This wasn't exactly a great movie, but it wasn't totally bad, either. I talked to a jet fighter pilot and he said the aerial photography of the Russian fighters buzzing the 707 was outstanding. Back in 1972, this would have been a plausable scrip as security wasn't nearly as tight as it is now. I also felt that when the Russian fighters were buzzing Heston's 707 aircraft, I would have shown more shots of the passengers, perhaps some of them going bonkers.
shareSomewhat mediocre!? This thrown together movie doesn't even rise to the heights of mediocrity, and it's hardly camp. The supporting cast is a lifeless bunch, the film lacks excitement, and you could care less about the people and the outcome. Additionaly, the film contains the most unnecesary and
pointless flashbacks I've ever seen. This is one disaster film that could use a few stereotyped characters, a singing nun, and scenes of stewardesses slapping hysterical passengers into submission. A few more Oscar winners, and a heart pounding, over-the-top score wouldn't hurt either. The film, even for the pre 9/11 period, makes it hard to believe the not particulalrly threatening Brolin whose skyjacker comes across as a clumsy and clueless amatuer could not have been subdued sooner. And strangely subdued is what this lackluster film is.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The word "mediocre" sums up "Skyjacked" very well, but I'm still glad I added it to my collection.
shareI found it to be very mediocre. A lot of things seem to happen with little explanation, or are explained badly by pointless and distracting dream scenes. I usually like hijack movies but this one definitely didn't meet my expectations, certainly when you consider the cast.
__________
Disclaimer: if I'm talking about a reality TV show: "As far as the edit showed us."
I don't know why I've remembered this movie so well all these years later.
The Russian fighter scene was a little exciting but it's always been James Brolin's weird Russian hero dream sequence that's stuck. It was all just so weird.
When I served during the mid 1970's, whenever we intercepted a Russian aircraft, we would send a minimum of two fully armed fighter aircraft to fly on either side of the intercepted aircraft in an escort formation. This allowed for visual communication between the crews if necessary, and allowed our interceptors to observe closely to gather intelligence and use onboard cameras.
What I saw in this movie were jets buzzing the intercepted aircraft in a formation that was more appropriate for an air show. Such tactics could have caused a mid-air collision and prevents any close observations. As a fighter interceptor in an escort formation, that allows the civilian crew and passengers to clearly see your armament. And with fighter aircraft on either side of the intercepted plane, that gives the intercepted aircraft the impression they are surrounded and is sufficient to let them know just how serious the situation is and that you mean business.
Hi SeaLordJohn,
Thanks for your reply.
The way those fighters in the movie buzzed the hijacked airliner was probably done in order to create a dramatic, Hollywood effect. Perhaps the Russian Air Force may have had some different protocols for handling these types of situations.
The air shots were pretty good, overall, but I think some time should have
been devoted to showing the passengers reactions to these Russian Fighter jets, maybe having some of them freaking out.
[deleted]
Hi Kubrick_Fan89
I feel the same way.