Flight of the Phoenix (2004) User Reviews (243)

The politically correct version of the flight of the phoenix!

[dgrahamwatson · 7/10 · 26 December 2005]

Almost 40 years after the original the 2005 version shows how much the world has changed. To start off with there is a woman passenger in this film unlike the original where the only female was an exotic Arabian dancer (although a mirage). In this version the frail girl passenger is a foul-mouthed oil driller who wears the obligatory tank top and spandex pants once the boiler suit has been discarded.

In addition to this we have two black men, one who is the co-pilot. In the original the Mexican dies in the ill-fated march through the desert however in 2005 the Mexican survives. (The writers are probably sensitive to the many Mexicans who die trying to cross the Arizona and Texas border in hot conditions). In fact he defies almost certain death when the wing of the new construction collapses on top of him but survives. In 1965 the cocky Scotsman survives but in the 2005 the Scotsman perishes in the shoot out with the nomads. Interestingly, we are still aloud to use nomads as the cruel bad guys, again in the original it was the Arabs who were the barbarians, that won't cut today, so it's probably why outer Mongolia was chosen.

However, the writers slipped up with their choice of the anti-hero. In the original the blond hared blue eyed bespectacled trouble maker was a German called Dorfman, who menacingly portrayed the stereotype of Nazi arrogance and superiority who audiences back in 1965 (20 years after the war) could easily hate; yet he turned out to be the hero in the end.

To bring it up to date and really be politically correct they should have used a Muslim. We all could have hated him but then hailed him as a hero in the end too. All in all a pointless remake and for die-hard fans of the original they may have a hard time swallowing this one. The original, which is a longer movie, is superior in portraying the hopelessness of their predicament as well as the underlying tensions between the survivors. Cowardice and bravery are on show in the 1965 version, but in this one ---, just stupidity!

The Crew That Toils Together Boils Together...

[JoeytheBrit · 5/10 · 17 November 2005]

This film opens with a Johnny Cash song more appropriate to a late-70s Burt Reynolds road race movie than an air crash flick, and straight away you start to wonder about the judgement of the makers. And, while the movie that follows isn't as bad as that ominous opening would suggest, it's still pretty dull stuff. It's one of those films during which you inevitably start to question just why – why? – did they decided to make it? But then, perhaps their decision to remake a no-better-than-average 60s flick is in keeping with the air of misjudgement and mediocrity that hangs over the entire production.

Dennis Quaid plays Harrison Ford playing Frank Towns, one of those touchy rugged pilots whose life, as far as the film is concerned, begins when he lands at an unsuccessful oil rig deep in the Mongolian desert to ferry the newly-unemployed workforce back to civilisation. Prior to this moment he has no life history. All we know is he has a co-pilot buddy with initials for a name (Tyrese Gibson) and a don't-mess-with-me attitude designed to create tensions with the oil workers. In fact everyone goes out of their way to be antagonistic to everyone else so that we can later marvel at how they come together as a unit when the going gets tough and at what a nicer bunch of people the survivors are when they emerge from their ordeal.

The inevitable crash sequence is technically sound, although it doesn't come close to achieving the visceral impact of the crash in Alive! which currently sets the benchmark against which all subsequent movie air crashes should be measured, but someone got carried away with the CGI sandstorm that sends the plane crashing into the desert. Once all body parts are checked, our hardy survivors set about the task of getting on each other's nerves while they sit around eating peaches and waiting to be rescued. The men are all a pretty disagreeable bunch – annoyed no doubt at being cardboard stereotypes as well as stranded in the desert – while the token female (Miranda Otto) has virtually nothing to do. For all the bristling male egos on display, however, the friction arises between Quaid's air captain and a nerdish little man (well played by Giovanni Ribisi) who just happens to be an airplane designer. It's not exactly the most dramatic of duels. They shout at each other then Quaid punches Ribisi who runs off to have a good cry and refuse to continue helping the rest of the crew build the plane that will (hilariously) fly them to freedom until they all say please.

While the plight of the survivors struggles to fill the film's running time, the story seems to be played out in a kind of temporal vacuum. There is almost no sense of time running out as they rebuild their plane, and few visible signs (apart from a few chapped lips) of the ravages toiling in the desert heat would have on everyone. You get the impression that they could – and in fact have – spent months out there building the damn thing and will carry on building it for as long as it takes.

While Flight of the Phoenix might be a technically accomplished piece of work, it has no heart whatsoever and fails entirely to bestow any kind of individuality upon the majority of its characters. Give this one a miss and watch the original instead or, better yet, give them both a miss and catch the unsurpassable Sands of the Kalahari.

An enjoyable movie with some great style, but ultimately Hollywood.

[PyrolyticCarbon · 6/10 · 9 November 2005]

I've not seen the original, before you ask, but I do know of it, and quite frankly I'm sick fed up of remakes. Yet there was something that attracted me to this story, the cast was one. A nice multi-national crew featuring Dennis Quaid, Hugh Laurie and Tony Curran, and the fact that it's a very simple story with nothing other than desert and cast to deal with. It kind of gave me the feeling of a slightly larger Ice Cold in Alex.

Unfortunately I was watching it on Sky and at my parents, that means no surround sound and the picture was cropped, damn Sky. However we didn't seem to lose much of the feel of the movie.

The cinematography value here is high. The movie looks great, it does seem as though they have high production values. The opening sequences with the plane flying over sand dunes are superb, and then when it hits the storm the effects are excellent and it's at that point the action really kicks in, before that we were introduced to the varied multi-national characters and their initial roles. The crash sequence is well filmed and edited and builds the tension superbly, all the shots here are believable, and have you on the edge of your seat. After this the action really dies down for most of the movie, only restarting at the end, when the believability also flies out the window in favour of Hollywood action.

Quaid is very good in this movie, an actor who I wish we really did see more of. The rest of the cast is an interesting ensemble from Curran to Kevork Malikyan, and it works well. I know that when I see a lone Scotsman in a movie it usually grates like hell with me, partly because they are usually played by Americans, but also because it just doesn't seem to fit, here it does because the entire cast is a mishmash of people. It really does feel like a group of remote oil workers.

The plane designer, played by Giovanni Ribisi is a terrible character, slimy, loathsome, and someone that you would expect to be a serial killer. Ribisi plays him really well, and through the movie the tension is built in a series of near clashes between characters, until the final clash which turns into a satisfying climax for the character and the movie.

Disappointingly the ending is very formulaic and makes all the Hollywood bells and buzzers flash and bleep, therefore making the Studios and their misinformed test screenings happy. Through the movie a band of vicious Nomads are mentioned, and a small clash occurs between some characters and a Nomad scouting party, but apart from this they are pretty much useless and are merely a very poor tension building device. This is surprising when the rest of the tension building moments are so much better formed.

That said, there are some idiotic moments where you just cannot believe the characters and the decisions they are making, never mind some of the outcomes. My father was almost shouting at the screen in despair.

All said it is an entertaining and effective movie, just suspend your disbelief concerning the reality of the situation after the crash, and grit your teeth through the Hollywood ending, and you've got yourself a good movie.

Second version of the Robert Aldrich's classic with spectacular crashing on the desert

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 14 December 2005]

The picture deals upon a varied bunch aboard airplane after locking-out an oil rig . The group is formed by an obstinate pilot (Dennis Quaid), a navigator pilot (Tyrese Gibson) and the passengers crew (Hugh Laurie, Miranda Otto , Jacob Vargas , Giovanni Rivisi..). The airplane crashes on desert of Mongolia (in first version was Sahara) and they must survive and hold numerous risks , odds , dangers , hardships and try to rebuild their aircraft from the wreckage in order to prevent the suffering caused for hostile elements : sandstorms , burn sun and Mongolian enemies. Misfortunes on desert atmosphere filling one with revulsion for the conditions in that unlucky are forced to exist stranded at uninhabited place : famine , warming , thirsty , bandits (in this adaptation have more importance than the first) and taking on themselves .

Movie is a thoughtful change about the Hollywood screenplay of the plane that crashes in far countries as : ¨Alive : Miracle of the Andes¨ or ¨Airport¨ series . The film is based on Lukas Heller novel and screenwriter is the actor Edward Burns . It's an intelligent and dramatic movie developing the narration about the plane construction of riveting manner and with a semi-male star-studded , exception of the enticing Miranda Otto but in the original adaptation was totally masculine . Dennis Quaid acting as a stubborn pilot is nice although he doesn't reach to James Stewart who was greatest but he feels embittered considering himself guilty of the accident for his error . Tyrese Gibson as navigator is cool but in same role Richard Attemborough was better as a boozy alcoholic co-pilot . Giovanni Rivisi interpretation is first-rate but he copies the terrific playing by Hardy Kruger and imitates even the physical , bleaching the hair . Other secondary cast : Hugh Laurie , Jacob Vargas , Scott Campbell , Tony Curran , all of them are very fine . Sensational music score by Marco Beltrani. Motion picture was rightly directed by John Moore , though with no originality .

A good film!

[Sherazade · 7/10 · 1 May 2006]

A plane that was sent to go relieve workers on a site that wasn't yielding any benefit results crash lands in the desert on it's return trip. Slowly but surely each and everybody that was on the plane (those who survived anyway) begin to realise that this was some sort of sabotage mission and therefore begin to band together in order to survive. The ones who refuse to band together find themselves on the wrong side of the desert when they come face to face with tribal rebels which as you know can only result in war torn death battles. Giovanni Ribisi stars as a very frightful passenger who claims that he can redesign the plane (if the other passengers help build it) and get it flying again. It's amazing to see the scenes in which they struggle to keep the food supply and fight over every little drop of water that isn't accounted for. Dennis Quaid plays an angst ridden captain and Tyrese Gibson (in yet another riveting performance as an actor) plays his co-pilot. The most stunning scenes are however stolen by Ribisi who will have you at the edge of your seat with his eccentric and volatile behaviour. Give this man an Oscar already! He deserves it!

An Attempt For The High Road That Sputters A Bit

[tabuno · 7/10 · 23 January 2019]

20 July 2005. Warning: Spoiler. This movie tries to take the high road to the traditional survival story, but ends up with several low points along the way. One of the saving components of this movie was the mostly outstanding performance of Giovanni Ribisi who plays a character that seems quite out of his past range of characters as well as stereotypical one, but one that Ribisi makes his own. There are number of intellectual and explanatory narrative scenes with a number of characters using a script that attempts to elevate the level of dialogue and plot. Yet the movie at the same time suffers from manipulative script devices, continuity problems, and actions by the characters that don't seem to make much sense. There is one scene where Ribisi climbs on top of their new plane during an electrical storm. There is another scene where it's night and then suddenly it's day. There are a number of scenes where time suddenly passes and, as if by magic, the survivors' problems are solved. Various equipment, food, water many vital components just appear mostly for the sake of the script. There are a number of superfluous script plots that are incorporated just for the sake of making the movie supposedly more interesting without really allowing the characters to develop and become much more personal. The characters are themselves somewhat stereotypical even though deliberate attempts are made not to be so. One of the great scenes is when Ribisi manages to take charge as well as the twist of his true nature of his employment (though the outcome of this scene is somewhat disappointment and quite predictable). There would have been more emotional intrigue if the survivors' discovered that not all of them could leave because of weight considerations. All in all, this mostly predictable movie thanks in part to the trailer is interesting with some nice cinematography shots, slow motion, and other special effects has its moments. Seven out of Ten Stars.

From the ashes

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 9 April 2006]

This remake of the more successful 1965 film of the same title was shown on cable recently. We were curious as to how the great screen play by Lukas Heller had been adapted by Scott Frank. The film, directed by John Moore, has taken the action from the Sahara to the Gobi desert. The result is a thriller that has some good moments, but in the end, doesn't improve in the better made earlier film.

The scene for this new version takes us to a remote spot in Mongolia where a woman engineer, Kelly, and her crew, are evacuated because the company she works for decides there is no oil to be found in that remote spot. Next, we watch as an aircraft piloted by Frank Towns, arrives to take everybody to Shanghai, China. A mysterious man, Elliott, who doesn't have anything to do with the oil company, comes along for the flight to China.

On the way, the plane suffers an accident caused by the terrible sand storm affecting the region. They land on the desert with only minor casualties. The aircraft seems to be out of commission, but Elliott, who tells the stranded passengers that the plane could be rebuilt, gets to act as the leader of the whole operation. In fact, he is an engineer who knows how to do it. Since they have the proper tools they begin to transform the wrecked cargo plane into something that resembles a toy model, which Elliott promises will fly. Little prepares us for what really turns out to be Elliott's real job.

The film has some moments, but the direction doesn't take it anywhere. The cast does what it can with the material they have been given. Dennis Quaid, Giovanni Ribisi, are seen as Capt. Towns and Elliott. Miranda Otto, a good actress, plays Kelly, who didn't exist in the early version.

Seen as a curiosity, it will entertain, but for a better take on the same subject, a look at the former version will be more satisfying.

ho-hum remake

[Buddy-51 · 4/10 · 6 January 2005]

"Flight of the Phoenix" is at best a so-so remake of the fine Robert Aldrich adventure classic from1965. The plot in both films is fairly simple and straightforward. After a plane crash lands in the Gobi Desert, the survivors hit upon the notion of rebuilding the damaged vehicle in the hopes of flying it back to civilization. Dennis Quaid assumes the role, originally filled by Jimmy Stewart, of the pilot who, against all odds, endeavors to lead his passengers to safety.

Although the new version follows the original fairly closely in terms of both character delineation and plot development, the story doesn't seem quite as fresh today as it did when we first encountered it close to 40 years ago. Perhaps what's missing is the guiding hand of a master craftsman like Aldrich to really deliver the goods (John Moore, a far less distinguished director, is manning the controls here). This "Flight" feels awfully predictable and rote, as we plow our way through each of the various survival threats, rescue attempts and internecine personal conflicts that are standard in all such tales of survivors stranded in a hostile environment. Each of the characters steps out of the shadows to have his or her own Moment in the Sun (yes, in this version, there is actually a woman aboard), before receding dutifully into the background to allow the next person to do the same. About the only intriguing element in the story is the fact that the main character, the pilot of the plane, has to actually be talked into participating in the Quixotic rescue plan. Thus, he is a leader and a hero more by default than by design.

Although the crash itself is fairly impressive from a technical standpoint - despite a rather phony-looking, computer-generated sandstorm that brings the plane down - once we end up on the desert floor, the movie doesn't do a particularly effective job conveying the truly grueling nature of the predicament these individuals are facing. We never really get the sense that they are just a few water droplets away from dying of thirst or heatstroke. Moreover, the feat that they are able to accomplish seems barely credible - from a sheer mechanical engineering standpoint - given the lack of resources and expertise with which the group has to cope. The main weakness with a film like "Flight of the Phoenix" is that, when the plane goes down, we're stuck in the desert right along with the characters, and if they don't have anything particularly interesting to say to one another, we can feel just as stranded as they.

Thus, despite a few quality moments, this "Flight" never manages to get off the runway. Check out the original instead.

Not as Good as the Original

[adekwoz · 7/10 · 16 April 2005]

This remake of the 1960's Flight of the Phoenix is very unsatisfying. The character development is not as rich as the the James Stewart version. Dennis Quaid simply did not portray the depth of emotion that James Stewart did in the original. Giovani Ribli was good as the model plane designer but again he didn't get enough scenes and Harvey Kruger's portrayal had a lot more edge. Also missing was the Richard Attenborough character who keeps the Phoenix project going. His role was combined in the characters of several of the cast in the remake.

Now, I am not saying this is a bad film. I view it as a companion piece to the original. The special effects were awesome. Being trapped in the Gobi or Sahara (as in the original) was more meaningful to me when I saw the vast desolation of the desert in this remake. See the original Phoenix for its wonderful character study and see the remake for it's special effects and you have one fabulous picture. The original Phoenix stands on its own. My recommendation is see the original and then view the remake.

What a waste of time!

[Dan-179 · 1/10 · 20 December 2004]

If you are planning to see this movie, don't bother. It's a poor remake of a very good old movie. As a pilot, and from a pilot's point of view, the crash scene was completely unbelievable. If you aren't a pilot, you may enjoy the crash scenes, but I can tell you that the plane would have been in tiny pieces before it ever hit the ground. Once it hit the first sand dune, it would have broken up into small chunks after the first ground strike.

The interaction between the actors was forced, and never really developed.

The most unbelievable part came when yet another! freak sand storm comes up and the Phoenix is sitting on the sand and starts to lift up as if ready to fly. A few moments later, you see the fuselage of the original plane rolled over by the wind. Yet, the Phoenix doesn't get blown away (even though it's got wings (the fuselage doesn't)) and it's trying to fly as the wind picks up.

Next, we see our heroes sitting on the sand and the Phoenix is almost completely buried but the sand blown around by the sand storm.

Quite dramatically, the decision is made to dig the plane out of the sand. Give thought to trying to dig a 2 bedroom house out of a 10 foot drift of sand after spending a week or two in the desert with little or no water, a few cans of peaches and you have an idea of the task facing our heroes. To get an idea, just go out in your yard and dig a hole 2 feet deep and 2 feet square. It will take you a LONG time to do it. Imagine doing it under the conditions described above! Yeah, right! The next scene shows the Phoenix dramatically out of the sand, clean and undamaged, and ready to fly! Once again, yeah, right.

Finally, our heroes get the plane started with a hoard of Mongolian Marauders chasing them into flight. Of course, there is the perfunctory scene when a cable to the rudder is shot away by automatic rifle fire and the engineer has to climb back on the fuselage to dramatically fix it while keeping from falling off or getting shot by the hoard of horsemen. Ho hum.

And, of course, we all fly off into the sunset.

Get a copy of the Jimmy Stewart version. A much better film.

Excellent story and cinematography

[kathyatsf · 10/10 · 29 November 2006]

I love the cinematography,the visual effects of flying scenes were awesome, the flight sequences were well done. I watched this movie numerous times, each time with a different thrill and excitement level. The story progresses rapidly - from the take off of the plane to the crash scene, to the rebuilding of the plane to the struggles between the men and harsh elements of the desert and the interplay between various characters to the successful take off of the Phenoix and those survived return to home safely. Dennis Quaid is one of the greatest actors ever, his constant high standard of performance makes this movie on track and on point. Hugh Lauie is great actor too, all the other actors are good in this movie.

A Nutshell Review: (DVD) Flight of the Phoenix (2004)

[DICK STEEL · 7/10 · 23 January 2006]

Before the TV series Lost made being stranded after a plane goes down hip, there was the Flight of the Phoenix. This is a modern remake of the 1965 original, and we follow a group of misfits who must play on one another's strength, and one man's ability to think out of the box, in order to make it out alive.

Dennis Quaid plays cocky pilot Frank Towns, who together with his co-pilot AJ (played by Tyrese Gibson), are tasked to fly a group of oil-riggers out of their just-closed outpost in the Gobi desert. Led by a lady called Kelly (Miranda Otto), this group of men seemed close to that ensemble lined up in Armageddon.

On a routine flight out of the desert, they encounter a humongous sandstorm, which Towns underestimates, and ended up with a broken plane in the middle of the desert. Well, you should know the rest, it's the usual distrust turned into camaraderie building opportunity, as the troupe gathers to build a new plane (hence called the Phoenix) by salvaging parts from the rubble. Sandstorms, electrical storms, and nasty nomads stand in their way, and it's kinda fun to see how our survivors overcome these challenges on their road to freedom.

Perhaps what appealed to me was how this film was shot. My eyes were constantly glued at how it made the desert so enchantingly sexy. The special effects too were great, from the sandstorm, to the usage of effects to bring out the whole "what-ifs" scenario. Slow motion techniques were used sparingly, but nonetheless effectively.

And I just got to raved about the music. You wouldn't think that Outkast's Hey Ya would make it to the film, but it did. But what takes the cake is the awesome use of Massive Attack's Angel during the entire scene when the group approaches a gang of nomads. Wow. I dig that song, and to witnessed it being used in that sequence, totally blows me away.

Don't expect too much from the plot, as it's as simple as it can be, with of course, some plot holes thrown in. Questions like food and water will ring throughout the movie, but I suppose one can gloss over the fine details and accept that they had enough to tide them through.

The Code 1 DVD contains deleted and extended scenes, and one almost 45 minute long making-of documentary titled the "Phoenix Diaries". It's one extremely detailed look at the making of the movie, without using too many footage from the final product.

The Flight of the Repeat

[thinker1691 · 5/10 · 12 October 2006]

Comparing this new version to the original would be comparing a farm horse to a thoroughbred from the Kentucky Derby. This version has new actors filling the shoes of established characters, and yet none have the quality to hold the story on course, causing it to crash like their airplane. The original had James Stewart and Richard Attenborough, both with performances worthy of academy awards and established the foundations of a true classic. In addition, the rest of the cast stood of themselves and even Ronald Fraser gave a most stirring performance as Sgt. Watson. Superior veteran actors like Peter Finch, Hardy Krüger, Ernest Borgnine, Ian Bannen, Christian Marquand, Dan Duryea and George Kennedy, all gave the original solid star power and allowed the Phonix to rise from the screen into the memory of it's viewers. This new version has Dennis Quaid as Frank Townes, sympathetic enough, but far less convincing of his character. All in all, the new version falls, like most remakes, well short of the original. Sorry, but this film should have been left in the desert with the remains of the fallen airplane. **

ridiculous premise limits tension

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 14 April 2015]

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.

Why bother!

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 21 June 2006]

I'm not saying that I didn't get caught up in this a bit, but then I searched my memory for the original, which cam out when I was pretty young. It starred Jimmy Stewart, who was a good deal more balanced than Dennis Quaid. There is nothing new here, other than a Mongol hoard and Mongolia itself. The point, of course, is to build a plane from carcass of the older, larger one. I think what was missing was true characterization. While everyone seemed to wear their emotions on their sleeves, they were like worker ants with little visible personality. At the beginning, the captain would rather let everyone die than put forth some effort. The in-fighting seems really strained. The characters who wander off don't seem to have reason other than it's the right thing to do. There is an ugly scene with a nomadic tribe. As if the process of getting out of the desert wasn't bad enough. There is also a problem with wear and tear on the principles involved. They seem to stay pretty healthy despite their hard work and the hopeless nature of their predicament. I'm not saying it's a bad movie. It's just not different enough or well acted enough to make it any better than the first.

Entertaining adventure trip

[Luigi Di Pilla · 7/10 · 11 December 2005]

My expectations were fulfilled and even more than I thought. There were many plots and some funny dialogs where I laughed very much. There is the crashed airplane midst in the desert with the passengers facing many obstacles to solve. This DVD invites you to spend a great and unforgettable moment with your home cinema and I will add it to my best of collection. The picture is superb and the story is perhaps very simply but the more interesting is how the passengers plan their survival. Then I liked very much Giovanni Ribisi that convinced me definitely. I don't remember every detail from the original one of 1965 but I think it seems to be more realistic than the new one. Why: in 1965 the special effects weren't so professional as in the last one. Please don't use too much CGI today and put therefore more original scenes in the story. Anyway, director John Moore succeeded again to create a good mix of action, adventure and special effects. My rating: 7/10. If you are interested in another survival movie don't miss the true story ALIVE.

Not as bad as you'd think

[dephigravity · 7/10 · 7 February 2010]

My mother has actually been recommending me to see this movie since it came out. These types of movies aren't usually my thing but since I found out that Jared Padalecki was in it and I am a fan I thought why not give it a try. I found a used copy and snatched it up. I have to say the movie is far from perfect and it seems like the screen writers didn't exactly do their homework (that's what fiction is for I guess). The movie was quite enjoyable. Dennis Quaide reminded me a bit too much of Indiana Jones and there was hardly any reason to have a woman in this movie other than political correctness. My largest complaint is the handling of the Davis character. Yes he is the naive young man of the group and he is hardly the star of this movie but his role is a bit unsettling to me. He is the first of the survivors to die... predictable but her is my overall problem with it. Okay he goes off to relieve himself in the middle of the night, during a storm no less, problem one was he extremely pee shy? How far did he have to walk? In the day they are in a valley of dunes so where was he in relation to the wreckage to have fallen down so far and get lost? I guess later on they show the "bathroom as being a little way off but it was a desert people, one huge litter box and he is a guy. I understand that he could have been pretty jarred by the fall and probably couldn't see well even with the lightning but if he was lost why couldn't he have just hunkered down and waited for morning? Am I missing something here? It seems as though he wasn't trapped in the sand storm till sometime the next morning so i doubt he died overnight. This brings me to my next problem. The survivors clearly waste their energy burying their dead earlier and then they waste more going off to find another lost one so why is it that after the storm was over didn't they even try to find the body? Most likely because they wouldn't have found it because of it being buried but still he couldn't have gotten that far. Which leaves me to my last issues... Why if they created markers for the others did they not for Davis? They knew he had to have been dead. The one guy seemed very heartbroken by his loss but yet they don't even mention him again the rest of the movie. Talk about disposable character. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I am just based but overall I still enjoyed the movie.

Two crashes for the price of one

[Critical Eye UK · 1/10 · 9 September 2005]

One of Britain's most popular post-war novelists, Elleston Trevor's work was hallmarked throughout by superb writing, great plotting, and strong characterisation. Little wonder, then, that 'Flight of The Phoenix' was snapped up for the movies nigh on half a century back.

Now the book and the original screenplay derived from it are reborn again in this new version, which for value-for-money possibly exceeds the novel's published price by offering not merely an aviation disaster but a cinematic disaster as well.

A failed "entertainment" from beginning to end, this is a Phoenix which ought to be mandatory viewing for every student enrolled in every film school, a dismal stringing together of visual and narrative clichés lit by a directorial illumination that goes from dim to extinguished within the first 15 minutes of screen time.

The characters are invested with nothing at all to excite an audience's sympathies and the performers do nothing at all to make amends -- including Quaid, who evidently took his role too literally and thus stays on auto-pilot throughout.

One of the great performances of the original movie was Hardy Kruger's: sly, confident, abrasive, yet vulnerable. One of the worst performances of this movie is by the actor recruited to Kruger's role: even the most cursory glance at Trevor's original text shows that he neither wrote nor intended the 'saviour' of the stranded group to be a demented Hobbit.

Not for the first time where remakes are concerned do you get to wonder how such projects are ever green-lit.

Score: zero out of 10.

Lifeless in the sand

[Tirogesflair · 18 September 2006]

An instantly forgettable - a film that rewards no one with renewed viewings. I got the impression no one cared about this film - certainly not the actors and all the tech stuff was thrown away . So how do you build a plane out of a crashed one ? That bit was skimped over but if so, where was the film's plot ? There was no love interest, no real threat (except at the end when the 'Nomads' lined up on a horizon in the way I think I have seen in many Westerns). Everyone phoned in a performance on this movie and it should have been scrapped on the runway.

I trust everyone will be tempted to see the original 1965 film.

As Good If Not Better Than Original

[homeopt · 7/10 · 20 March 2005]

Most movie geeks have an obsessive need to denigrate remakes of so-called classics. Usually it's done out of knee-jerk response against Hollywood but it's truly odd when they defend movies like the original version which had already been discarded (rightly so) in the trashpile of mediocre B movies.

This version sets out to do exactly what the original did -- entertain. It is not a platform for Academy Award nominations, neither was the original. And it does entertain. I never felt bored watching this movie. The special effects were well done and the cast was well put together giving us a true mix of ethnicities and characters, unlike the original.

Mediocre remake

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 15 August 2012]

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

Great Action Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 30 October 2005]

In Mongolia, the test well of an oil field is shut-down by the company headquarter in Atlanta, and a plane piloted by Captain Frank Towns (Dennis Quaid) is sent to bring the workers back home. While flying over a storm, the plane crashes in the Mongolian desert. When they realize that they will not be rescued, they decide to build a new plane from the wreckage of the old one.

I found "Flight of the Phoenix" a great action movie. It is not a documentary, therefore flaws are very acceptable for entertainment purpose, but some IMDb users want to find technical accuracy in a fictional movie. I have not had the chance to see the original movie, and I did not know that this is a remake. Anyway, it is a suspenseful story, with good messages of hope, power of union, fight for survival and triumph of the human spirit. Although I respect, I also totally disagree with the underrated review of this good film. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Vôo da Fênix" ("The Flight of the Phoenix")

Flight of the Phoenix: 6/10

[movieguy1021 · 6/10 · 18 December 2004]

Remake season is usually from May-August, yet for some reason Flight of the Phoenix is coming out in December, right before Oscar season. From what I saw tonight, there were maybe 15 people in the theater for a 7:50 Friday evening showing (opening night). What could Fox have been thinking? A big budget blockbuster while we're waiting for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou or The Aviator to come out? Does that make any sense? Well, anyway, Phoenix certainly doesn't deserve a December release (April, maybe?), but it's still pure, simple escapist entertainment. Thankfully, it didn't try to be anything more (in fact, Dennis Quaid's character made fun of the inspirational talks in the movie), allowing it to be something to see on a boring Friday night.

When an unsuccessful oil drill is abandoned in a remote place in Asia, Frank Towns (Quaid) and others are sent to fly them back to civilization. However, there's one extra person on board, Elliott (Giovanni Ribisi), causing the plane to be overweight and crashing in the midst of a gigantic random storm. Things get hairier when they realize that help probably won't come. However, Elliot mentions that he designs airplanes (of course), and now they're hell-bent on rebuilding their plane (dubbed "The Phoenix"), while going through tough weather, low supplies, bandits, and interpersonal relationship hardships.

One almost expects Jerry Bruckheimer's name on this-it's mindless fun, with any plot being stupid, any special effect being fake, and any characters being underdeveloped. The fate of this movie, in my opinion, was in the hands of director John Moore, who last made Behind Enemy Lines a hit for Fox. During the so-called "action" scenes, Moore switches over to hand-held camera (as if he tries to get the audience to get into the movie-makes us think that a situation like this could happen in real life?) and really makes the movie disjointed at those few points. However, some of the shots are pretty fantastic looking, but at other times, it's completely false CGI. I mean, it's terribly fake-and some critics have been saying that the special effects are great? It's most obviously some backlot with fake sanddunes everywhere. And yet, somehow, Moore manages to keep interest for the two hours, and, more importantly, makes it fun to watch. When you have characters just randomly be introduced (like that person of unknown Middle Eastern descent and the black guy with an eyepatch), you realize that the plot is not important, and you focus on having fun.

I've seen a few ads that talk about the "HUGE" plot twist, and although the twist at the end was pretty good, it's not really noteworthy. However, there was something about Ribisi's character-and the way he played it-that made me really like him. He's like the bad guy in movies where you want the bad guy to win (although he's not really a bad guy here). Quaid does a pretty good job here, about what's required. His character, and all the others, fulfill the stock characters. We have the All-American pilot, the hot, smart woman (who's also sassy-add an extra point), the black guy, a black guy with an eyepatch (a disability AND an extra minority-five extra points), a person from a place that we currently hate (Middle East (actually two-Britain-wow, Flight of the Phoenix is raking up the point)), the computer nerd. And that's just the character clichés. There's boatloads more, but you'll be able to guess them as they come along.

Flight of the Phoenix will probably bomb at the box office. I suppose I can see why-you don't have enough advertising, you bomb. But Flight of the Phoenix is a true popcorn movie if there ever was one. Once you've gotten everything in the Netflix catalogue, try this one on for size.

My rating: 6/10

Rated PG-13 for some language, action and violence.

No comparison to the original movie

[spiro-12 · 3/10 · 20 June 2006]

In the original movie Hardy Kruger commented to Jimmy Stewart something to the effect that "the only thing outstanding about you is your stupidity". Interestingly enough in the remake, stupidity seems be the only thing that "outstanding".

I have been on foreign oil drilling assignments and can guarantee you that you would never see a woman anywhere near a drill rig. As a matter of fact, the same thing applies in the US. Women just do not work as roughnecks. You do see women engineers and professionals, but never as workers.

The remake is just plain lame and an excellent example of "corporate" creativity trying to milk a good story just one more time.

If you love Dennis Quaid, you'll love this

[tastyhotdogs · 7/10 · 25 November 2005]

Dennis Quaid sure is in a lot of movies these days. It almost seems any movie that needs a solid actor but not at the Brad Pitt/Russell Crowe fee goes for Dennis.

Flight Of The Phoenix is about a pilot (Quaid) sent in to pick up a team of workers (no name actors- they blew the budget on Dennis. OK maybe Giovani Ribisi) at a failed oil rig. On the flight home the plane is caught in a violent storm and crashes in the middle of the desert. The group agonises over what to do- to stay put and hope for help, to walk 100's of miles in the hope of finding help or something else. Eventually one of the group (Ribisi) suggests trying to make a new plane out of the old crashed plane. The team decides this is their only help. There's lots of obstacles that come in their way, making it even tougher for the gang. Will they make it? You'll have to see it to find out (or take a wild guess) It's not brilliant but held my attention. Sure, it got annoying at times but was better than expected when wifey pulled it off the video store shelf.