NTSB: The Crash of Flight 323 (2004 TV Movie) User Reviews (6)

An insult to «planespotters»

[roald-1 · 5/10 · 3 November 2004]

This movie is the culmination of the film industry's low-budget use of random sets for passenger planes and cheap footage. The actors enter one type of aircraft on the outside and suddenly appear in a totally different make and model on the inside, while they fly away in a third or land in a fourth. It is especially sad in a story about the expert investigators from the N.T.S.B. and their serious work. The title will probably attract many viewers who actually know something about planes, and the producers should have paid for a consultant who can tell one type of aircraft from another.

From the outside, the accident plane appears to be from the Boeing 737-series. These are wider-bodied planes with 6 seats abreast, 3 on each side of the aisle. They have 2 engines, one under each wing. Maximum seat capacity is 189. Yet, the interior shots in the film show 5 seats abreast, 3 to the right and 2 to the left of the aisle. This is typical of the DC9 or MD-80 series which are slim-bodied planes with two engines at the back of the fuselage. Maximum seat capacity is 172.

The seating chart set up to identify passengers during the investigation also appears to be of the DC9-type. The number of extras shown in the plane is much less than 100.

Yet, the story tells us that there were 236 passengers on board, and that the plane was 20 years old. The only planes made with such a seating capacity would be the «Jumbo» Boeing 747, the DC-10 or the Lockheed TriStar. All would have two aisles and 7 or more seats abreast, and a fuselage twice as high as the wreckage shown on the set in this film.

It does not help that the story invents a non-existent name for the plane and its maker, because it would still have to be much larger with such a seating capacity.

To appoint the owner of the airline as the «bad guy» is not realistic in this case, either. A malfunctioning rudder valve would be the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the airline, and a minor one to correct as for costs. The rudder mechanism was actually under suspicion after several real accidents with Boeing 737s in heavy turbulence around 1990, and the problem was solved by Boeing (not the airlines).

The conflict between air safety and the profits of an airline is more often whether the airline fulfills its safety requirements and schedules for maintenance and service of the aircraft. These detailed schedules are specified by the manufacturer and the F.A.A. as suggested by the N.T.S.B., and are constantly revised.

There have been so many real air disasters worthy of filming, that the makers of this film could have chosen a better story.

Free Fall (1999) is a better movie as for technical details and investigation experts, although it also has its discrepancies.

The extensive reports of the real N.T.S.B. are open to the public on the net.

This movie crashed and burned long before the plane went down

[pnofel · 1/10 · 23 March 2004]

In the first 20 minutes, every cliche possible was trotted out by the hack writer and director. There was the NTSB primary investigator with the tortured family life; the politically-tortured NTSB board member played by [I can kill ANY TV] Ted McGinley; the tortured father of a crash victim; and the torturing sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer.

Hollywood still has no concept of the fragility of aircraft. The crashed plane was a 737 and it was mostly sitting on the ground like a hippo who decided to take a nap. The first third of the fuselage was intact, the rear half of the plane was intact and the debris field showed no wings or engines. Most of the people should have walked away in light of how many people survived that plane that got shredded in Iowa after it lost its hydraulics. Most of this TV plane wasn't even burned.

It reminded me of the scene in "Air Force One" where the 747 hits the water and then skips along like it's made of inch-thick steel.

The show was so bad it was impossible to watch. Even my wife, who is more accepting than I, was commenting on technical flaws. What had me stunned was how this POS could ever get made. Are the producers of these things so used to clichés that they can't even recognize them? Somebody read this script and said: Yes, I want to spend a million bucks making this real. I wish I was the guy's next appointment. I have title to a wonderful bridge in New York that I'd sell cheap.

Scheiss Dreck

[nomad472002 · 3/10 · 24 March 2004]

This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I really can't recall when I've seen a worse one. I thought this would be about an aircraft accident investigation. What it really was is a soap opera, and a bad one at that. They overplayed the 'conflict' card to the extreme. The first hour or so seems like a shouting match, with some implausible scenes thrown in.

*Possible spoiler*

The 40-or-so minute 'memorial' scene (with requisite black umbrellas and rain) to fictitious crash victims was lame, and I thought it would never end.

Avoid this one at all costs, unless you revel in 'conflict'.

Very enjoyable

[ATURNB · 8/10 · 20 September 2003]

I watched this on tv the other night and was really impressed with it. Mandy Patinkin and Fulvio Cecere as the grieving dad were very good as were the rest of the cast.

Highly recommend it with an 8/10

Well done, as long as the focus was on the investigation

[vchimpanzee · 24 March 2004]

The plane crash happened sooner than in most movies like this. Generally what happens is that we get to know more about the people on the plane than we would have ever wanted. In this case, background information was kept to a minimum, and more was revealed later through flashbacks. Though I can't see what the point was in starting the movie with Gigi Rice's bare back sticking out from under the covers. Later we find that she is a flight attendant.

It seemed to me that the investigators were a little too calm, not concerned enough about the people involved, but that later changed. To do their jobs properly, I guess they would have to be this way. It really sounded like they knew what they were talking about, and the investigation seemed realistic.

There were the usual stereotypes, though. Angry family member who thinks the airline isn't doing enough to keep him informed about a relative who might have died. Airline head who sees crashes as a cost of doing business and wants to cut corners wherever possible, and only pretends to care when the public is watching. Demanding reporters who want justice and think not enough information is being revealed. (Although one of the reporters had good reason: she was a relative of a person on board.) And, of course, some time was spent on subplots that did not relate to the investigation.

Mandy Patinkin gave a great performance as the head of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation. He seemed just a little too content in his role, but he later showed signs of stress and genuine concern for those affected. And his character was having family problems, though these actually became important and relevant later on.

I didn't catch her name, but another good job came from a black woman who communicated with the families of those on board. And one of the older female passengers kept a diary. During the memorial service, we heard her voice as someone was reading from the diary, and this was quite moving.

Lots of fascinating twists and turns took place in the investigation. When nothing obvious could be found wrong with the plane, one investigator said the plane was still in the air. Later, when a cause was found, the group was almost celebrating because 'we crashed the plane'.

An interesting technique to illustrate who was yet to be heard from: as we heard the names of those who survived and were in hospitals, a camera moved through the plane and each passenger whose name was read disappeared off the screen. So if a person was still shown, that might have been someone who died.

Believe it or not, there was some comedy. The investigators told a few jokes to relieve the tension. There was a naked man with Alzheimer's in the plane's bathroom (at least I think this was supposed to be funny), though he played an important and serious role later on.

Overall, I thought this movie was well done.

Possible Spoilers:

The events surrounding the crash were repeated in flashbacks as the investigators used a flight simulator. This time, we saw how hard Gigi Rice's character, and another flight attendant, tried to save passengers. One survived; the other did not because of caring so much about others. The survivor praised the other flight attendant later.