bluetoast

I'm talking theatrically...BTTF is older than me.

Still need to see Roger Rabbit.

TomOpus

Oh. Your avatar makes you look much older

bluetoast

I get that sometimes. It's funny...too young for a lot of his early career, and then not really interested in the mo-cap stuff (although I enjoyed A Christmas Carol later). Now, we are finally in sync!

Ash Ketchum

Robert Zemeckis co-wrote TRESPASS (1992). That remains the greatest film he had anything to do with.

Dr. DVD

My first Zemeckis was Romancing the Stone, old one, aren't I ?

Troy Stiffler

Really? That movie was really intense and savage. But I don't remember feeling much more about it. I'll have to revisit.

Solid Snake

Never even heard of TRESPASS...guess I need to check that out.

Patman

Robert Zemeckis's latest directorial effort, "Flight" is more character study than fantastical movie-making that he's known for, but nonetheless he gets solid performances from Denzel Washington (playing Capt. Whip Whitaker), and also Kelly Reilly (Nicole). "Flight" is not only about the story of Whip able to land an airliner after something fails and causes the airliner to go into a nosedive from 30,000+ feet, but the aftermath involving the NTFB investigation and Whip's own way of hiding from the media spotlight. On the surface, it should be a story of a heroic airline pilot under heavy duress, but Whip abuses drugs and alcohol, and that flaw turns Whip's heroism into possible criminal negligence. The rest of the film covers Whip's unlikely relationship with an heroin-addict, Nicole, whom he meets at the hospital while recuperating, and his own battle with the demon in the bottle.

The film also features a good supporting cast: Bruce Greenwood, Don Cheadle, John Goodman, and even a brief cameo from James Badge Dale.

With much of the film taking place in my town, Atlanta, it was neat to see some of the scenes shot inside the Marriot Marquis hotel (one of the main hotels for my favorite convention, Dragon*Con).

Overall, a solid film about maturation, for both its director and the main character.

I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.

Strevlac

Imagine Argo in the hands of a director like Zemeckis. Can you understand the difference that would make on a technical level? We'd have a film for the ages instead of the footnote we have now.

Michael T Hudson

You have not missed much.

Solid Snake

...no offense but...Zemeckis is solid for the most part but he can weaken a movie like anyone else. Look at his Motion Capture films. Flaws like crazy. Admirable from a level but flawed to the point it hurts. Glad he got out of that shit. At least for now.

Dragon Tattoo

What the ever-loving fuck?

bluetoast

Also I wanted to know more of how Don Cheadle did the stuff on his side of things, a movie from his perspective could have also been interesting as well. Not as good as this of course, but from the angle of him using all these tactics to try and save Whip.

GatorDeb

LOVED this movie. Saw a trailer on Monday and knew I had to go watch it. Will probably watch it again before its run is over.

Strevlac

I guess that's a "no" then.

I'm not a fan of his motion capture films either. But it's not because of basic things like blocking, framing, editing (or the animated equivalents of these) and the cumulative construction and flow in the way the individual scenes and overall narrative are built. He understands how to do these things in a classical and cinematic way just like many of the greats before him.

I just think too many of the younger crop of directors (mainly the ones who are trying to achieve some kind of indie street cred) eschew all of these things in an attempt to be raw and immediate and try to pass it off as some kind of style, when it's really just carelessness and/or a lack of technical ability. What worked for the french new wave looks hackneyed when attempted today. They are direct, but unimaginative and ultimately boring and forgettable.

Solid Snake

So what you criticize is based off your preferences in style? Cuz that's the way it reads off to me.

Strevlac

**sigh**

Fuck it. Nevermind.

Solid Snake

Good. Onto regular business.

DJariya

Just saw this today. Really solid movie. I didn't feel it was too long or slow. As Patman said, this was more of a character study on Denzel's character and his self destructive behavior following the crash. I think this was probably one of Denzel's best performances in a non-action film role.

My only complaint as someone just said that John Goodman's character felt kind of out of place for a movie with such dark themes. Goodman's character was a little too quirky and IMO he threw off the tone for some really deep scenes. The supporting cast with Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood was solid as well.

The crash sequence was really well done. Solid special effects.

Overall I would give Flight an A-

Charlie Goose

Very good movie, another terrific performance from Denzel.

After an impressive plane crash sequence in the beginning, he begins his descent deeper into the bottle, driven by guilt and remorse. I hope he's recognized with an Oscar nomination.

Solid Snake

Saw it yesterday. Great sequence w/ the plane. Really well acted.

I really liked it. It's got some parts that take it down a bit but overall really well done. I kind of felt that it hit odd moments or generic territory a bit too often for me. Which made me sad. I really loved the main character when it was hitting all the marks.

My main issue is either w/ the writing of it or the direction of it. I'm going w/ more of the writing side of it I'd assume. It really hits a lot of broad strokes at times. Like the part w/ the Nicole. I could have done w/o that character. It doesn't really impact the character much. You'd want it to and it kind of does but in the form of a narrative it never really becomes part of the character or the story. That cancer guy was awesome though, funny fucker. Also...that moment when Whip goes to see his co-pilot...that was fucking weird. The shit they were saying came out of fucking nowhere. Generic, just the way they went w/ that.

The character of Harling Mays as well is a bit off in comparison to the seriousness of the film. I love Goodman and I enjoyed him a lot in the film but the way the character is portrayed is a bit too much.

I can't argue much w/ Washington. The man brings it. The last part w/ the NTSB hearing, or whatever it's formally called, was solid. One thing that bothers me is that sometimes it was too generic the way he was going down in all that. The way it was depicted or just it was going as a narrative. I can't fault that part at all.

I just think the film's story has a lot of wasted potential. Especially w/ how broad of strokes it takes w/ the story. Especially on the Hugh Lang character. I loved Cheadle as him, he really gets the gravity of the situation. He mentions the report that was taken down but we never really see him at work. I understand that it isn't his movie but as a viewer I just felt like we lost a lot of emotional impacting in not seeing how serious that report was. We understand the importance of what it could bring but we never see the grit of what it actually is.

Pacing wise? Felt great. It was hitting the marks very well.

I can't say much about the direction. In general? It did pretty good. A little bit too predictable at times. Some of the things were telegraphed too well...and maybe that is an issue w/ the script. Just somethings just felt too telegraphed..but I think that's a story thing over a direction thing. Wasn't bad though.

I just felt like...there's a lot of wasted potential in the story. Things could have been taken out, some elements could've been tightend up to hit harder, and some things could have been put in as well.

Regardless of what I give the film for faults. Washington really sells that man. It just gets sadder and sadder and then great.but then it's down again. Something I'd assume people like that would go through. You'd pull for that character to get better but goddamnit..he's gone down again.

Again...I guess my main issue w/ this film is that even w/ the addict elements or whatever. The film plays it too safe but under the illusion that it's going harder. Which now that I think about it...seems like a Zemeckis thing, maybe I do have an issue w/ the direction for some parts. For what he favors from what little of his work that I've seen in which such a factor would fall in.

Troy Stiffler

Didn't expect it to be a movie about a drunk. I feel like Zemeckis and Co. knew exactly how to build out the marketing and everything. Simple, character based drama, using the crash and investigation as a hook to draw you in.

whoopdido

What happened right after the opening scene in the hotel? I had to run to the bathroom and clean up. God almighty Nadine Valazquez is hot. Quite possibly the hottest nude I've ever seen in a mainstream movie.

Anyway, I thought the movie was very good. I wasn't expecting Denzel to be as big of a fuckup as he actually was. Somewhat slow at times but always interesting. The plane sequence was very well done and I thought Denzel gave a great performance.

I had to deal with a really annoying guy in the theater though. He basically laughed throughout the movie and made these stupid comments. Like said "oh man he parked next to a fire hydrant. Hee hee." And I swear every time Denzel reached for a drink he chuckled and made comments about his drinking. Just a really annoying guy.

Solid Snake

after the opening scene?

He uh..checked the plane, got himself a drink, got ready to fly, went up in the plane, had some strong turbulence, he got through it showing his expertise in piloting. Then the Plane sequence happened. Might have missed something but that's all I remember after he left that room w/ the girl.

whoopdido

Yeah...I was just joking.