Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

SnoopyStyle An oil rig in the Mongolian Gobi Desert is getting shut down. Captain Frank Towns (Dennis Quaid) and co-pilot A.J. (Tyrese Gibson) are flying Kelly Johnson (Miranda Otto), her crew and the equipment back to Beijing. Elliott (Giovanni Ribisi) is a mysterious stranger who catches a ride. The plane crashes in a sand storm. Men die and supplies dwindle. There's no way to walk out. There is unlikely to be any search parties. Aircraft designer Elliot has an idea to build a new aircraft out of the wreckage but Towns opposes it.It's a remake of the 1965 movie. The premise has always been a bit ridiculous. The problem is that it's played for real. The unlikely scenario keeps diminishing the excitement. There are a few good actors and there is a bit of good tension among the group. I don't like Gibson and a little conflicted about Ribisi. The movie is generally forgettable.

Wuchak This version of "Flight of the Phoenix" was released at the end of 2004 and is a modern take on the 1965 film with Jimmy Stewart.THE PLOT: A group of mostly oil workers crash land in the Gobi Desert where being found by a search party is unlikely. One of the passengers turns out to be an airplane designer who insists that they can create a new plane with the workable parts of the wreckage. Although an outlandish idea, it may be their only legitimate chance at survival.The plot is exactly the same as the original version with a few notable differences: It takes place about 40 years later; it includes a woman (Miranda Otto); it features a more racially mixed cast; and it takes place in the Gobi Desert rather than the Libyan Desert (although it was shot in Namibia, while the original was filmed in the deserts of SE California).I'm not one of those people who hates the very idea of remakes. I'm open to filmmakers taking a heralded classic and modernizing it, like the excellent remake of "The Parent Trap." That's what we get with this remake of "Flight of the Phoenix," except that it's not excellent. But it's not bad either. Although there are some new touches that are as good or even superior to the original (Like Liddle's powerful line to Towns in the debris field, as well as the confrontation with the Mongols sequence), this modernization ultimately pales in the shadow of the original. Why? There's less focus on character development and therefore the movie has less interesting characters. Instead the filmmakers opt for scenes that might maintain the attention of those with ADHD, like an explosion scene, a lightning storm sequence and a dubious attack by the Mongol smugglers at the very end (shouldn't they have attacked while they were pulling the aircraft? Or earlier?). But the biggest negative is that the movie just lacks the brilliant dramatic flow of the original.The film runs 113 minutes.FINAL WORD: This would be a better film for anyone who hasn't seen the original, but if you've seen the '65 version it's just so mediocre by comparison. Still, it's worth checking out if, like me, you love survival films. And it is interesting to see a different take on the same basic story.GRADE: C

Leofwine_draca I haven't seen the original FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX - I'm still waiting for it to show up on television - but when I saw this remake was on I decided to give it a go. I wish I hadn't bothered.The 2004 FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX is a dog of a film. It's as vapid, dull and uninteresting as the worst of Hollywood, an exercise in money-grubbing throughout, that never raises the tempo or provokes a moment's interest. Everything in the film is clichéd: the characters, the situation, the events that take place. It's all been done before; more than that, it's all been done better before.Dennis Quad is the belligerent pilot who crash lands his plane in the Gobi desert and who must lead a group of survivors in a battle against the elements. For some reason, there's a huge cast, most of whom get barely more than a minute or two on camera, which leaves them faceless and bland. Characterisation beyond stereotypes is zero, and the politically correct convention of throwing in a token female character (the unfortunate Miranda Otto) is irritating.The survival story lacks any kind of tension whatsoever; the characters never feel in any danger, or like they're a step or two away from death. The plane-building stuff is routine and boring, and even established actors like Hugh Laurie are given nothing to do. Giovanni Ribisi continues his tradition of playing exceptionally irritating characters, although he does get one decent twist involving his character. But the ending is pure hokum and the silly CGI effects spoil any attempts at credibility the film tries to muster.

SMicali This review is based solely on the 2004 movie. I have never seen the original so there will be no comparison. I picked this film to watch largely for the cast - in particular Dennis Quaid and Hugh Laurie - and had no idea until after I watched the movie that it was a remake. While this is certainly not an Oscar contender, it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. It's a decent movie with solid performances by the cast. No, there's nothing original about this film, but then again, when was the last time anyone made a truly original movie? My suggestion: if you've never seen the original, watch this one first - since it is apparently the lesser movie. If you have seen the original, then watch this movie for its own merits and try not to do a comparison with the original film.