Snakes on a Plane (2006) User Reviews (1,117)

Don't get high on the hype.

[agent17 · 6/10 · 19 August 2006]

A lot of people on IMDb have given Snakes on a Plane a 10/10 rating and left comments like "omg this is best movie ever lol." Unfortunately, most of these people had come to this conclusion before seeing the movie, and are still high on the Internet hype that built the movie up to be something it's not.

I guess there's no real point to writing a review of Snakes On A Plane. With a title like that, you've already made up your mind about if you want to see it. But keep this in mind...

Snakes On A Plane isn't a comedy movie. It isn't a horribly cheesy or bad (intentionally or not) movie, either, or one that's "so bad it's good," which is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot in SOAP discussions. Also, the movie's not all about Samuel L. Jackson being a badass or swearing a lot, although it happens. Snakes On A Plane is a entertaining mid-grade thriller movie that pretty much delivers what you'd expect from a Hollywood movie about snakes on an airplane. No more, no less.

Don't see this movie if you're expecting to constantly laugh at Samuel L. Jackson showing off how cool he is. There are plenty of moments where Sam kicks ass and gives some great one-liners and does amusing things, but he is offscreen just as often as he is on it.

Snakes On A Plane isn't the best movie of the year. It's not the funniest movie of the year or the scariest, but it is a good movie if you're looking for mindless fun involving a lot of snakes on an airplane, some gratuitous gore and nudity, and a few great Samuel L. Jackson moments, check it out.

The Internet spawned a monster...

[dr_foreman · 5/10 · 20 August 2006]

I'm confident that "Snakes on a Plane" will prove once and for all that Internet culture and mainstream culture are not one and the same.

Because, my friends, the Internet will tell you that SOAP (as those in the know call it) is a classic film - the best "bad movie" ever made. But I think any more sensible member of the general public will tell you that SOAP is nothing more than a mildly competent action movie. It's not hysterically funny. It's not scary. It's occasionally exciting. And it sure ain't a "10" on the IMDb scale.

Don't misunderstand me; I had fun watching the movie. I was even willing to be generous, until I saw the outrageously high rating on this site and all the strangely gushing reviews. Frankly, I'm a bit astonished. Why heap such praise on this particular film? If you love camp, over-the-top action movies, then why not worship a camp action film that's actually good? ("Wrath of Khan" springs to mind - also "Batman.")

The truth is that parts of SOAP are pretty lame. Samuel L. Jackson is good, but his role is weirdly small. And, aside from his one power catchphrase, most of his dialog is banal and dull. The rest of the actors aren't even worth commenting on, since they're stuck with stock and boring "funny" characters.

Speaking of dull, how many different ways can snakes really kill someone? They hiss...they lunge...they bite...over and over and over again. It's not particularly cinematic. And most of them are fake CGI anyway, so they're not even remotely frightening.

Face it, the only reason to see this is because it's camp and bad. It's part of the whole culture of worshiping lame junk that's prevalent right now. It's hip to like terrible garage bands and lame movies because people are either too impatient, or too unsophisticated, to take the time to absorb entertainment that's actually artistic. So we watch and listen to junk, and imagine that we're superior to it, and that makes us feel good. Apparently.

Is there anything wrong with liking junk? Not really - I review and praise junk on this site all the time. But putting junk on a pedestal? That's very, very wrong.

Sermon over.

Solid Campy Movie

[Rick96 · 7/10 · 16 March 2022]

Campy / B movies have to do something right to make the leap from a trashy one-time-watch to a cult classic. Snakes on a Plane delivers -- it's actually pretty good.

If you're willing to watch it through a certain lens; with the knowledge that you're watching a truly satirical movie, it's very entertaining. Samuel L Jackson's charismatic performance is what makes this movie great.

The marketing behind this movie is truly unique in that it is exactly what it says it is and almost nothing else! Silly but fun watch!

Samuel L. Jackson in "Revenge of the Focus Group!"

[laika-lives · 4/10 · 20 August 2006]

This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.

David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.

Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.

So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.

The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).

There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.

This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.

In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.

"Snakes on a Plane" is a fun experience

[Richard_Lawson · 6/10 · 18 August 2006]

I'm calling this an "experience" rather than a "review", because a review wouldn't really encapsulate how enjoyable this movie is. If I was forced to review the movie, I'd talk about how slow it is in the beginning, how although some of the dialog is witty quite a lot of it is hackneyed (a scene with SLJ telling JM to "Be strong" was especially cringe-worthy), and the climax didn't have a lot of tension and was a bit disappointing. Five stars out of ten sounds about right, and is perhaps a bit generous.

But I came out of the movie with a smile on my face, because it was fun. The audience was really, really into it. When the title of the movie appeared, everyone cheered (I haven't seen that happen in a movie theater since Episode 1). Every over-the-top "death by snake" was cheered and applauded. The people who were going to die were fairly easily identified, and people eagerly awaited their death scenes. (In a nod to the movie writers, I expected one character to die for being a complete jerk, and they surprised me by having that character survive.) And, as could be expected, when SLJ delivers his much-discussed line towards the end of the film, the audience cheered throughout its entire delivery. I laughed; it was just fun to listen to the audience.

This is not a movie you download via BitTorrent. This is not a movie you watch on cable, or rent via DVD. This is a movie you watch in a crowded movie theater. Because only then will it be fun; only then will the energy of the movie and the audience make the experience worthwhile.

For the love of God don't see this.

[LittleSweetFreak · 1/10 · 20 August 2006]

I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.

An Event you'll Remember, A Movie You'd Rather Forget

[sallyfifth · 20 August 2006]

The best review of the film portion of this movie is from the Onion AV Club. It sums up Sam Jackson's performance as "done on his lunchbreak while filming a lesser degrading film". And yet, he's the best dang part of the whole thing. What this movie needed was more of him vs. the Snakes which never reaches the insanity of a "Dead Alive" and instead fizzles out in one of the lamer endings in recent cinemadom. You get snakes, on a plane. And some great B- horror moments that'll make you laugh, but this is not a cult classic. Despite people's want for a cult classic here, it's far too normal for that. Instead check out the aforementioned "Dead alive" (aka Brain Dead) or Tsui Hark's hilariously straight "Knock Off" with Van Damm & Rob Schneider. THOSE were bad good flicks this is one is just ho-hum.

On the other hand, the audience is hot for Snakes. As stephanie from salon.com says, if you're going to see Snakes, do so now with the packed evening screenings. People throwing rubber snakes, reciting sam's line and making hissing noises throughout makes for theme park ride levels of fun.

Settle down fanboys...

[eflaat · 6/10 · 18 August 2006]

Look the movie was okay, it gave you what it advertised but its not the holy grail man. Is Hollywood getting so bad to where something that just says its got SNAKES ON A PLANE and gives you SNAKES ON A M*&@$&^$ PLANE causes the entire general population (and nerds, dorks, dweebs, fanboys, chunk heads, 40 year old virgins, that Ain't it cool guy) to off and praise it ad infinatum? Really people, be more critical and stop falling in line to hype. Apparently, we've reached a phase where Hollywood crap is digested much more easily than the good stuff. Who would've thought we've just given directors and hack screenwriters the green-light to make even cornier movies with impunity since our expectations are so low. Hey, now you don't even have to get a GED to write the next blockbuster. Just put some ridiculous combination together and bam, people are gonna flock to something like 'Boobs with nunchucks' (don't try that, I'm already writing a spec screenplay with Jessica Simpson as lead, got full backing from the Weinsteins AND Eisner) This is simply a dumb popcorn movie with a plot thinner than Paris Hilton's sex tape. Hollywood can give us better and our expectations are so low that we pay $8 at the box office in droves to see a movie like this because this week nothing else even comes close. That's right, nothing coming out of Hollywood this second is more impressive than SNAKES ON A PLANE. Which probably means Hollywood is out of ideas. I'd bet anyone $50 this was written by some guy with a laptop and screen writing for dummies book at Starbucks and completed in a single lunch break.

And just to show people here how bad it is, SoaP is currently 8.4, that means it is rated more favorably than: Chinatown, Hotel Rwanda, M, the Maltese Falcon, Aliens, A Clockwork orange, Reservoir Dogs, Ragin Bull, Saving Pvt. Ryan, Braveheart, Blade Runner, Cool Hand Luke, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and Rashomon. Seriously people, improve your tastes a bit. Watch something made more than 6 months ago thats not pointless and derivative or some worthless remake, improve on your attention span, anything.

Amusing title, Everyday movie, Suspicious voting behaviour

[juslistening · 3/10 · 21 August 2006]

What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.

There are three potential draws to this film: • The comedy of the situation; • The horror; and • The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane.

Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.

Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.

Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".

I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?

Sad to say, but it's just not bad enough....

[golight · 6/10 · 19 August 2006]

Samuel L. holds it together, but this film just isn't bad enough for the type of film it's been billed as. With all the promotional hype, I really expected something more. Where is the trenchant dialogue of a REALLY bad film? Sigh. It made me long for campy Killer Tomatoes, night clubbing Mushroom People, and the warm comfort of bad dialogue a la Buckaroo Banzai. I'm sure that the cast tried mightily, but in the end, it's just a semi-bad film, which is, of course, the kiss of death. Destined to be a lukewarm cult film for teens, about the best we can say is that Samuel L. is The Man for insisting that the film keep it's original working title of "Snakes on a Plane". One thing of note to parents- children may have been lured to the film because of all the promotional efforts and the film was originally rated PG-13. Additional footage took it to R and it contains scenes that are too strong for most pre-teen and younger teen children.

The pits of 2006

[all-55 · 1/10 · 26 August 2006]

this movie can not create the illusion of danger by venomous animals. It plays with instincts, but the computer animated snakes have such an unnatural behaviour that any impact on the spectator is immediately destroyed. I wonder why Samuel L. Jackson participates in such a low production. Waste of time and money. Go to dinner directly and order something more expensive. The snakes preferably attack genitals (!), eyeballs, and cute dogs. There is no such thing as a story to the movie, as all revolves for 70 Minutes of the movie around people rolling on the floor being bitten in the most unlikely places and snakes falling out of the oxygen mask cabinets by the dozen. The snakes manage even to tamper with the flight control system of the 747. Great. I tend to watch all movies to the end to give the director the chance to make something up, but here...no way. The plane gets landed by a person who has trained on MS flight simulator, an idea we had in how many films in the last decade since the program came out?

Oh, yes, Snakes on a Plane does indeed rock.

[ps42 · 10/10 · 16 August 2006]

A small part of me has died today. I realized something when I exited the theater, fresh from the prescreening of Snakes on a Plane (SoaP) at the cinema at which I work, that I may never again see another film that rocks this hard. If you are looking for a deep introspective look at the horrors of airborne terrorism and reptilian exploitation, look somewhere else, and don't complain about it. If you are like me, and I would assume you are since you are reading my review, and are looking for a solid hour and a half of ass-kickery, then congratulations. You just hit the jackpot with SoaP. I can honestly say that the film lived up to my every expectation. I was so pumped by the end of the movie that I threw my shoes across the (empty) theater in a fit of ecstasy. I kid you not.

Boiled down to its very essence, SoaP is the pretty much the essence of all that is manly. Think of it like an anti-chick flick. If you enjoy any of the following, then this movie is for you: gruesome deaths, breasts, cheesy physical humor, Samuel L. Jackson, or venomous reptiles. If not, then you clearly have a vagina, but may still manage to enjoy SoaP.

Plot is pretty thin, something generic about a kid (Nathan Phillips) who witnessed a mob murder and has to be transported to L.A. to testify in court, but I doubt anyone will mind. We know the basic story. There is a plane in the air that has both venomous snakes and Samuel L. Jackson on board. Samuel L. Jackson defeat snakes in a number of thoroughly awesome ways, which I will not reveal as to not diminish their awesomeness, and simultaneously deals with whiny, stereotypical frightened passengers. Trust me though, seeing the snakes rampaging through the plane and wreaking havoc on said stereotypical passengers is indeed sweet.

The acting is as solid as one could hope for from this cast. Jackson takes front and center stage, obviously. He saw the called the pitch, took a beefy swing and hit one into the upper decks. As for the rest of the cast, they did a decent job. Keenan Thompson actually doesn't suck, Nathan Phillips was solid enough, and Julianna Margulies did a fine job.

Honestly, I can think of no reason not to see Snakes on a Plane. Sure, the critics will lambaste it left and right. There's no doubt about that. However, coming from someone who is ready to accept the film for what it is, I can honestly recommend it to anyone who can appreciate its nostalgic, cheese-ball appeal.

All things considered, Snakes on a Plane will undoubtedly be the most enjoyable, and the most unlikely blockbuster of the summer. A solid ten out of ten.

surprisingly enjoyable....

[Achnot · 7/10 · 16 August 2006]

If you like me were one of those people who said this movie sounds so ridiculous that there's no way i cant see it but secretly knew it would be awful then i think you'll be quite surprised.

At first i thought that it would be terrible cause it was a silly idea then i thought it would be terrible cause it had garnered so much unexpected publicity that the studio would make the film more serious then it could pull off but i must say after coming from a staff show of it that i felt it was quite tactfully pulled off considering the story they had to work with.

Sam Jackson, excellent as usual, always bringing colour to a part that otherwise would have be dull and i would like to say he carried the film but he really didn't the ensemble cast were all excellent in the roles with not one bad, token or in any way unnecessary character springing to mind, the script is well written and the direction while not the best, quite admirable in its small confines. My only problems with this movie is first and foremost the snakes are a bit.....well bad, they're cgi and not good cgi at that but it didn't in any way hinder my enjoyment I'm just not finding a lot of flaws worth pointing out. The only other thing i can think of and again will most likely not ruin the full enjoyment that anyone can get from this film but it is extremely violent, violence in movies doesn't bother me whatsoever except when its clearly there for the cringe factor which i felt a lot of the violent stuff in this movie was.

All in all though this is a violent, sometimes witty, enjoyable romp that went above and beyond my expectations. So, Snakes on a plane, it does exactly what it says on the tin!

the snakes look CRAP

[vailsy · 1/10 · 22 August 2006]

when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.

what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary

why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly

take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!

sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.

i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie

the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time

expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.

watching this movie is a waste of time

[mystic_sphinx · 1/10 · 11 October 2006]

Unfortenuately I happened to see this movie in a sneak-preview, so I didn't know what movie I paid for. If knew, I'd definitely saved my money....I am pretty surprised that Samuel L. Jackson is part of this (what's it even supposed to be? fantasy? Adventure? Thriller?) Movie, maybe he thought that with all these ridiculous snake-attacks (yes, the movie is about snakes on a plane, I hope I didn't reveal anything here which is not given by the title already) ,which reminded me on the vampires in "From dusk till dawn", it might have the same effect: Being so exaggerated it already becomes funny again. To me on the other hand it became only stupid and pitiful, I couldn't take anything of this movie serious at all.

The title got it hype but the film itself is just a so-so b-movie

[bob the moo · 6 June 2007]

When Sean Jones is on holiday in Honolulu he sees an American state's attorney murdered by none other than notorious gangster Chen Leong and finds himself hot property with the FBI. An attempt on Sean's life is all it takes him to convince to testify against Leong and Agent Neville Flynn is assigned to escort him back to LA. With a decoy flight to distract Leong, Flynn and Jones commandeer first class and prepare for a comfortable flight while everyone else on the red-eye flight sits in coach. However word has got to Leong and, with all other options exhausted, Leong arranges for a box of poisonous snakes to be dosed into a frenzy with pheromones and then released once the plane is in the air.

The film that the internet made. Understandably the wonderfully schlocky title got the internet excited and much of the general populace as well and, probably not believing their luck, the same producers who wanted to call it "Flight 121" released it without letting the critics get at it first. This was a sensible move because, aside the fan boys maintaining it is the greatest "bad" movie ever made, the film is actually not as bad, good, fun or scary as it really should have been. I'm not entirely sure of the reason for this because Tremors showed that making a success of silly b-movie fare and I think everyone hoped that this would be the same – silly perhaps, but fun with it.

At times this is the case but other times it doesn't work and the mood is inconsistent throughout. At times it seems to be trying to embrace the silliness of the material but for too much of it the tone is serious and earnest – expecting us to take it that way and giving us nothing else if we don't. I assume that we should thank the internet campaign for this because the inconsistency does feel like it has come from added material, reshoots and so on. I'm not sure but I'm guessing the humour and the stuff that works has been added once the internet jokes etc began to take effect – just a shame that so little of it is like this.

The cast are generally average at best. Jackson enjoys himself and it must slightly frustrate him that it is not the silly b-movie I think he hoped for. He get "the" line of course and a few other good moments but generally he just concentrates on being solid and the presence he effortlessly is. Below him there is very little. Margulies is hardly a star and nobody else has much to do other than represent a particular group (mothers, lovers, newly weds, jerks etc) to be fed up to the snakes one after another.

So, hype aside, this is a so-so b-movie but with a bit of fun and cheek, it could have been a good one. The title will continue to buy it a reputation beyond what it deserves for a while but apart from the fan boys, many casual viewers will be left unimpressed.

Bask in the badness

[Ken Colangelo · 6/10 · 20 August 2006]

You have to WANT to see this movie to enjoy it. It's a bad movie, on purpose, and that's what you have to want. Having said that, it's pretty funny (not hysterical) because it's loaded with stupid 1970s and 1980s action and disaster movie clichés. If the audience has fun with it then it'll be a party film. In my audience they were laughing and clapping at the death of a clichéd old female lead BECAUSE she was such a tired piece of material. As Jackson's partner dies a cry of "MENDOZAAAAA!" goes up from the back of the theater - a reference to a spoof of cop partner films from the Simpsons. I guess it compares to Rocky Horror in the way the audience makes it fun. Except it has no catchy tunes. If I had to watch this alone I would probably die. This is one LOUSY movie. Have fun!

P.S. The music video at the end, I feel, is literally funny.

If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L. Jackson or small children, please don't see this movie

[thorfy · 1/10 · 22 August 2006]

Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.

So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.

Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.

Come see our movie! We are well aware it is fantastically idiotic!

[MJbites · 6/10 · 19 August 2006]

I'll just go ahead and state the obvious: If it weren't for the title of this film, there would really be no compelling reason to see it. Sure, it's intermittently entertaining, but in the end, it's utterly forgettable.

The movie aggressively attempts to let the audience know that the filmmakers are very much in on the joke. "Yes! We get it!" it seems to shout. "We know this is an extremely ridiculous concept for a movie! Please, join us in the amusement, won't you?" Ultimately, the film suffers because of this. Too many half-assed attempts to inject humor into the script. Most of the jokes seem to have been "borrowed" from other movies (Suck the snake venom out of his butt?! Hilarious! That guffaw-inducing scenario just gets funnier every time it unfolds since its inception in one of the City Slickers movies over a DOZEN years ago!). The film would ultimately have been better served if the director had omitted about 75% of the intentional comedy and just left it to the insanity of the plot to create the laughter.

Sam Jackson, if you ask me, phoned in his performance at points. Some of his facial expressions, specifically during his time on screen with Kenan Thompson, are inspired, but his character was kind of bland otherwise. Thompson on the other hand was by far the most enjoyable person to watch. He seemed to be enjoying himself on the set.

A quick review of the CGI: It was cheesy looking. Not much to be done about this, just wished the snakes looked a bit more real. I want to be CONVINCED that naked man in the bathroom has an actual snake stuck to his face. And about the music video in the credits: Perhaps the most horrendous thing I have ever witnessed. It's an insipid tune with some of the weakest lyrics I've ever heard. Also, the girl in the band seems to have misplaced about 30 pounds of much-needed body mass. I hope you find it! You're going to need it one day.

Honestly, I was vaguely annoyed halfway through that I still had over 45 more minutes to sit through, but the final sequence of events kept me entertained enough. If you must go see this movie to feel hip, I suppose there's no harm. Go ahead, join the in-crowd. It'll help you answer Trivial Pursuit questions in about 10 years.

What planet is everyone on?

[canvine · 1/10 · 19 November 2006]

Perhaps I am the strange one, but I thought this film was terrible. I cannot see what was enjoyable about the film, unless of course they were trying to make it so awful that it made it funny. I did find myself laughing at the corniness in a few places, but overall it was just painful to watch! Samuel L Jackson has sold out his cool persona in the worst way possible in my opinion. He just made the film seem more out of place. I would expect an unknown lead in a film of this poor quality. The only good thing about the film was the special effects, but the fact that they involved unbelievable killer snakes took away any enjoyment of this. To top it all off, the pathetic attempt at shock factor (the snakes attacking rude or bizarre body parts) was laughable and I honestly couldn't care a less whether anyone survived.

I would appreciate it if someone could explain why this was given such a high score - I imagine it must be the same people who voted for the film Gerry!

WTF are you tards thinking

[evilgary · 6/10 · 6 October 2006]

Seriously snakes on a plane?

Worst plot ever.

Whats harder to sneak on a plane snakes or a bomb?

I guess the Producers were actually being Patriotic though; hopefully some al quida will thy this out and end up in Guantanomo Bay with a car battery attached to his Genitals.

In fact if at all possible I would rate this negative. The obvious attempt at comedic value fail's miserably.

Thats all I have to say.

1 of 10.

Seriously?

[CheeseMyBaby · 1/10 · 21 December 2006]

I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!

I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:

1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint

I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.

Pure Pop-Corn Fun

[peter-c-odlaug · 9/10 · 17 August 2006]

The title says everything you need to know. You're in a 200 foot long aluminum tube flying at 35,000 feet with snakes loose everywhere and Sam Jackson is getting very tired of them. I thought that this film, which wasn't screened for critics, lives up to the hype that has buzzed around it. It's entertaining and delivers, unabashedly what it promises. Snakes, some gore and Sam Jackson. The plot is simple enough. A man is witness to a murder by a crime lord and Sam Jackson is an FBI agent protecting the witness until he can get to LA from Hawaii to testify. Snakes are released on the plane in mid-flight and chaos ensues. I would recommend this film. It's fun, funny and extremely entertaining. It's a rare film that delivers straightforward what it promises. A good time, Sam Jackson yelling and lots of snakes on a plane.

It gives exactly what it promises

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 27 June 2014]

Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips) witnesses the murder of a prosecutor by the gangster Eddie Kim in the Hawaiian jungle. The gang is after him but FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) rescues him. They go on the red eye to LA for Sean to testify against Eddie Kim. Claire Miller (Julianna Margulies) and Tiffany (Sunny Mabrey) are the flight attendants. They and the rest of the passengers have to battle countless deadly snakes that are unleashed by the gangsters.

The title says it all and the movie delivers exactly that. It's fun. It's stupid. It's not high minded. I got what I expected and what I wanted. SLJ does this in his sleep. The lead guy could be better but that's a small complaint. The snakes do actually scare. B-movies don't get a lot better than this.

what a waste of time

[littlelek · 1/10 · 24 December 2006]

This is by far one of the worst movies that i have ever seen. The deaths in this movies are almost like from the movie final destination. Its just an all round poor movie. don't know why i wasted my time in watching. i would rather eat hair than watch this movie. i do not recommend watching this movie, probably the only time i would watch this movie is if it ever came out on TV and there was absolutely nothing else you could possible watch. One of Samual L. Jacksons worst =( Although i have liked from of Samual L. Jacksons movies in the past this one just actually sucks. i don't understand why they would decide on making a movie with snakes and a plane just the concept behind it is not very bright.