Airspeed (1999) User Reviews

What? No bag of peanuts!?

[refinedsugar · 3/10 · 27 February 2001]

Airspeed has led me to the conclusion that there is nary an original idea left in movies. The one category that fits the above description like jam on toast is the airplane disaster flick. What goes up must come down formula. Pretty straight forward.

So here we are with 'Airspeed'. A vapid entry into the airplane disaster genre that feels like it was cleared for television take-off. It deals with a teenage daughter of a software giant who gets trapped on flight 666. Bad weather, lightening strikes the plane and next you know she's gotta land the plane to ground safely.

I always like movies with an average everyday citizen being able to land the plane - no training needed - always brings a smile to my face. Makes me wonder why we need those highly trained pilots when all you gotta do is pull a lever and stick-shift.

This movie doesn't offer anything redeeming worth spending ninety minutes of your time on. It has the feel of a low budget and there's very little variety. Either we're on the plane listening to the girl or in the air traffic control tower listening to dialogue we've all heard before. I became so bored with the movie I couldn't help but pick holes in it. The rough acting, implausible technical aspects.

If it had succeeded in entertaining me maybe I wouldn't be so harsh. Was 'Turbulence' a good movie? No, not really. Did it entertain? Yes. Finally Joe Mantegna shouldn't be here slumming it for a second/third billed role. Fat Tony would be ashamed.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[momster0005 · 3/10 · 18 January 2021]

A "13 year old" makes a perfect landing with a 727 Jetliner. She has no flying experience and is told in just 5 steps how to land the plane before her phone goes dead. Of course the man who told her what to do is the air traffic (with an amusing haircut) controller who figures out all of the ideas on how to perform the previous rescue attempts. He has all the knowledge, as the actual pilot of the rescue plane and older air traffic controllers are dumbfounded. Pilots everywhere beware, 13 year olds will be taking your jobs. Santa Claus coming to the rescue would be more realistic.

Boring, stupid and laughable->

[Peter-171 · 3/10 · 16 December 2000]

About the only good things that I can say about this movie is that the story isn't such a mess that you can't follow what is going on and all though there are a lot things wrong with this movie it probably could be far worse. The fact that nothing is REALLY bad and nothing is hardly any good just makes this movie dull. I have seen better "plane gets hit by lightning and gets in trouble" movies than this such as Panic in the Skies which wasn't all that good either but just reasonable. This movie gets a 3/10.

Without a doubt the worst airplane movie ever made.

[ceasbury · 1/10 · 6 January 2013]

I've been a pilot for over 40 years. I know whereof I speak. I like airplane movies, really I do. This one has more senseless factual errors than AIRPLANE, which was one of the best comedy movies I ever saw. Unfortunately this one is no comedy. I DVRd it this week. I wish I hadn't.

First off, when the plane was 95 minutes from it's intended landing, the co-pilot was talking to the tower. In fact ALL communications were with THE TOWER. 95 minutes on a 727 would be about 750 miles. At best, an aircraft FM transceiver has a range of about 100 miles. At the range they were from touchdown, communications would be with a regional air traffic center, not a TOWER 750 miles away.

The refueling boom is another anomaly. The boom extends from the center rear of a refueling plane. I have laid on my belly in the boom operator's position of a KC-135. The operator doesn't stand behind a "pulpit". The boom has a stub wing on it which flies the boom. There is no way the boom can be moved at a 90° angle from the tail of the refueling plane.

Once the 727 depresurized, the folks on the crippled plane would have frozen to death in a matter of a minute or so at cruising altitude. It's negative 50°F up there. They were not dressed for arctic travel.

How can a "rescue guy" shinny down the boom at an airspeed great enough to keep a 727 in the air? Approach to landing speed in probably about 125 knots (144 MPH). Minimum speed to maintain altitude is probably 200 knots. Then they have the stupidity to take passengers back the same way. Why not leave them on the plane, and send over a fresh pilot to land the thing intact?

Once the kid starts flying the plane, the air traffic controller trains her to fly on instruments. That's a pretty tough first lesson. In fact it's impossible. I've only done it after MANY HOURS of training, starting in a small single engine airplane. "Jam you foot into the brakes" OK, where are the brakes? And why would a controller be the one to talk a plane down? Only a 727 rated pilot would have a prayer of being able to do it, and, on those RARE occasions when it has been dome, it's been done with a chase plane alongside.

OK, it's only a movie, but let's at least try to make it seem believable.

Very Poor Acting.

[ej_hansen · 2/10 · 22 January 2000]

It was like watching a train wreck. Horrible, but I couldn't take my eyes off of it. The movie was much better muted. The acting seemed forced and half-hearted and you felt no sympathy for any of the characters. Avoid this one.

Sorry waste of film

[ctg-2 · 4 October 1999]

Oh, dear God..what an awful movie! Superbly unrealistic in most aspects relating to aircraft flight dynamics, control tower operations, and aviation radio communications.

This movie tries to be suspenseful (like the Airport 7x series), but is laughable at most times. This movie is to airplanes as Hackers was to computers.

Don't waste your time with this movie...watch the Teletubbies instead.

You gotta be kidding me

[mjorgensen62-40-114257 · 1/10 · 28 May 2013]

Many movies have earned the title of "Worst..." acting, directing, writing, casting, or special effects. Well...this one wins in ALL categories. The premise is preposterous. The acting is horrendous. The special effects are non-existent -- and covered up by badly-lit night-time scenes. It's a good thing Elisha Cuthbert grew into a great body, because she couldn't get far with the level of acting here. Joe Mantegna looks like he's trying to find the emergency exit -- from the film! All in all, this would have been a great "After School Movie" designed to empower tweener girls that they, too, can solve all the problems in the world -- world peace, landing airliners, well you get the idea. If I were Joe Mantegna, I'd remove this film from my resume'.

Do not be fooled

[jonas2002 · 4/10 · 19 July 2002]

Do not be fooled of the cover or poster of the movie (which shows a Boeing 747 - the plane used in the movie is a smaller Boeing 727). Low budget aviation movie. Lot of people disliked the lead character Nicole (played by Elisha Cuthbert) but in my opinion she saved the movie from total disaster. The DVD offers good picture for being low budget production.

A disaster movie which was a disaster in itself

[plutus1947 · 2/10 · 4 August 2015]

Out of all the disaster movies I have watched this must be in my top five as the worst disaster movie I have ever seen, although it did have the potential to be so much more.

I will say the cast acted their parts quite passably but despite their efforts the movies was completely spoilt by the terrible script and direction.

If the makers of the movie actually asked for technical help from an airline pilot it must have been Dick Dastardly. Equally I would suggest no help was requested from an Aircraft Engineer or Air Traffic Controller (ATC).

SPOILER BEGINS

Basically this movies is about a private jet carrying a pilot, co-pilot and three passengers, one of which is a 13 year old brat of a girl.

The aircraft is struck by lightening which ends up with the pilots and the two adult passengers becoming unconscious and a large hole blown in the fuselage.

The rest of the movie is taken up with an attempt to transfer the pilots and passengers onto another plane, which obviously comes unstuck after three of the five passengers are transferred, and the landing of the plane.

Before this occurred the girl Nicole, managed to contact Jeff at ATC via the planes radio but virtually straight away contact was lost.

Of course Nicole has a cell phone and somehow knows the land line number of the Control Tower and gets back into contact with Jeff.

Jeff seems to be an expert pilot who knows exactly how to fly a plane but even he and the rest of the tower are doing virtually nothing. They did not even bother to get a qualified pilot in to help Nicole.

Of course Nicole is left with the task of landing the plane and of course does so flawlessly despite the fact that the flaps were not used neither was the speed brakes and it took so long to apply them on landing that the plane would have ended up in a different state.

SPOILER ENDS

If you are an out and out masochist then I am sure you will think this is the best movie since the invention of the Internet, but myself I would pay someone NOT to give this DVD as a gift.

Moves, but not Moving

[Mr Blue-4 · 4/10 · 29 September 1999]

A Canadian (check the funny accents, eh) family action film that aspires to be a Cameron-esque drama headed by a teenage girl. She is the one conscious person aboard a private jet struck by lightning. Air traffic controllers on the ground and some military types in the air try to help her, first, get off the plane, then land it when she's stuck on it.

I don't have it in for this film as the previous posters. But I gotta say the staging of how this girl manages to be the only person on the plane to survive the lightning strike is, well, not good. Things get off to a rather shaky start to get the piece setup. After that, things move along, although a little less propelled by actual drama than a step by step chronicle of attempted solutions and subsequent problems.

Of course, a built in problem with this, esp. a family film, is that we never doubt the girl is going to be okay. Not that with any other conventional film we wouldn't expect something like that, but even with a "Airport '75", you know Charlton Heston is going to make it to the end of the film, but you're not sure he'll make it alive. So if this is going to work for you at all, you must be content going in that you absolutely know where it'll end:you're just along for the ride.

The young girl is adequate. Joe Mantenga seems to be acting while holding his mortgage payment in his hands. No one makes a strong impression, for good or ill, except one of the supporting players whose accent screams "North of the Border."

Beware Aviation Personnel! Even More Technical Problems than I Can Count

[aimxae · 2/10 · 9 August 2018]

So rittled with technical inaccuracies that after a while my laughter turned into a series of moans. Don't watch this movie if you are a pilot or aircraft mechanic. You will regret it. unless you enjoy seeing how many errors you can come with while watching an airplane movie (that's why I began watching it). Just some of the issues that makes you realize they didn't hire a technical expert: * An Air-to-Air fuel tanker whose entire tail section opens up like a cargo plane? * Only 2 thrust levers on a 3 engine aircraft? * An autopilot that can't be disengaged by simply opening its circuit breaker? Well maybe it couldn't, they never tried. * A single pilot tanker? * Safely landing and bringing to a safe stop a Boeing 727 on a small airport runway without the use of the functional thrust reversers? * ...and many more. The list goes on. Help. Come on screenplay writers, hire a retired commercial aircraft pilot, or at least a commercial aircraft mechanic, to critique your screenplay before you make a movie out of it.

I purchased the movie 8/24/07

[bigjoel19 · 9/10 · 24 August 2007]

Elisha Cuthbert is an fantastic actress in this movie, This is the only movie that really made me cry at the end. I was crying with Elisha until the credits The funniest part though was when she was landing the plane and cried "oh s***" right before the plane touched the ground. This is the only film that may not be entertainment to a lot of people, but I cry every time I watch the movie. There isn't anything much more I have to say about the movie but I think If they try the movie again It may be a success with a slightly different storyline. The story line in Airspeed was too predictable and nobody watches predictable. Also they should have added to the ending of at least an hour or two.

This was actually an enjoyable movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 5 March 2021]

I opted to sit down to watch the 1999 movie "Airspeed", despite of the fairly low rating that the movie had managed to acquire here on IMDb. I read the movie's synopsis and I must admit that I was intrigued. And of course, with it being a movie that I hadn't already seen, of course I needed little persuasion to sit down to watch this movie.

Now, I will say that writers Richard Goudreau and Roc LaFortune actually managed to put together an enjoyable and entertaining script and storyline. Sure, it was predictable and sort of far fetched, but at the same time there was just something very enjoyable and watchable about the movie. Perhaps "Airspeed" is one of those guilty pleasure movies for some people.

I actually was enjoying the story and the movie as a whole. Director Robert Tinnell provided sufficient entertainment value with this movie, and I am a little bit at a loss here as to why the movie has raked in such a low rating. I suppose lots of people are above enjoying TV movies?

The acting in the movie was actually good. Sure, it wasn't Academy award-winning performances, but I will say that the actors and actresses in the movie were definitely putting on good performances and delivered believable performances. Especially Elisha Cuthbert (playing Nicole) and Charles Edwin Powell (playing Jeff), they really carried the movie with their individual performances.

While "Airspeed" was not making use of high end CGI for impressive edge-of-the-seat scenes in midair with the accident, the movie's special effects crew actually managed to make use of simplistic, yet functional and working, effects that served the movie well enough and did what they were supposed to do.

"Airspeed" provided a good combination of drama, thrills and action actually to make it an enjoyable all-round movie for me. And this 1999 movie is actually one that I would recommend you take the time to watch.

My rating of "Airspeed" lands - pardon the pun - on a six out of ten stars.

Horrendous!

[MacProTX · 1/10 · 5 November 2011]

The spoiler in this review (and in the movie), is that the little girl lands a 727 and saves herself and the day.

This may not be the worst movie I have ever seen, but with confidence, it is in my bottom three. Understand that I love this genre beyond all reason, and never fail to root for the hero/heroine of the Our Pilots Are Dead or Disabled, Can Any of You Passengers Land This Plane movies. And goodness knows, I've watched some stinkeroos.

But my goodness, never before have I rooted against the happy ending so aggressively! Please, please let her be sucked out the hole in the fuselage! Or have her neck broken by flying debris! Or let her simply die of hypoxia, since she's too stupid to make a connection between the oxygen bottle she's playing with and consciousness at 35,0000 feet!! When nonesuch come to pass, then I will settle for the smoldering wreckage of the devastating fireball in which the movie (and all aboard the doomed flight) should have ended.

I won't even discuss the realities of aviation, (nor insist on compliance with basic laws of physics), but who can possibly find drama in this dreck? Never mind Capt. Sully's extraordinary competence (encapsulated completely in the word "unable"), let's celebrate the true heroics of civilian aviation. If a writer cannot find drama in the single finest piece of emergency civilian flying ever (with full credit to Captain Haynes and F.O. Records), then this crap is all we'll ever be left with. (Haven't seen "Crash Landing: The Rescue of Flight 232," but I'll be looking.) They saved 185 lives which should have been lost; this movie saves one thirteen-year-old who's personality would have been improved by an early demise.

If you like the genre, and want civilians saving the day, seek out "Terror in the Sky," and leave this one to the sub-teenagers for whom it may have been written, but who are also much smarter than the writers.

Oh, great Joe Mantegna of Things Change and Searching for Bobby Fischer, how could you have led me here?

spoiled, spoiled, spoiled

[bandimal · 2 May 2000]

This movie is about a spoiled 13 year old girl who likes to insult, needle and whine at everyone around her -- that is until she realizes she needs them, of course. If you want to have any chance of being surprised, don't read the letterbox, because the summary is really a spoiler. Though I don't think it was much of a stretch for a young actress such as Elisha Cuthbert to play a whiny teenager, her acting was probably the best in the entire movie. Add in a couple of over-dramatic parents (or are they over-dramatic actors?), a weird looking guy who swings between despair and brilliance each moment, and minor characters who merely speak their lines, and you have a movie which might have had potential if it wasn't so overdone.

Crap

[fendel · 1/10 · 9 June 2002]

This movie was so bad, I can't belive they made it. I really don't know what they were thinking when making it! This movie is bad, and it tries to be serious a definite 1 from me

the worst!!!

[ricchile · 1/10 · 8 February 2001]

I rarely write comments about movies but this one left me so irritated that I had to....What on earth compelled these people to make such a stupid movie? The character portrayed by the girl, for whom we are supposed to feel sympathy!, was the worst!...OK no need to waste more time writing about it.

Technical Farse

[aimxae · 2/10 · 9 August 2018]

As a licensed aircraft mechanic, with over 20 years of experience working on commercial aircraft including the Boeing 727, where do I begin to point out the technical errors in this movie, but I'll take a swing at with my top 10. 1. This aircraft is designed to protect its occupants from lightning strikes. A lightning strike taking out the pilots is a ridiculous premise upon which to base an air disaster movie. 2. The controls for the autopilot are above the center console, where both pilots can reach it. Not above the captain's control column. 3. The auto pilot gets "scambled" and is guiding the aircraft into a imminent crash into the airport. The autopilot is electronic and must have power to function; if you want to disengage it, pull the circuit breaker that's readily available in the flight deck. Pull the breaker and there's no more power for the system that is guiding it into the ground. 4. The Boeing 727 has 3 engines, there were only 2 thrust control levers in the movie's flight deck. 5. Air traffic controller (ATC) was left to give instruction and technical details about the aircraft, no pilot or technical personnel were brought in to help. 6. Air-to-air fueling boom was manipulated sideways, not possible. Cannot even maneuver in horizontal direction from the aircraft and it would have been torn loose long before fill extension. 7. Nose wheel well pressure panel, through which 3 persons were evacuated, only had 4 screws in it. such a panel would require at least 20 screws and is much smalller than was shown. 8. ATC said the autopilot was in the back of the aircraft. Auto pilot computer is in the E & E bay, located behind the nose wheel well, which is exactly where the pressure panel they removed would have lead. (oh, since I am anready in the wheel well, I might as well remove the autopilot computer to prevent us from crashing into the airport.) 9. Only 1 pilot was flying the tanker, there are 2 pilots. (Gee, one of those pilots could have been transfered to the B727 to land it.) 10. Any ATC would have known that the readios on an aicraft used for voice communications is called a communications radio or comm radio for short, not a communicator (or was this really a Star Trek episode).

Worst movie EVER!

[peroyvind · 1/10 · 23 May 2004]

Hmm, the only entertaining thing about this movie was to read other

peoples comments on how bad it was.

I bet this must be the worst movie I've seen for the last five years..

This movie is so freakishly predictable that there's virtually

impossible to give away any spoilers, but here goes, the only spoiler:

In stead of the girl landing the plane at once, they save some of the

people with another plane, but then somethings goes wrong and the girl

has (as expected) to land the plane.

Also, why didn't the pilot dude from the other plane which came aboard

land the plane?

I recommend this movie to all people who likes to make fun of stuff...

Bail Out Now!

[rainman-33 · 1/10 · 21 April 2003]

--Spoilers--

There is one thing that could have changed my vote of 1 to a 9: The plane crashes with the girl at the controls.

After so much time suffering through the bad dialogue, bad story, bad sets (apparently a really big fan is all one needs to construct a high altitude exterior scene) and bad acting the only real payoff would have been to see that spoiled brat get what she deserved. If you suspend any hope of judging this movie as a regular disaster film, then you will be able to get engaged into the story line enough to wish the girl pilots the plane into the tower and in so doing gives these worthless characters some merit for existing.

I would have been laughing even harder than I already was watching this thing had that occurred. Since it didn't, I give this a one.

Wasted 2 hours of my life (spoilers)

[caged_insanity · 1/10 · 9 March 2003]

Oh my god! what a pathetic film! It's so so ridiculous, I mean, where did they pull this storyline from? Stupidplots.com? I just watched it on TV and I'm still annoyed about it. I mean, why exactly would a lightning strike blast a hole in a plane? I'm, sure they are loads of planes that fly through storms and end up fine, so what's so special about this one? Maybe it's made out of paper? The camera-work was pathetic, I mean, the plane's meant to be in a storm, yet it seems perfectly still, only the other rescue plane shakes...shouldn't it be the other way round? They obviously just shook the camera a little. Nicole's shoe gets sucked out of the hole, but why was there a danger of them getting sucked out of the cabin when it's already been depressurised? And conveniently, her mobile phone doesn't get sucked out, when it's dangling by the edge of the hole. And the idea that she can land a jet with absolutely no experience...that speaks for itself. Overall, insanely predictable and a pathetic attempt at glorifying heroism, but failing miserably. What was the point in this film?

Air Speed was a down draft

[athena60_98 · 1/10 · 3 April 2005]

The movie "Air Speed" was a terrible movie. The Story was badly written. You knew the girl was going to land the plane. You just did not know how the writers would get you there. She lands the plane as smooth as silk like she did it often. The research for this movie was terrible. The attempts of rescues were impossible in real life. The Air Force pilot look like he was fly inside a blue box. The movie was so bad I was enjoying by watching on how bad it was going to get. I was not in suspense. I was laughing during the movie because of how corny and unreal it was. I glad I watch on TV instead of haft of paying to go in a movie theater to watch it.

Airspeed=Excellent

[amandakaren4 · 10/10 · 2 May 2006]

I have seen airspeed several times and I think the movie is absolutely excellent.

It shows the courage and selflessness of a girl that in the end saves several friends and family. The film kept me on the edge of my seat and I loved it.

The fact that a young girl almost single-handedly flew a plane to safety is tremendous and the help she got from her rock - a guy who works at the airport was truly life saving.

The movie is filled with tension, belief, love, selflessness, courage and bravery.

I recommend anyone who has not seen the film to watch it" :~)

I thought this was great if somewhat overblown (Spoilers)

[dem1126 · 6/10 · 28 August 2002]

If you are looking for a serious disaster movie that will keep you on the edge of your seat you are really looking in the wrong place. But if you are looking for a somewhat entertaining film that will make you smile a lot then keep watching. Basically a 13 year old rich-bitch girl is trapped on a plane that is going to crash in a big ball of fire if she and the guy in the air-traffic-control tower can't do something to stop it. Throw in some other atc staff who are less than helpful and two parents who are way over the top with their concern and it makes for a kind of funny and sometimes moving thrill ride. But if you are looking for anything unexpected you really should see another film.

Applause goes to Elishia Cuthbert for being able to come closest to a realistic performance in the film - way closer than anyone else at least!

Luckily I only wasted my time on the second half

[lancasterray · 1/10 · 6 May 2009]

Rated it 1 only because 0 not available. The girl is pathetically pathetic, the parents are pathetic, the tower crew is pathetic, the pilot of the tanker is pathetic. Ever seen a plane being refueled from the SIDE? The boom is strong enough to support a man? Why not send a pilot to land the crippled plane? Tanker planes don't need indicators or controls, or a co-pilot? I only saw the second half, so I had fun trying to figure out what happened; I speculated that everybody but the girl ate the fish. I expected Paul Ford to come in to talk her down, and fall out of the tower. I kept waiting for Steven Segal. I wanted Montegna to apologize for all the time away from home with the Bureau. I figured the girl would be as effective using the bat on the controls as she was on the boom. But the best part of all is the perfect stop, nowhere near the run-out area, even though the plane came in far too fast, and she took f-o-r-e-v-e-r to throttle back and pop the flaps. Thank somebody for great brakes. Movie must have been made with the intent of it being a tax shelter. If you have the choice, pick the swine flu--it would be less painful.