Reviews

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.

Yes, this is an interesting theme: boys suffer childhood trauma which is significant when their lives are coincidentally brought back together many years later as adults. But hasn't Kevin Bacon covered this material before in "Sleepers"?

Yes, the acting is pretty good (a little over the top sometimes, so I refrain from using terms such as superb, terrific or wonderful). Penn, as always turns in a great performance, but the Tim Robbins character is insufficiently flawed and our cops Bacon and Fishburne are just a little too self-centered, slick, over-confident and arrogant.

Yes the cinematography has been well executed; most of the scenes have a dull grey dreariness about them and we can understand why some might want to escape this existence. But here are a few problems:

1) I'm going out on a limb here – but where's the character development? At what point did the boy's friendship disintegrate. Was it immediately after `the incident'? Why did Sean Devine become a cop? How long has he worked with Whitey Powers? If Dave Boyle is such a `basket case' how did he make it through his teenage years and early adult-hood and what effect has it had upon his marriage? Sure we got a fair amount of history around Penn's character, but what about the others? And don't get me started on the wives. We learn very little about them until we're into the final 10 minutes.

*** MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD ***

2) There is no great revelation or pivotal point in the story. I was waiting and hoping for one but it never came. In fact the story ran out of steam at the end with a rather pitiful explanation for the girl's death (hmm: accidental shooting followed by beating to death with hockey stick) that suggested perhaps the producers, even Eastwood, had either run out of money or enthusiasm.

3) Far too many coincidences: cop from across town covers the murder of the daughter of his old buddy, daughter just about to leave town, Dave Boyle attacks someone else on the SAME NIGHT, Dave Boyle gets bumped off the same night cops determine the real killers, cop's wife talks on the day cop supposedly wraps up the case – this is just ridiculous.

4) Brendan Harris saying to his brother `say that you love me' – what was that all about?

5) As has been referenced several times here already - Annabeth Markum saying to her husband, towards the end `you could be king…' etc. – oh so she thinks it's OK to bump off the wrong guy!

6) Sean Devine, our friendly neighborhood cop, not even caring that Jimmy Markum practically admitted to bumping off poor old Dave Boyle. But then, what's that look across the street during the parade all about? Was that supposed to MEAN something?

7) Dave Boyle choosing to tell his wife he attacked a mugger rather than a pervert – why not just tell her the truth?

Of course in the end one could accept many of these flaws as simply a story based on realism: life is full of subtle complications, there is no black and white, coincidences do occur and even murder can be boring. But if somebody is going to make a film in this fashion then you have to give the audience something – and here it seems, the audience was just not given enough. Mr Eastwood and Mr. Penn, in the incredibly unlikely event that you should ever end up reading this please, please ensure you have a good story or screenplay to work from next time.

This film starts out well: `activists release crazy virus-ridden monkeys from a laboratory', followed by `guy wakes up in deserted city 4 weeks later'. Yes, the footage of him wandering around London completely on his own is very impressive and the soundtrack ain't bad either. Oh, and that Naomie Harris – she's got a decent part and she's a strong actress. But that's about it. After meeting up with the father/daughter pair it's clear that the writer, the director and anybody else responsible for this production didn't have a clue what to do next. So they started making it up as they went along. They practically admit as much, on the DVD, in their commentaries over the top of the movie and the various deleted scenes and three (yes three!) alternate endings. A lesson to be learned here: decide roughly how your film will end before you start filming.

*** Spoilers ahead ***

There's a few flaws in there too:

1) Surely there'd be a few bodies lying around in the streets – after all we see a double-decker bus on it's side – didn't anyone get killed during that incident?

2) Selena's hair always looks like it's just been washed and blow-dried – kinda strange given there's no hot water or electricity!

3) Why, oh why would they drive into a tunnel when all the bridges seem to be deserted? And driving over the top of a pile of crashed vehicles? I don't think so!

4) An untouched grocery store – don't the infected folk get hungry too? No matter how filled with rage they are – they still gotta eat! And that place looked kinda nicely lit!

5) As they drive by the windmills (which, incidentally are actually located in Cornwall) they are on a dual carriageway – as they drive away they are suddenly back on a 3-lane motorway.

6) The 3-lane motorway seems to get very narrow once they reach the blockade

7) Doesn't ANYBODY else see or hear the planes overhead?

Yes, some of these flaws are because of the low budget, but perhaps then, Mr. Boyle shouldn't try to execute a big-budget project without the money.

Possible spoiler included. I had high expectations of this movie, but they were never met. Now that's a pity, because I like Reese Witherspoon a lot. She was terrific in "Election", "Cruel Intentions" and "Pleasantville". Yes, I realize this is light-hearted comedy, definitely not to be taken seriously. But this has very little to offer, regardless of how one takes it. The biggest culprit here appears to be the script. There were some huge lapses in all of the boutique scenes, and the Jennifer Coolidge character was just wasting screen time in all of her scenes. The courtroom drama contains a very weak revelation that comes nowhere near the similar, yet more powerful and convincing element in "My Cousin Vinny". Finally, Luke Wilson grimaces just a few too many times, suggesting perhaps that he was enjoying the whole affair even less than I was. Sorry folks, but this is definitely not Reese at her best.