Snakes on a Plane Review
by [email protected] (johnny_betts AT hotmail DOT com)September 1st, 2006
Check out the Movie Mark for more reviews (with captioned pictures!) and movie entertainment:
http://www.themoviemark.com
Snakes on a Plane
http://www.themoviemark.com/moviereviews/snakesonaplane.asp
PLOT
There are some snakes. They are on a plane. They attack people. Samuel L. Jackson has to defeat them. Did I leave anything out? Hmm ... nope. That's about it. A bunch of snakes on a plane ensues.
JOHNNY'S TAKE
The beautiful thing about Snakes on a Plane is that its title automatically and immediately removes all pretense. It intentionally screams, "I'm a bad movie, so criticizing plot and acting is a waste of your time!" Hey, I love the philosophy. If your movie is ridiculous then swing for the fences and embrace the cheesiness that your title will not allow you to avoid.
But here's my problem. For the average movie the following statement would be at least somewhat of a compliment (or less of an insult), but in regard to Snakes on a Plane, it's a disappointment - the movie isn't as bad as I was hoping it would be.
Oh, there's plenty of fun to be had. The movie starts a little slow, but once the snakes get loose on the plane, effectively turning the movie into "snakes on a [choose a body part]," moments of out-loud laughter abound. If you're the type of person who can laugh at snakes attacking people in ridiculous ways, that is. You have to be willing to tap into your juvenile sense of humor, and I was along for the ride.
But once the third act arrived, everybody focused way too much on figuring out how to land the plane, and the snakes took a back seat. Or would that be a window seat? Bwahahahaha! *ahem* My apologies. I wanted more deaths by snakes! I wanted things to get even more and more outlandish!
You see, as the movie rolled along I kept thinking of crazy scenes or actions that would be perfect, but I couldn't help but be disappointed when my ideas were never explored. For example, why have a kickboxer on the plane but not have him deliver at least a single roundhouse kick to a snake? Now THAT is the kind of silliness I wanted more of. Can you imagine how good this could have been if Chuck Norris had co-starred? Man, a snake attacking Chuck's beard only to be repelled by its beard-like powers would have been pure gold.
And where are all the bad, cheesy, pun-laced one-liners? Sure, we got "Make it fast. Time is tissue," but overall this isn't nearly as quotable as I had hoped. Come on, couldn't Samuel L. throw us a little, "It's time to kick some asp," to savor or something? I want cringe-inducing dialogue! Here, let me treat y'all to another example that would have been perfect. Picture the scene...
Everybody is running around the plane, freaking out. Somebody off screen yells, "Snakes! On the plane!" Then the camera focuses on an old man with a cane, wobbling down the plane aisle, doing his best to flee the snakes. Samuel L. Jackson's partner would then turn to Jackson and say, "Looks like he has even bigger problems - he's got shakes on a cane!" Then Jackson would give his partner a turned-up-nose glare the likes of which is usually reserved for horrific smells. The line would rock, but Jackson's silent response would totally sell it. Everybody goes home happy. But alas, the film didn't dare get that campy.
Another problem with Snakes is that "bad cinema" is usually at its best when it isn't intentionally trying to be bad. Take A Sound of Thunder, for example. That movie is one of the biggest $80 million disasters to ever hit the screen. But it's also one of the funniest bad movies I've ever seen at the theater. There's just something magical about people putting a lot of effort and money into trying to make something good only to have it turn out painfully bad. When Hollywood jobs are lost because of how big a failure has been delivered then that's when the real fun begins.
When you're delivering cheesiness with a wink and a nod to the audience then you've gotta go all-out over-the-top. Just inserting a few "f" bombs and some nudity merely to get an R rating isn't gonna do it.
I still don't know if the movie's original intent was to be bad, or if that was just a byproduct of the Internet hype. Did the filmmakers realize that no one was going to take the film seriously so they decided to do a little re-shooting and THEN play it as an intentionally cheesy movie? After all, Snakes on a Plane was only a working title and at one time it was going to be changed to Pacific Air Flight 121.
Movie executives and Jackson's agent were in favor of the title change, and that's what leads me to believe that everybody initially wanted to play this straight until they realized they couldn't turn back.
I have to give Samuel L. Jackson credit though - he refused to let them make the title change. "That's the only reason I took the job: I read the title," he told Collider.com. "You either want to see that, or you don't."
That pretty much sums it up.
THE GIST
Sure, I enjoyed myself, but overall I was just looking for more - more cheesiness, more stupid one-liners, more moments to mock. Let's not pretend here - Snakes on a Plane is for a select audience. If the title makes you roll your eyes and shake your head then it's just not for you. Duh.
As for me, I could've waited to make this a rental. If you like bad, campy cinema (and I do) then you'll definitely have some fun. But at $8 a pop? I'm not sure you'll get THAT much out of it.
Rating: 2.5 (out of 5)
Johnny Betts
The Movie Mark
http://www.themoviemark.com
More on 'Snakes on a Plane'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
