File your "Flight Plan" ASAP
After a disappointing experience with "Lord of War," we were a little gunshy (ha!) about picking a movie for the weekend. So we closed our eyes and dropped a fingertip onto the listings and ended up at a matinee of "Flight Plan," Jodie Foster's new movie.
We may make that our method of selecting movies from now on, judging by the performance of today's selection.
"Flight Plan" is simply outstanding. Short, tight, suspenseful...everything has a purpose and the director doesn't play games with the audience (well, with one minor exception). This was, indeed, "Panic Room at 30,000 Feet" (as some are calling it). "Panic Room" was also a very good movie, and so that's not a slam at all.
There's nothing I need to say about the plot; too much potential for spoilers, anyway. The cast is excellent, with Sean Bean playing a very believable airline pilot and Peter Sarsgaard (who has a face that you know you've seen before...you're just not sure where) has a role that will likely land him a lot more work in the future. But, of course, it's Foster who carries the movie; she appears in almost every scene, and draws you into her character just like she always does.
(I must offer this aside: if you ever wake up one morning and find that you are actually Jodie Foster's young daughter, dial 911 immediately, because, dear, it's about to hit the fan.)
Some are comparing "Flight Plan" to something Hitchcock would have made. I think I'd agree with that, given the methodical way the movie built in suspense and focused on the characters almost to the exclusion of the action. But, never fear, there's plenty of the latter in the end.
Looking back, once the plot is fully revealed, there are a few holes in the logic big enough to fly that jumbo jet through. But it's a fun ride while it's going on. I recommend it.
Technorati tag: Flight Plan
Critics can tell us whether a movie is good or bad, but they can't always tell us whether it's enjoyable or not. That's understandable. The former has some significant elements of objectivity; the latter is entirely subjective and often illogical.
Sort of like me.
Posted by: Eric at September 24, 2005 06:40 PMMy first thought after seeing it was, as you said, "this is Panic Room in an airplane." Foster likes movies where the woman is the power without the man. Not saying that's good or bad, just that she chooses those kinds of roles.
I liked the movie a lot. And, bigger bonus, it joins with The 6th Sense and The Game as a movie I did not predict right away. I won't ruin it for anyone, but I didn't see who the real bad guy was until it happened.
Foster only does a movie or so a year, so I always try to see them. She rarely lets me down. And I'll quit hogging your comment space now.
Posted by: Julie at September 24, 2005 11:47 PMI agree. And yes, there are some huge plot holes but... oh well.
As far as Peter Sarsgaard, he reminded me a bit of a young John Malkovich. The way he said things. But maybe I am out of my head as well.
Posted by: Christopher at September 25, 2005 08:50 AMJim: You've got a 90 minute rule? I've got as 120 minute rule. It's my contention that any story worth telling can be told properly in less than two hours. I remember a while back some blockbuster movie about a ship that sank in the north Atlantic came out. Never seen it.
My wife an I did enjoy Jodie Foster in The Panic Room, we may just have to check out this on.
Posted by: John Peter Smith at September 25, 2005 03:48 PMJohn & Jim...I can't buy into either of your rules, although with ticket prices being what they are, I find myself in the perverse position of preferring a long bad movie to a short good one in order to get my money's worth! ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't think the length of the movie is a good indicator of its quality. Each episode of the Lord of the Rings trilogy blows the 120 minute rule, and I found myself at the end of each wishing it would go on even longer. (Not so for Ep. 6 of Star Wars, which would have made a good 90 minute -- or even 89 minute -- movie.)
I'll admit that I can't think of any really good movies offhand that were shorter than 90 minutes, but that's due to my bad memory more than anything else.
Oh...wait...here's one: Napoleon Dynamite. 86 minutes. There ya go...
Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2005 04:07 PMFoster likes movies where the woman is the power without the man.
This is probably directly attributable to the fact that Jodie's parents separated when Jodie was still in the womb. She never really knew her father and her mother was a strong woman by Foster's accounting of her childhood.
We saw Flightplan yesterday and both enjoyed it although the plot holes made it a little tough at times. But I love Jodie Foster and will watch anything she does.
Posted by: jen at September 25, 2005 08:15 PMJen, I'm sure the holes in the plot seemed even larger to someone like you who works in a law enforcement environment.
It's funny, but I wouldn't call myself a huge Jodie Foster fan. I won't see a movie just because she's in it. But in the right vehicle, she is the movie, and that seems to always be a good thing.
Posted by: Eric at September 25, 2005 08:23 PM"Well, it's more of a guideline than a rule" ... quick, name the movie that comes from.
There are exceptions, but I could list (I won't , but I could) a ton of bad movies that clocked in at less than 90 minutes, seeing them is what prompted my "rule."
I didn't know Napoleon D. was 86 minutes. I was laughing so hard I never thought to look. So you've definitely got me on that one.
Posted by: Jim at September 26, 2005 07:22 AM"Well, it's more of a guideline than a rule" ... quick, name the movie that comes from.
That is so familiar, but I just can't put my finger on it.
You realize that Corpse Bride weighs in at a featherweight 74 minutes? It's getting pretty decent reviews...but, as you say, what do the critics know?
Posted by: Eric at September 26, 2005 10:32 AMIt isn't my ties to law enforcement that revealed the plot holes. As you said, they were large enough to fly the plane through. =)
Posted by: jen at September 26, 2005 11:05 AMGhostbusters. Bill Murray says it to Sigourney Weaver.
Posted by: Jim at September 26, 2005 06:32 PMNo, that's not it...but don't tell me, it's on the tip of my tongue... um...was it...Bill Murray in Ghostbusters? ;-)
Posted by: Eric at September 26, 2005 06:38 PM
The critics have not been as kind to the movie as you have. But what do they know?
Ebert gave it 3 1/2 stars, and that doesn't happen every day. Plus it makes my ninety minutre rule (which states that if a movie is not at least 90 minutes long, it's likely not worth seeing).
And, it has Jodie in it.
Posted by: Jim at September 24, 2005 06:13 PM