Flight of the Phoenix

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. **

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

"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.

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.

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.