PopcornTreeCt

More Rachel McAdams is always a good thing but I may pass on this.

paradicelost

I really want to like this, even if it isn't "horror", though i disagree with the statement that there is a big difference between suspense/thriller and horror. I don't have too high of hopes since Craven hasn't had a good movie since Serpent and the Rainbow. I stil really want to see it though.

naitram

Thanks, dick.

movieking

I haven't seen it but I will. From what I've heard, if you are going into this thinking it is a horror film, you will be disappointed. It is more of a suspense thriller type movie.

It's got an excellent rating over at rottentomatoes so far though - 82% fresh!

Doughboy

Might as well wait for cable now. Thanks.

Mr. Cinema

Geofferson

Some blurbs from MetaCritic:

Washington Post Michael O'Sullivan
Will keep you awake, jittery and perched on the edge of your seat for pretty much the entire flight.

Entertainment Weekly Lisa Schwarzbaum
A good measure of the movie's white-knuckle fun comes from Craven's old-hand familiarity with the way thrillers tick.

Los Angeles Times Kevin Thomas
The plot is not absolutely airtight, but Craven's filmmaking is too fast-moving and too involving for this to matter. As a movie, Red-Eye is in every way as well crafted and sharply designed as the Boeing 767 Lisa fatefully boards.

Premiere Sara Brady
Red Eye packs only about 15 minutes of solid scary, but really, that’s about all the time a human heart can spend lodged in one’s throat.

The Hollywood Reporter Kirk Honeycutt
Red Eye has a devilish charm. It pulls just about every nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat trick imaginable, yet gets away with it through what is, admittedly, a clever and original gimmick.

Bobbin

Saw it on Tuesday. Has tons of flaws and plot-holes, but still manages to be very suspenseful and fun.
7/10

whynotsmile

horrible

really really bad. I can't believe all the good write ups its getting. 24 on an off night is more thrilling than this. McAdams and Murphy were the only thing redeming about it. and the fact that it was barely feature length. Everything aside from what was going on in the plane in that exact moment was ridiculous and never explained. I started laughing at a few places. Really lame shit. Unless your under 12 i guess.

CKMorpheus

Totally disagree. Sure there were a few plotholes, but Craven managed to keep the suspense going throughout the entire barely 90-minute running time.

solipsta

I thought it was quite good. Quite suspenseful and there was a lot of little things that I liked. Of course, for McAdams all the way...

scott shelton

Actually, there are a ton of plotholes, but I found that to be part of the charm.

Like I said before, those who demand logic and reality shouldn't even bother with this film.

matome

I enjoyed it. The final act disintegrates into standard run-from-the-killer fare, but the ride up to it is well worth the trip.

Obey The D

So you thought the trailer sucked, yet you still went to see it anyway?

whynotsmile

the first trailer was pretty cool. plus with the good reviews i thought i might as well see it. I work at the movies so i get in free anyway.

RocShemp

Neither trailer impressed me (and boy did the second one suck!) but my current bias against Craven doesn't even make me want to brave it on the off chance that it might be good. The comments here (even the positive ones) actually scare me away more.

rkndkn

The trailer was quite good, but the film was quite disappointing. Everything felt very predictable and boilerplate to me.

Patman

While having a short running time, most of it was tension-filled, and the plot wasn't overly complicated, which kept the film moving at a nice pace. Good performances by Racehl McAdams (hope she's around for a long while, she's easy on the eyes), and Cillian Murphy as the charming baddie. I was grateful that the characters don't act idiotic in a genre thriller film, and director Wes Craven gives the viewers a few "Boo!" moments just for show, but they aren't the focus of the story.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

KillerQ

Hey all,

I saw this yesterday. It felt like a traditional, predictable ABC sunday night movie feel. It felt more like a TV special than a move. I was suprised at how generic and run-of-the-mill this was. I have NEVER felt this way about a movie i have seen in the theater before... I am not saying it was a bad film, just not my cup of tea... By the way, that actor guy looked too much like Billy Corgan for me...haha

Thanks,

Matt

caiman

The only thing I really liked about this movie was Cillian Murphey. He was born to play a role like this. Oh, and I also loved the Everything else about the movie was just sort of "eh, been there, done that." I didn't find it very intense or creative. I was glad it was only 80 minutes.

Inverse

It's an entertaining way to pass 80 minutes. What you see is what you get, though. Those looking for mind-boggling twists and turns will want to look elsewhere.

Silt

McAdams was the only thing that made this movie watchable....

Seantn

I loved the movie, thought it was great. Actually got my adrenaline going in some parts. Very exciting. The audience really loved it also.

Dan1boy

Yeah...predictable, pretentious and formulaic...

but boy, was it one of the better popcorn flicks of the summer....7/10

onebyone

I agree. It seemed like a movie that would be on ABC or even Lifetime and not at a theater. It moved quickly and the actors were just fine, but I was about as involved with it as I am watching a made for tv movie in front of the boob tube, aka not too terribly much. Also, the last 20 minutes or so are really quite a comical mess imho.

I do think this movie was released at the absolute right time for it to do its best, so it has that in its favor. Timing can make or break a movie, and with so many getting it wrong this summer, I am glad to see one get it right.