When necessary, I can sustain a considerable amount
of disbelief over the predictable outcome of any given
conventional movie’s plot. Sitting back and playing
stupid can be fun, as long as the material one is
watching is executed with enough pizzazz to remain
entertaining. Flight of the Phoenix, on the other
hand, was so blandly assembled that I couldn’t help but
dwell on the foreseeable ending, as I viewed. The film
is about a group of survivors of a plane crash, who find
themselves in the Gobi Desert, with no way of returning
to civilization aside from rebuilding their broken, once
airborne vehicle. Now, let’s forget about the dull
writing, plain direction, and average performances for a
moment, and think about the full spectrum of the plot.
What kind of movie would allow the hopeful and
hard-working survivors to incorrectly reassemble the
plane and then die brutal deaths? Not one made in
Hollywood.
Putting the obvious and
predictable plot aside, the movie is completely average.
Director John Moore seems to be intent on repeating the
same gimmick, throughout the entire film. Nothing
exciting happens in Flight of the Phoenix; aside
from their brutal encounter with nomadic tribes in the
desert, the group of survivors does nothing but rebuild
their plane, for the entire duration. Wrenches, saws,
and sweat usually make for nice five minute montages in
movies, but when stretched to near feature length, they
become tedious and boring. Led by a supposed plane
engineer named Elliot (Giovanni Ribisi), the survivors
are aware that there is only enough power available to
test the plane a few times. As a result, there isn’t
much guess-and-check involved in the whole process.
Variety is essential in making a movie of this nature
succeed, and, unsurprisingly, is one of the many areas
that Flight of the Phoenix certainly lacks in.
Each member of the diverse ensemble of actors even seems
to look the same after awhile. This is probably because
everyone—aside from the somewhat interesting Ribisi—shares
the common-ground of having little-to-no talent,
whatsoever.
“Uninspired” is the most
accurate adjective one could use to describe Flight
of the Phoenix. Remade from the original 1965 James
Stewart movie, which I have not yet seen, it merely
serves as the latest cash-in vehicle to come out of
Hollywood. (Unfortunately for the studio, Twentieth
Century Fox, however, it has also become an undisputed
box-office dud). Flight of the Phoenix may
eventually make for an inoffensive cable viewing, but
when so many other, better movies that have much more to
say exist, I think it’s safe to say that one would be
better off avoiding it. Why, in a world full of ideas
and life, does mainstream cinema have to continue to be
so dopey? Can the average person really enjoy Flight
of the Phoenix, wholeheartedly? I suppose I
shouldn’t be questioning things that do not have
concrete answers. Then again, it’s all in the nature of
deep thought, something that Flight of the Phoenix
does not know how to do.
-Danny, Bucket Reviews (12.26.2004)