MovieChat Forums > Passenger 57 (1992) Discussion > Was this supposed to be funny?

Was this supposed to be funny?

posted 15 years ago by mooseandsquirrel-2
2 replies | jump to latest

This was on (back-to-back-to-back) last weekend and was the first time I'd gotten to watch it - it had been on my "to rent" list but I'd just never gotten around to it until now. Granted I missed the first 3/4 of it but I found the dialog, plot, wardrobe, pretty much everything badly written in a comical way and was left wondering if this was intended as a serious drama/suspense thriller or an Air Force One "soul brother" parody in the vein of National Lampoon.

One dimensional characters....
Main terrorist: hairstyle reminiscient of Krusty the Clown and his cliched menacing "one liners" were laughable.
The Stewardess: hey, who cast Michael Jackson with a Rosanna Rosanna Danna coif for this role!?!
Wesley: just so NOT believable in this role AT ALL...
inept law enforcement: ...... what an original concept...NOT! I wouldn't have been surprised to see a cameo by Boss Hogg and sherrif Rosco...

"Plot": not one single believable moment.
Bad guy escapes and a whole chase scene commences through an amusement park conveniently located next to the airport! But wait, there's more. Let's concoct a dramatic shoot out on a merry go round packed with kids still on it!?!?!? . Yeah, right...

25 minutes of my life I will never get back (and so thankful I never paid money to see it in the theater or as a video rental). I wasn't even tempted to watch it from the beginning when they did the "encore" presentation to see what I'd missed.

I vaguely remember this getting two thumbs down when it was reviewed way back when. Now I see why...

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli

[–] EXPLICITSOUL5 15 years ago

It's a movie. Not only a movie but an ACTION movie. These are the types of movies that are shown throughout the summertime at the huge multiplexes. They are NOT suppose to be believeable. Just escapist entertainment. Was First Blood believeable? Even real Special Forces guys will tell you that's a fantasy. Was Terminator believeable? A cyborg from the future? And ANY second class action movie stars flicks. Think of Segal and Van Damme in the late 80's to early 90's. My point is if it's not a historical movie or based on true events, why read so much into it?

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/index.html

[–] mooseandsquirrel-2 15 years ago

Wasn't reading anything in to it. I love action movies and there are many that are more believable than others. This, for me, was not one. And Terminator? Yeah, I bought into it. Being that it was "futuristic" in concept it can get away with more and stretch the realm of believability, but again, that can only be abused so much too. To suggest that the nature of most action flicks is that they aren't supposed to be believable is a poor excused for bad filmmaking.

If you enjoyed P57, more power to you. Clearly others did as well. I was expecting a decent action flick -this one just laid a big fat comical egg (IMO).

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli