After a sudden underwater tremor sets free scores of the prehistoric man-eating fish, an unlikely group of strangers must band together to stop themselves from becoming fish food for the area's new razor-toothed residents.
While practicing motocross in Hawaii, Sean Jones witnesses the brutal murder of an important American prosecutor by the powerful mobster Eddie Kim. He is protected and persuaded by the FBI agent Neville Flynn to testify against Eddie in Los Angeles. They embark in the red-eye Flight 121 of Pacific Air, occupying the entire first-class. However, Eddie dispatches hundred of different species of snakes airborne with a time operated device in the luggage to release the snakes in the flight with the intent of crashing the plane. Neville and the passengers have to struggle with the snakes to survive. Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(at around 1 hour 26 minutes) The phrase "snakes in the cockpit", which is said in the film, is used by pilots in reference to the high number of complex tasks they have to accomplish. See more »
(at around 1h 19 mins) When Flynn goes down into the cargo bay and resets the outflow valve circuit breaker, it is shown to be a large industrial type electrical switch such as is used in house or commercial structures. There are no breakers like this on any aircraft. Instead they use remote controlled circuit breakers to control large electrical relays in the system. In addition, the ceiling of the "cargo bay" shows taped drywall joints and the walls appear to be cinder blocks - materials highly unlikely to be used on a modern aircraft. See more »
I'm confident that "Snakes on a Plane" will prove once and for all that Internet culture and mainstream culture are not one and the same.
Because, my friends, the Internet will tell you that SOAP (as those in the know call it) is a classic film - the best "bad movie" ever made. But I think any more sensible member of the general public will tell you that SOAP is nothing more than a mildly competent action movie. It's not hysterically funny. It's not scary. It's occasionally exciting. And it sure ain't a "10" on the IMDb scale.
Don't misunderstand me; I had fun watching the movie. I was even willing to be generous, until I saw the outrageously high rating on this site and all the strangely gushing reviews. Frankly, I'm a bit astonished. Why heap such praise on this particular film? If you love camp, over-the-top action movies, then why not worship a camp action film that's actually good? ("Wrath of Khan" springs to mind - also "Batman.")
The truth is that parts of SOAP are pretty lame. Samuel L. Jackson is good, but his role is weirdly small. And, aside from his one power catchphrase, most of his dialog is banal and dull. The rest of the actors aren't even worth commenting on, since they're stuck with stock and boring "funny" characters.
Speaking of dull, how many different ways can snakes really kill someone? They hiss...they lunge...they bite...over and over and over again. It's not particularly cinematic. And most of them are fake CGI anyway, so they're not even remotely frightening.
Face it, the only reason to see this is because it's camp and bad. It's part of the whole culture of worshiping lame junk that's prevalent right now. It's hip to like terrible garage bands and lame movies because people are either too impatient, or too unsophisticated, to take the time to absorb entertainment that's actually artistic. So we watch and listen to junk, and imagine that we're superior to it, and that makes us feel good. Apparently.
Is there anything wrong with liking junk? Not really - I review and praise junk on this site all the time. But putting junk on a pedestal? That's very, very wrong.
595 of 857 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?