is not an example of good film (story? Perhaps). Maybe it's a generational thing, but I'd like to find some modern writers that inject some nutrients into their work without sex and explosions.
Is it a good film? It's OK
Should you watch this once? Yes, I suppose
Rating: 7.3.