Snakes on A Plane After-Release Thread(SPOILERS!) - Page 4

The difference is that SoaP aimed to make cheap thrills and cheap laughs because they knew you idiots would eat it up and buy tickets. Raimi made his movies the way he wanted, and people happened to find the cheap thrills and cheap laughs funny. Evil Dead got people to go along with the jokes, whereas SoaP is the joke.

It's the difference between getting a hamburger from McDonald's and eating a hamburger that was made from scratch by someone who knew what they were doing. They're both meat on a bun and provide the same goal, but one is manufactured and pre-made, while the other one is genuine. The intent absolutely affects the result.

Are we really going to seriously compare Snakes On A Plane to Evil Dead? Really? Because Snakes On A Plane would love to have that sort of natural gonzo energy, that ability to push things a little too far and get away with it. Instead it's got a title that allows people to indulge in irony without having to try, and a concept that's ridiculously easy to deliver.

Now, how about somebody - anybody - defending this film steps up and explains what makes it so good without using flimsy nonsense such as "the crowd loved it!" or "it's supposed to be dumb" as arguments?

How about somebody addresses the interminable first act during which nothing of consequence happens?

Or the super-evil bad guy who is never seen again once the plane is in the air?

Or the drawn-out final act in which no airplane disaster cliche goes undeployed in the fight to hide the fact that they're run out of things to do with snakes?

Or just the fact that there's roughly twenty minutes of good stuff tucked into the middle of an uneven and predictable mid-level action flick?

Anyone? Or shall we continue the old "movies that are good vs movies that you enjoy" debate?

Nordling: I know I'm not shitting on anyone for having a good time. I myself had a great time. It's a shit movie and a great trainwreck of an experience at the theater with geeks who just wanted to celebrate their existence as geeks with no real repercussions.

What I've been questioning the whole time is critique of the FILM ITSELF, divorced from the crowd reaction. The movie itself is a bad movie. If we're going to talk about the quality of the film, the quality of the film should be discussed as most films here are--with reasoned opinions and support for those opinions being spelled out so we have an idea where to go with the discussion.

That's not really happening. Once we push past the fact that the screening was fun as hell as an event and an experience, the film discussion breaks down, because the people who feel the movie is really fucking bad aren't getting anything in response besides "Well, I had fun with the crowd, so it's a good movie." Whitehead is pretty much perfectly dissecting the movie, for me, as I had a lot of those same questions. There's really been no attempt at addressing them in the thread.

I'm not trying to take away their fun, the experience was worth the 8 bucks last night, but only because I knew there'd be a full theater of crazed geeks going apeshit. But if we're gonna talk the movie, we should talk the movie, and so far it's a one-sided conversation.

The question I guess is this: Is the movie even WORTH trying to discuss, or is the only viable conversation the one that talks about the experience and the phenomena, relegating the quality of the movie itself to the backburner?

But you're assuming, in this analogy, that they don't taste the same. Cooked differently, prepared different...shit, different cows, even...but in the end they taste the same, and any difference is in your preconcieved notion of how it *should* taste because one has street cred and the other is a studio picture.

Jesus. I thought I'd never spend $8 on a movie like SoaP, but my wife called me about 5 minutes ago and said "You wanna see that snake on a plane movie? I have been hearing all sorts about it". Interesting...

So...all hamburgers taste exactly like Big Macs? And therefore Snakes On A Plane is exactly the same as Evil Dead?

What the unholy fuck are you even going on about?

I love how people are saying that you have to see it while drunk/whacked out on something. While that explains the reasoning behind people having interest in this thing, I get a little suspicious whenever someone says "OH MY GOD YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FEW BEERS BEFORE YOU GO SEE IT". That's like saying "Well, that Britney Spears movie was really great.....but I injected heroin into my eyeball before I walked into the theater, so it may have influenced my opinion of the film."

That's just as fucking lame as hyping up the experience. As many have said already, a film should be able to stand on its own merits without requiring the viewer to: a) be under the influence, or b) re-enact Girls Gone Wild in the theater to hide the fact that the movie is ass.

Hand over the crown, King.

I'm guessing you've never cooked before, or, at the very least, had a burger that wasn't freeze dried and made for you.

A cult movie has to have blood sweat and tears in it. Bad, good, mediocre, doesn't matter because it got made when conventional mainstream logic dictates that something like it shouldn't exist. So what happens when the mainstream takes an idea for a cult movie and turns it into something designed to have maximum dollar effect? That's when what makes a cult movie a cult movie gets lost, and why this will never be a real "cult" movie--just something that people who aren't really interested in these kinds of movies can enjoy. Just like Napolean Dynamite.

The Transporter movies are popular here, right?

A discussion about the actual film rather than a conversation about who had an awesome time at the movies.

You gave me negative feedback for not liking the film. What was that supposed to accomplish?

I want to punch you and never stop.

You just admitted to going to Spice World. Thought I'd point that out.

I personally could care less if it's bad or not. I'm not taking this movie as seriously as half the people arguing in this thread.

Going to the movies is $8 these days. Half the time someone's cell phone rings, or I'm distracted by someone spilling their drink, or someone rips one and stinks up the row.

If I want to see a movie based on its merits, I'll rent it and watch it at home on my 46" TV in Sony 5.1 -- which, thanks to the acoustics in my place, can end up being louder than most theatres.

If I have to spend what I consider to be an inflated amount of money on a movie where I have to suffer through the general annoyances of 100+ other people then either the movie has to be transcendental, or the atmosphere has to be electric.

Will I rent Snakes on a Plane? Hell no, I'd rather get the 'Pusher' trilogy. But I have no problems spending the cash to take my girlfriend to see this with a great crowd. Even if the movie does blow.

It bored you at the beginning and disappointed you at the end, but you were entertained?

It's at least twenty minutes before they even get on the plane, and don't try and tell me that time was needed for all the vital character development.

Rapper Guy don't like to be touched! What a fascinating fellow, I hope we learn more about him...

It's a legitmate question, but only because the people panning the film want to divorce the undeniable reactions it draws from the crowd as having nothing to do with the film working or failing to work, and the people who enjoyed the film being unwilling to discuss what is a undeniably flawed movie.

Looking around at the critical reaction today, it's obvious that New Line (despite Devin's protests) made a genius decision screening this film for the fans and the media on basically the same night. The reviews for this film are above and beyond where they would be if there had been critics screenings, because the in-house reaction would have been muted. Instead, reviewers felt the energy in the theater and assumed the film has something to do with it.

As for defending the film, I'll say I liked the performances from Sam Jackson and Julianna Margulies, who managed to anchor this film with some facet of humanity. David Koechner was a brilliant piece of casting, as was Todd Louiso, who turns what would have been completely useless scenes away from the plane into something watchable through his creepy turn. Yeah, it can be argued that Koechner's and Louiso's previous roles may have something to do with their performances working in this film, but last time I checked casting might have something to do with a movie's success, even if crowd reaction doesn't.

I thought the film did well in establishing a core of characters whose fates we actually care about, whether it's in seeing their demise (the Englishman) or hoping against hope that we'd see their demise (the rapper).

The set pieces were a little muddled action-wise, but I loved some of the jump-scares. The snakes coming down with the oxygen masks? Awesome. The two scenes in the bathroom? Gratuitus, and awesome. There isn't a whole hell of a lot of interesting staging, but some of the kills are better than in other pedestrian horror films. Loved using the raft to shield first class, hated the fact that on a plane the best they could muster were broken bottles on sticks as weapons (unless its an uber-clever post-9/11 comment on in-flight security). And the snake-o-vision was as B-movie stupid/cool as you can get.

I've seen the super-evil bad guy referenced a few times. No, I have no idea why the character needed to be in the film, or why it wasn't just some fat gangster instead of a buff karate guy. Unless, as I expect, it's to set up the utter hilarity of a buff super villain using altitude-released poisonous snakes attacking pheremone-tainted flowers as "his last resort."

The final act was great and not-so-great. Shooting the window to suck the snakes out was an interesting, albeit absurd, choice. The landing of the plane was strangley devoid of tension, but the last cobra attack was a nice jolt.

Again, never said it was a perfect film -- it's a classic B-movie, midnight movie, whatever you want to call those deeply flawed but consistantly entertaining films. Compare this to another Sam Jackson monster-of-the-week flick, "Deep Blue Sea," and you can see the "Snakes" works because it doesn't take itself seriously and shamelessly panders to its audience. I enjoyed it, and so did the rest of the crowd.

Well I saw the movie at a matinee with maybe 20 people in the theater so it wasn't what I would call the best viewing conditions. That being said, I had a great time with the flick and enjoyed the hell out of it. One thing has to be said. This movie would be shit without Samuel L Jackson and I'm dead serious about that. The way he plays his character straight is comic gold and the famous line is delivered perfectly with the aftermath of that being hilariously dumb.

As for those asking those of us to defend why we liked the movie, I have to say that meeting expectations is a big part of how well I like a movie. Superman Returns is technically a better film than SoaP. So is "The Devinci Code". The thing is, those movies failed to deliver while SoaP did in spades. I went in expecting a fun movie and that's what I got. I mean how often do you see a window being shot out to get rid of snakes on a plane?

It's the way many of you are talking this movie down that's kinda pissing me off. No one here is ever going to claim that this will be some great work, except maybe the King.

But I remember on Devin's site, when pinch-a-loaf entered a song in the SoaP contest. It was all in fun. Hell, I voted for the song. And for a few months there everyone was goofing off on the movie, and this was after the re-shoots had been reported.

I can't blame anyone for being sick of the overexposure of the movie, but it seems to me that many here re using that overexposure to rat on a movie that only a few months ago you were all excited about seeing. I don't remember reading anything about how the re-shoots had pissed anyone off. Now, all of a sudden, it's a bad movie because it's intentionally bad. Now unless they reshot the basic premise of a bomb releasing snakes into a plane (which sounds so incredibly fucking stupid when they could have just blown up the plane in the first place), it was ALWAYS as dumb as it is now.

No movie is review-proof. But movies have different review factors, certainly. And the crowd reaction for this one has to be taken into account. Can you recommend this film to a potential ticket-buyer? If they're looking for a fun time, sure. If they're looking for the next Bergman or Fellini, fuck no. And that's where the critical aspect comes into play. Because you're not just talking to film critics and enthusiasts. If a regular person came up on the street and asked you how the movie was, how would you respond? Because you have no idea where this person is coming from. And if he's wanting a goofy time on a Friday night, it's not going to help him for you to say, "It pales in comparison to Ozu's TOKYO STORY."

So, yeah, I gave you negative feedback. I don't think it's right to take people to task for having a good time. And I do believe there's good films and bad films, and that it isn't subjective. But it's interesting to me how people choose to be the arbiter of such things. Especially since a lot of the people doing the criticism seemed excited as hell about seeing this movie a few months back and now can't be bothered. What's that about?

Just out of curiosity: is 20th Century Fox's "Office Space" a cult movie? Or did the studio release the film in the hopes it would lose money?

Maybe so, but then my theater wouldn't have had the twenty or so people shouting in unison, "SNAKEVISION!" every time it happened.

I won't go back on praising David Ellis' direction in this, as I thought the pacing was mostly quite good. Ellis knows action- really, this movie should have been a disaster, which I think it is not.

[QUOTE=THE KING] Okay that went a little too far. I was just making a point that TECHNICALLY Davinci might have been better from a narrarative point of view. Maybe not the best example to pull. After all, a movie where the money shot is throwing something in the air is indeed worse than "Snakes on a Plane".

This should be good. Who's going to tear him a new asshole first?

See, Wysh, I think if you'd dropped THAT post straight out of the gate, all this "idiot king" crown passing shit might not have popped off that hard. I still disagree with some of your points (I think most of em, actually, and the fundamental break we have where I think I can recognize a movie is shit and still enjoy it, and you think if I'm enjoying it, that means it's doing something right) but at least there's meat on the bone there.

I still think there's a caveat there: I can recommend the film to a potential ticket buyer ONLY if there's knowledge that the film is going to be packed full of film geeks. Regular audiences, I think some of the hilarity is going to be lost and the movie will just play sort of badly. Plus, there's gotta be at least a semi-full theater. I wouldn't recommend the film to someone wanting to check it out 2 weeks from now on a Thursday matinee around 3pm. They're not going to get out of it what we got out of it last night here at the Century 16, or what you got out of it at your screening, or what Harry got out of it at the Drafthouse.

I sorta addressed that earlier--it's the same sort of phenomenon where people get in on something early and dump it when someone else finds it. You saw that coming a mile away, right? The early adopters of "Snakes on a Plane" fun were shitting themselves reveling in the absurdity and the stupidity of the concept and the fact it was getting made. At some point other people who the original people deemed latecomers or not-worthy ALSO jumped on the bandwagon. At some point it became less fun to make fun of the movie than it was to make fun of the people making fun of the movie.

Typical geek heirarchy shit in action, and it's nothing new.

Just out of curiosity: Are you really this dense?

Judge got funding from Fox to make his movie. He had clout from his television successes with Bevis & Butthead and King of the Hill to get the pennies the film cost to make. Fox then dumped the movie and pretty much gave it the shaft in its theatrical run. It was later discovered on video and made famous from the people who saw it.

The difference is this: Judge made the movie he wanted to make. He got Fox to give him the money to make it. Snakes on a Plane was maufactured by the studio. Ellis did not cash in some clout to make the movie he envisioned, he got handed a job and went were he was told. How are you not seeing the difference here?

Just got back...and Snakes Sucks. It really does. Dan Whitehead may be taking things a bit too seriously but by and large he is right.

YES there are a few decent kills in SOAP like snakes on a nipple and I was quite mesmerized by the hotness of chick with baby...and that is the end of anything even remotely "Fun" about this movie. I love movies that don't take themselves all that seriously and I flat out love movies that manage to mix horror and camp into the mix. The only problem is that Snakes does neither of those things well enough. There is not one ounce of real tension and there are not more than a handful of laughs in the whole film.


For instance I may have been the only person to see Slither with a substantial crowd and they were really into it...laughing and ewwing and etc. But while it was great to see it with a crowd who was into it the film and that made me have a better time at the theater Slither WAS good. Fuck it it was great. Slither is a great example of this sort of film done right. Snakes is shit.

For fuck's sake. I'm not taking people to task for having a good time. Never have. You gave me negative feedback based on my first post - which was solely about the movie and my feelings about it - and you said "Sorry, I thought it was fun".

It's not that getting negative feedback cuts me to my core, just that it seems like such a whiny pissy little reason to do it.

My problem was - and remains - this notion that any attempts to actually discuss the movie were dragged down by people posting about what an awesome time they had last night, and how that somehow overrides any reasoned critical thought.

Fuck that.

I'm being the arbiter of nothing. I'm just stating my position on this matter. If people had bothered to respond to criticism of the film with their own thoughts as to why the criticism was unwarranted then we wouldn't be having this conversation. When the only defense people offer is their own utterly subjective amusement levels then where else do you expect a discussion to go?

I've never been vocally excited about this movie, and I think you're making the old mistake of people laughing at the Snakes on a Plane meme as somehow making them de facto fans of the movie.

Even if I had been enthusiastically posting about how I couldn't wait to see it, that doesn't mean that my current reaction would be hypocritical - looking forward to a movie doesn't mean that you're duty bound to enjoy it when it opens.

I've been reading all of these posts that say that they were in a packed theater, and I neglected to mention in my mini review from last night, that my theater wasn't sold out or overly crowded, I guess there wasn't that big of a buzz for the flick where I live. Although there was that small group that I mentioned, and I mean small, like 4 or 5 people, that annoyed the hell out me, and my friend, when they went crazy when just Sam Jackson's name came up in the beginning, and during a lot of the movie. I guess I could chalk that up to the "theater experience" that everyone's talking about, but these idiots were a bit too overly anxious about the flick, while the rest of us would laugh and point out things every now and then. It wasn't like when I saw the Freddy Vs. Jason midnight screening back in August of 2003, and all of the audience got in on the fun, that has been my favorite theater going experience so far, but seeing Snakes On A Plane, bar those idiots being distracting, is close , behind seeing T3 when it came out early.

All I'm seeing are two studios that made cult films, and in both instances the marketplace determined their cult status.

You know what? I agree with you Dan. What fucking right does any asshole have to like something for any reason. I hate people that like stuff. ESPECIALLY people who like stuff I don't like, then I REALLY hate them.

The assholes.

Office Space earned its cult status. Snakes on a Plane manufactured theirs.

I'm also wondering how many people here defending SoaP were shitting themselves with indignation that something like Step Up could make $21 million opening weekend.

Almost clever. You're getting there. Keep reaching for the stars, Sparky.

Bullshit. The only difference was that the "Snakes" cult formed before the film was released and may have had some influence in the film being tailored even more to their tastes. New Line cultivated the cult, but it sure as shit didn't begin in it.

It was a lot better than I thought it was going to be. A really fun, entertaining b-movie with lots of gore and humor. Dave Koechner stole the show (yet again) as the near-invincible chauvinist pilot.

And the fact that the cult surrounding Office Space formed because of the actual movie, whereas the cult of Snakes on a Plane formed because it was a funny title. Not just before the movie was released, but before it was even made. Ergo, that cult appeal needn't have anything to do with the actual movie.

But, please, continue trying to argue that every film ever made is exactly the same as Snakes On A Plane.

Dan, as an Admin I think you may be paying WAY too much attention to your board feedback.

And then calling Nordling out on the board publicly because (as said Admin) you have the ability to see that it was him who left you the negative rating when almost everyone else (those who choose to care, anyway) just get to read anonymous jabs? Bad form, my friend.

But what do I know... I liked Attack of The Clones®™©.

Okay, a few of Wysh's comparisons/analogies were flawed, but this is probably the worst one this thread has seen. How does Step Up come into a discussion about winkingly bad "cult" movies (SoaP, Slither, Evil Dead, Eight Legged Freaks) at all?

Yes, and please continue taking every counteragrument to extremes.

Say, while you're at it, why not Encyclopedia Brown who called me a "Dunce" on my board feedback and knocked me down to a little red square...any guesses?

Where do you expect this discussion to go? People are going to write about their experiences, especially about this particular movie, which has been talked up for months now. This is a messageboard, after all. Who in their right mind is going to go in to SNAKES ON A PLANE with a clinical outlook on it? I'm surprised there wasn't a fucking beachball being tossed around at the damn thing.

A serious discussion on the merits of SNAKES ON A PLANE? Are you kidding? This sucker was built for MST3K'ing. When it comes to best of 2006 film discussions at the end of the year, if anyone even breathes on a keyboard while thinking of this movie get a rope. But THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING as enjoying a movie for what it is. I don't believe in the flowchart method of reviewing a film. I do believe that a film like this can absolutely get a positive review. In this case, the crowd reaction does count, in my opinion. This is what the film is built for. If the filmmakers had any sense, they'd put a commentary track on the thing of an opening night screening.

I wish I saw SLITHER in a packed house, because I know that that film would have jumped up in greatness at least by 75%. And I loved SLITHER.

Hardly. It's the first time I've mentioned it, and the only reason I noticed it was because the thought of negative repping someone just for disliking a movie seemed really petty.

I have no idea what other people can see when they look at their feedback. It's not like I went burrowing into the guts of the board to determine who posted it. I open my User Control Panel and there it is.

And I think that if you use an anonymous method to jab at someone rather than airing your complaint in the public discussion then matters of "bad form" become rather redundant.