Ham on a Bar

[ciphergoth]

I strongly suspect that they didn't allow the critics in to review "Snakes on a Plane" because it doesn't deliver. People say that the genius of the title is that you immediately know whether or not you want to go and see it. Only the thing is, they weren't planning on making a movie with that title. They made "Pacific Flight 118" and then tried to turn it into "Snakes on a Plane" at the last minute. Unless some unknown hand of comic genius is on the tiller - and that's not impossible, of course - the chances are they won't have succeeded in turning a lame thriller into the comedy blockbuster the title promises. The studios are afraid that the critics will warn people: the title, and the hype, is better than the movie.

I mention this because two people today have independently proposed a different theory: that they did not allow the critics in because it's not for critics.

Note also the top 20 movies on IMDb if they had been named in the same absurdist manner as Snakes on a Plane:

1. Honor in the Mafia
2. Escape from a Jail
3. Revenge in the Mafia
4. Destruction of a Ring
5. Warriors in a Village
6. Jews on a Train
7. ...

(note that the order of movies may have changed since this list was compiled)

Comments

[foibey.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that it was originally "Snakes on a plane" until producers decided that it sounded too obvious, at which point it briefly became "Pacific Flight 118" before some amount of protest from Samuel L. Jackson and a bunch of bloggers (spurred on by some movie insider blog) at which point they admitted that it was a dumb name, but the dumb name was possibly the only thing that redeemed a fairly dumb movie concept.

Aside from that, Jews On A Train sounds like an awesome title.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

No, "Snakes on a Plane" was always the working title; they were always planning on giving it some dull lifeless title to reflect what the film was supposed to be like.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

Well, it's certainly neither dull nor lifeless. The interviews SLJ has given indicate he was possibly (he thinks0 a majorr influence in punching it up from Flight n+1 to SoaP, but if he did then I say hooray!

[aidan-skinner.livejournal.com]

It was origionally SoaP, the studio attempted to make PF118 but SLJ threatened to quit and they changed it back and reshot stuff to make it SoaP.

A couple of people who's taste in terrible films I trust have seen it and motherfucking like it.

[booklectica]

These are the first three reviews I found by googling.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/JoelSiegel/story?id=2329164

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155852150381&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630

http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/snakes_on_a_plane/

Yes, I think it's definitely going to be worth watching. So there. :P

[babysimon]

Hmmm. The first two links are... written in a style that suggests the authors thought their audience was gouing to have trouble reading them. And a lot of the rottentomatoes reviews are really very negative.

But what do I know? I hate most films.

[werenerd.livejournal.com]

There's only one reason why studios don't pre-show a film to the press, and that's because they are certain the critics will kill it. The last major release before this one to have skipped the press showing was Aeon Flux, which by all accounts was horrible.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

But critics often want more from a film than ordinary movie goers.

For every critic saying "Ah, this chase scene is so done before, it reminds me Bingle Dinkleson's 1963 epic This That and The Other" there's a hundred ordinary film goers saying "Wow, chase scene on milk floats, cool!"

Snakes On A Plane isn't trying to be clever. Critics usually badly review simple films. I'm glad I didn't read any reviews before seeing it, and I'm not going to now I've seen it.

Re: the title

[babysimon]

It also might not have been a great idea to release a movie called "Pacific Flight 118" shortly after the release of United 93. People might have got them confused, and that would have been one bad PR day.

Did someone really say "not for critics"? I thought PA had killed the concept as effectively as they killed micropayments or homosexuality.

[swiftangel.livejournal.com]

Just got back from seeing it and absolutely loved it!

[ravenevermore.livejournal.com]

It's not going to win awards or break box office records, but with the right audience and the right mood, goddam if that wasn't the most fun 2hrs of cinema (or however long it was, i've no idea) i've had in years and years. It was just a *fun* movie. Anyone that takes it seriously needs to be slapped. Hard.

Critics would have killed it. A few of the early reviews i read (that were posted in the wee hours of the morning in the US) criticized it for being nothing more than a glorified B-Movie... which, you know, it is. It's one of its strong points.

I dunno. I give it 5 snakes out of 5. You'll either get it, or you won't. It's one of those films.

[jhg.livejournal.com]

I saw it last night, and can reassure you that it's totally ace. Really good. Recommended.


J

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

Seen it, loved it.

It's not a comedy. It's not ironic. It's an action film with no pretentions, that wants you to come along for a ride, a ride filled with snakes!

It lacks post modern winks to other films, and even, as it were twists.

It's a fun film.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Your review, and this one, are starting to make this a tempting proposition...

Scanner Darkly first though.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

The title, too, is totally in keeping with many other disaster movies - "The Towering Inferno", is about an inferno in a tower, for example.