Interceptor (1992) Poster

(1992)

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Surprisingly good...
ep.com28 November 2001
Hey, who would have thought, this movie is actually pretty good and fun to watch. Performances are good all around, too, especially Prochnow as the main bad guy (it's definitely a bit of a typecast, but hey, he's cool). And it's really nice to see Andrew Divoff playing the role of the hero for one time. The budget wasn't that high and you can see this on the screen, but a high budget doesn't guarantee a good movie ("Air Force One" anyone...?). This one's alright, watch it.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Die Hard" on a C-5 Galaxy
Royce-511 June 1999
That's about it.

Okay, okay. The plot, such as it is, goes like this: Our hero is a USAF pilot testing a "Virtual Reality" helmet in an F-117 over Turkey. It fails, and he barely has time to bail out before his plane crashes. Disgraced, he's sent home packing, along with the two remaining VR F-117 prototypes.

Why are they testing it over Turkey? Why not Area 51? Why not *anywhere* in the United States? Because the long flight home means that the terrorists, led by "Das Boot" kapitan Jurgen Prochnow, can board through an air-to-air refueling line (!) and make a grab for the remaining two planes.

You can figure out the rest. Our hero must sneak around the conveniently large ductwork of the C-5 transport, offing terrorists one by one, while the love interest ('scuse me, the C-5's pilot) keeps trying to kick bad guys out of her cockpit and call on the radio for help.

There's absolutely nothing innovative about this movie in the slightest. The action is mundane, the characters are cardboard, and the technical goofs are legion. Watch it only if you feel like having an "MST3K" party at your house.

Or rent "Air Force One" and have a double-feature.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Best comedy of the early 90's
ralphb-316 June 2004
In reality this is a fun movie. It is a simple good guy vs bad guy story. During the story you learn just how bad the "evil" guys are. By the final scene you can find yourself cheering the good guys.

On the other hand,

If you have any knowledge of military aircraft you must suspend a "lot" of disbelief. I was in the U.S. Air Force and stationed at Dover AFB at the time this movie came out. For those that don't know, Dover AFB is the home of 48 C-5 Galaxy's. When this move was released it ran in our break room nonstop for two weeks. In spite of all the jeers about the errors in the aircraft we still found ourself clapping at the end of the movie. I only wish it was my aircraft that was blown up (70-00452)

In the end I don't really view this movie to be a military film, but rather a story of a hero overcoming adversity. The setting of a military aircraft just makes it a convenient way to tell which side is which.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bloodbath of the skies
degracia22 October 2000
I first saw "Interceptor" when it was shown on TV as part of non-stop, pro-military/pro-veteran movie marathon on the 4th of July, which I personally think, given the nature of this film, was in entirely bad taste. (Is there some reason why practically every movie that features the F-117 comes out cheesy? It's the most popular aircraft in cheesy movies to be blown up, stolen, modified, etc.) Basically the plot is simple: a bunch of fanatical terrorists have a chance to steal two special F-117s with a unique guidance system and aerial-deployable folding wings. The whole movie is packed with people being killed in strange and unusual ways. While violence is a key part of your modern action genre, "Interceptor" has a strange way of making all the violence in the film seem tacky or purely gratuitous. Aside from that, "Interceptor" is thin in story and plot, with has little espionage intrigue to offer.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Here I am; Rock me like a hur-... wait, that's not the line...
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews7 April 2010
This is a sufficiently entertaining ride. Oh, it's not a masterpiece, and it does little to challenge genre conventions. And I think it can be fairly widely agreed that the visor looks downright goofy(maybe they didn't think so at the time), and it should definitely be pointed out that this is really *not* a sci-fi flick, and the only element of such that there is in this is the high-tech jet(and they don't exactly spend the whole movie in it). With that said, some of this is pretty damn cool. The Virtual Reality isn't groundbreaking(anymore), but at least they didn't base the whole thing around it *cough* Lawnmower Man *cough*. And many of the FX are quite convincing. The numerous strong moments in the editing and cinematography deserve mention, as well. This is directed by the man who went on to do Snow White: A Tale of Terror, one of the too few adaptations of fairy tales that actually capture the grim nature of rather a lot of them(seriously, go read the originals, then, if you can stand it, watch some Disney to compare), and while he's doesn't do fantastic on either, he makes them work and even stand out from the bunch, marginally. He takes what could be instantly forgettable and makes it have a smidgen of an impression. There is great tension and suspense in this, and it genuinely gets the job done, engaging and exciting us for the nicely paced, doesn't-overstay-its-welcome 90 minutes. The action isn't bad. There is a decent sense of humor here and there in this. The writing is good at times. I personally love Divoff and Prochnow(who *revels* in his role as the villain), albeit for entirely different reasons. They both deliver solid performances. The rest of the acting varies. Andrew portrays a pilot who abandons a plane being tested, and then flies with a massive transport, carrying the two experimental stealth fighters. Terrorists attack, intending to steal them. Fun, and never claims to be anything other than what it is. There is a bit of disturbing content and brutal, if not terribly bloody or gory, violence, in this. I recommend it to anyone looking for a simple picture that just needs to deliver the goods. 6/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The writers slept thru geography class.
HollyWierdo29 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A C5 transporter is taking off from Adana, Turkey. The tower instructs the pilot, "Report skies are cloudy at Diego Garcia and clear all the way to California. Airborn refueling with your tanker at 2200 hours over Borneo." Why Borneo? The shortest route from Turkey to California is over northern Greenland---about 7,300 miles. Even avoiding the airspace of the former Soviet Union it is less than 7,500 miles. By way of Borneo, the trip is about 13,600 miles.

After being denied fuel by hijackers, the pilot is forced to reset her course as dictated by the lead hijacker: "The new heading: 3 6 degrees south, 4 5 west." Is that some new fangled way of giving a compass heading, or is it a destination off the coast of Uruguay? A short time later, the plane is over the northern coast of Australia. Given the light load (about 1/4 capacity), a C5's range is about 6140 between refuelings. It can barely reach Borneo; a detour to Australia would be more than a thousand miles beyond its range.

As for walking away from landing an f117 within walking distance of an arbitrarily chosen spot in North Australia, come on!!!!!!!!!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underrated, good example of it's type
dj_bassett6 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"Die Hard on a plane" and a pretty good example of it, far better than other, higher-budgeted cracks at the same storyline. The plot more or less makes sense, which is important in this kind of movie but too often is quite rare. The acting is nicely low-key (except for Jurgen Prochnow, embarrassing himself and positively licking his chops as the head bad guy). The fights are extremely well choreographed and make imaginative use of the setting -- which is not typical of other efforts at this same thing. As a sort of extra-bonus, there's some extremely effective aerial photography, and some nice aerial combat sequences which manage not to be boring, a difficult feat. Recommended, a nice B-movie sleeper.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
My Take
prestonjobe9 July 2017
Long time fan of this movie. Yes, there are no less than a thousand mistakes and impossibilities here, but if you take this movie for what it is you'll love it. I've watched it several times over the years and I always laugh a little, but I love it. Story is filled with holes, but I just love it for some reason
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
You Have Just Got To Be Kidding! Give Me A Break!
im_veritas_photo26 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This flick gets two dubious "awards" from me: 1) Most Loopholes of Any Movie Award, and 2) Most Predictable, Dumbest "Plot" Award.

I can't count the number of loopholes. I won't waste my time (or yours) by trying to list even a small part. They ruined what should otherwise have been a "just-drop-thinking-entirely-and-enjoy-an-action-flick" experience. The loopholes were just too intrusive for anyone, even one with only a few active braincells like me.

Here's the plot. SPOILERS. MANY SPOILERS. Experimental fighter plane pilot appears to screw up, although he claims it was an equipment failure. He heads home for an inquiry, just happening, by strange chance, to be riding in a transport plane which can, miraculously, hold two flight-ready experimental fighters within it. And it does, indeed (or within Hollywood "reality") hold both of them.

Terrorist band ruthlessly kills many, many U.S. Air Force folks on the way to boarding transport in mid-air, to capture said experimental fighters. Head terrorist, the chief murderer, is, inexplicably, fully capable of flying these experimental fighters, and using the virtual-reality helmet, which just happens to be the equipment which doesn't work too well. Head terrorist has an assistant, call him Vice-Head Terrorist, who is equally qualified.

Extremely attractive female transport pilot, a Major, becomes allied, of course, with the fighter jock. They manage to, miraculously, kill every terrorist, trashing one transport and one experimental fighter in the process. Two Air Force pilots, one female, the other male, limp off romantically into the Australian sunset.

Other user reviewers said things like, "Surpisingly Good," "My Favorite Movie," etc.

Are You Kidding Me? Give Me A Break!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the better or the BEST movies about hi-jacking a (military) cargo plane
BasicLogic18 March 2019
I totally agree with the review by prestonjobe9 July 2017: "Long time fan of this movie. Yes, there are no less than a thousand mistakes and impossibilities here, but if you take this movie for what it is you'll love it. I've watched it several times over the years and I always laugh a little, but I love it. Story is filled with holes, but I just love it for some reason."

I, too, after the 1st viewing of this movie when it's released, it never faded in my memory since then. Now it's year 2019, after watched the 3rd times so many years later, I still consider it one of the best hijack thrillers. The movie was released in 1992, but it's way before Hollywood's obsession of CGI computerized graphics. Nowadays, about 99% of the movies out of Hollywood were with CGI effect or with the actors acting in front of a green screen and I'm tired of it. Every movie now looks like a video game with hollow and senseless scenarios and plot. But this movie is quite different in many ways.

After so many years, the major pilot played by Elizabeth Morehead was still so vividly remembered. I almost fell in love with this cute and pretty young lady who also showed lot of potential acting talent. But when I tried to get more familiar with her, her activities only continued to 2013, since then she just disappeared and off the screen. I really like to know her newer information.

Andrew Divoff is another actor that I also have strong impression of his role in this movie. My memory about him is his right eyebrow, there's some of it grew wild at the end of it with a sudden upward angle. He should trim it to look more appealing, his heavily acned face is another factor that I remembered him. I'm glad that he is still active in recent years.

Andrew Divoff almost played bad guy roles all the time, but he's a very good actor.

Again, I'd like to iterate my love of this movie; a timeless one even after so many years, still a great fun to watch again.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"Gentlemen, success will make us rich"
hwg1957-102-26570425 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Another one of those baddies captures a plane (or ship or train or building) and only one lone and loose hero is present to take out the villains kind of movie. Captain Christopher Winfield after a bad incident with an experimental F-117 in Turkey is ordered back to the U.S.A. It just happens that the plane he goes back in is a massive C-5 Galaxy that just happens to have two experimental F-117s on board and a small crew including obvious love interest Major Janet Morgan who captains the plane. The well armed bad guys absurdly board the C-5 down an aerial refueling boom (!) with the intention of stealing the F-117s and selling them for zillions of dollars. Then the action is let loose.

It's not bad, it's not great. Andrew Divoff as Captain Winfield is adequate. Better are Elizabeth Morehead as gritty Major Morgan and stealing all his scenes there is Jürgen Prochnow as the main culprit Phillips. The rest of the indistinguishable cast, plane crew and terrorists, are mainly there to off each other. There is some plot device about flying a real plane using virtual reality headsets but it could have been dropped without affecting the film.

Worth seeing mainly for Jürgen Prochnow curling his lip villainously.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed