This pilot is waiting for it to come out on Netflix. Lack of funds seriously impacts my ability to see first-run movies in the theater.
This can’t be stated enough . . . an awesome gratuitous nude scene. 
I think the fact that he was able to save the plane and most of the people on board despite being drunk and high is the reason [spoiler]he only received 6-8 years in prison, or whatever he said it was at the end. If they believed he could have done better sober, there was the real possibility of bringing manslaughter charges against him. (And who knows; maybe they did. We didn’t get to see the criminal trial).
The prosecutors ended up not needing the toxicology report, since he admitted under oath that he had been drunk for days and consumed the bottles of vodka on the flight. Of course since he was drunk and on coke while giving testimony, maybe a good lawyer could have gotten that admission tossed as well :). [/spoiler]
Yes, of course he admitted that he had consumed the vodka, but I think that was because they were ready to pin the drinking on the dead flight attendant, and he couldn’t live with that. If, on the other hand, he had not drunk the alcohol on-board, he would not have been confronted with that dilemma. In that case, would he have confessed so openly?
Crap! Our theater had technical difficulties so it started when he is walking onto the plane. I didn’t know till now that the free movie pass they gave out didn’t make up for what I missed. :smack:
I CAN’T TAKE IT!!! WHO was naked? Why was it so awesome?
Need answer fast!
The nude scene refers to Nadine Velazquez, who plays a flight attendant. She was the actress who played Catalina in My Name Is Earl.
I’m a pilot
[spoiler] and I found the aviation aspect utterly unbelievable. Even if the plane was flyable inverted due to damage (and fat chance of that IRL probably), would one expect the pilot to just be able to roll it so gently upright again just before landing? Sorry, I can’t suspend disbelief on that one.
And mixing a cocktail just out of sight of everyone while addressing the passengers? Pull the other one.
That aside, I thought the story of his problems and eventual admission at the end were great. I think I saw this film in the same way my computer buddies saw Sneakers. Decent story, but they dropped the ball so badly on the tech stuff that it took them out of it.
This post made me cry.
As The Controvert correctly notes, it’s Nadine Velazquez. Now that the DVD is available I’m sure they’ve got it up at Mr.Skin.com or celebritymoviearchive.com or whatever your favorite “Just the Nude Scenes, Please” website is. Still, searching it out that way takes away some of the impact. I sat down in a theater to watch a December-release Denzel Washington movie aimed at a wide audience- I figured I knew exactly what I was in for. To be greeted by Nadine Velazquez in her birthday suit in the very first scene caught me completely offguard.
We watched it last week. Enjoyed it quite a bit up to the end. The way Whip handled the hearing just didn’t work. It was all wrong. Practically ruined the movie.
John Goodman is a national treasure. Kelly Reilly wins again.
I thought the number one problem the pilots would have with the roll thing was that he came out of inverted very, very low. He would have augured in barely after starting to roll out of it. Sideways jets lose altitude quickly.
Another goof: The plane clips a steeple and continues on before running into terrain. Later the steeple is shown laying near to the plane. Magic flying steeple.
Hated it. It was a 2 hours ad for Alcoholics Anonymous.
Why did that make you hate it?
One, AA is a cult with no more of a success rate (14%) than waking up and saying “Ya know, I don’t think I’ll drink anymore.”
Two, I wanted to see a movie, not 2 hours of how AA and Jebus will save your life.
Three, I can suspend disbelief somewhat but it’s crappy writing when:
The drug addict is in AA not NA.
The door to the room next door is accidently ajar.
The attorney lets Steenburgen ask half those questions at the hearing that had nothing to do with the crash and at best are speculative.
Didn’t particularly like the side story with the girl. For some reason that I can’t put my finger on, it didn’t seem realistic to me.
During our visit to Los Angeles, my family and I went on a visit to a production house, Ignition Creative (IC), who specializes in advertising for motion pictures and TV (posters, trailers, commercial tie-ins, etc.) Near the end of our visit we met with the two owners and one of their chief editors, whereupon I asked why, using Flight as an example, some trailers seemingly have nothing to do with the movie? The response was surprising: Because they are made that way at the behest of the studio! One of the principals said (IC didn’t work on Flight) that had the trailer been cut to accurately reflect the movie (about the lead character’s alcohol and drug problems) nobody would have gone to see the film as it would have been too depressing. So the decision was consciously made to focus on the crash and the investigation so that people (like me) would get the idea that it was a film about a plane crash and how the pilot was being railroaded to take the blame for the crash during the investigation because he might have had a drink a day or two before the flight.
So that’s why the trailer was so different from the movie we saw – they purposely did so in order to increase box office take.
I don’t know what movie you were watching, but I don’t think it was the one being discussed here.
-
He’s not in AA. The only time he goes to a meeting is with the girl who’s trying to get sober, and he leaves after five minutes.
-
Eh. Plot happens.
-
It’s not a trial, it’s a regulatory hearing. She can ask whatever she wants.
I think you meant Melissa Leo, who was the lead investigator. Mary Steenburgen was not in this movie.
The airplane’s jack screw failure is based on Alaska Air Flight 261, which crashed on January 31, 2000 near Santa Barbara, CA.
Yes, that was mentioned in the twelfth post.
Oh, missed that. Thanks.