Flight of the Phoenix (2004)

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

Well what can I say about this remake? On the positive side it had great music. However, it had none of the grittiness of the original. These people are fighting for their lives not attending some summer camp!!I do despair of remakes and this one is no exception although it does try to follow the original plot reasonably closely.Hollywood thickos (aka executives) there is a reason why films become classics! You wouldn't try to recreate a Beethoven concerto or a Rembrandt masterpiece so why think you can do it with film?This should not be interpreted as criticism of the actors and actress; their performances where great.Watch the original as well and make up your own mind.

Sure it has Dennis Quaid (The Big Easy), Giovanni Ribisi (Saving Private Ryan), Tyrese Gibson (Four Brothers), and Miranda Otto (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King), but it also had Hugh Laurie from House. That's enough to get me to watch, no matter what. No, Quaid is not better that Jimmy Stewart was in the 1965 version, but he still sizzles. Ribisi, with his Nazi undertones, really adds to the pic.It is an inadequate remake, but it has Hugh Laurie. Two things that puzzle me: How come no one gets a sunburn working in the desert without a shirt, and how come Otto doesn't hook up with one of these shirtless hunks - especially Hugh Laurie.

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