Review of Snakes on a Plane (2006) by Ryan M — 10 Nov 2010

4.3/10.

"Snakes on a Plane" lives up to its title, featuring a crap-load of snakes; blue snakes, red snakes, yellow snakes, green snakes, and one big-freaking snake somewhere near the end of the struggle. While it's nice to see a movie live up to its title, that shouldn't be considered a hard thing to do. If anything, "Snakes on a Plane" will make you paranoid of your next plane flight, but that doesn't make it a paranoia piece. It seeks to entertain, and with the general crowd it will do just that. But when it comes to people like me, it's just another "coming-at-you" movie, one that could have easily been in 3D if it had not been released two years before the transfer rose to fame once again. I didn't hate "Snakes on a Plane" with all my might, but snake-bite-death scenes aren't entertaining after about the first three go down. And "Snakes on a Plane" features more than its share of those. What hurts the film the most is its distinct lack of real fun. I've seen enough of these movies to know that fun is so scarce these days although for some odd reason, movies like this are recognized for their "entertainment factor". What the hell. I just can't figure that out. Why would someone RECOGNIZE a movie that has more snakes than it does heart. I admit that a movie like this doesn't need a whole lot of intelligence to get by, but it could have used a little more creativity. It exists for fun, and if you think it delivers "fun" then I don't blame you, but when all is said and done its one big fat cliché. Featuring generic music and armed with more stereotypes than an episode of "Hetalia", "Snakes on a Plane" just didn't do it for me. I mean, I'm not entertained by these movies. It may have worked somewhere around the 80's, but now it feels so much like a cop-out. And that is no good. I'd rather devote myself to another movie; possibly one which can have more than maybe TWO amusing moments. However, I will not prevent you from watching it. Some people are consistently amused when it comes to these movies, but what might be fun to them appears to me as boring and repetitive. No, this movie is not unbearable, but is it too much to ask for a little ambition once in a while? I mean, really. A movie like this shouldn't lack so much as it does.

A good number of people board a fancy plane flying to Hawaii. Just before, a man was proven the sole witness to a murder. He also boards the plane. But do the murderers want revenge? I would think so. We are told with such mystery that the killer has done SOMETHING to prevent this man from spreading the word. What that thing is remains the ultimate question. As the flight begins to take off, it is apparent that something is brewing, and it's only a matter of time before it is set loose inside the plane. And when it comes to the moment of truth, what is lying beneath the passengers in the plane? The answer: snakes. Lots and lots of snakes. The snakes are eventually set loose onto the plane and they start doing a lot of what they do best: kill people with the toxins within each individual's fangs. The plot is basically built around the premise of "snakes on a plane", and it sticks with that concept for a good amount of time. The problem is that the snake attacks start to squander the plot which could have happened, and the attacks start to get more consistent and a lot less interesting. In the end, "Snakes on a Plane" just doesn't know what it's doing. Is it supposed to be funny/campy with all its CGI snakes and stereotypical characters? Maybe so, but the movie failed to make me laugh. If it had been campy, then I could have excused its characters for their emotionally distant selves and the film's less than thrilling qualities. Sadly, I just can't get around that due to the film's lack in extreme or even moderate amounts of ambition/inspiration. I know it: this movie is going to be copied because of how derivative it is. And I don't blame people for wanting to re-animate something that wasn't good into something potentially better...or potentially worse.

Samuel L. Jackson; a man of considerable talent, has once again impressed me mildly with his performance. While not "great", Jackson is actually pretty decent when speaking in terms of his filmography in comparison. This is not his best performance, but then again it is not his worst. Nathan Phillips, however, is a man whose performance is too silly for me to truly get by its predictability. Phillips is simply too predictable to be entertaining, and he tries as hard as he can to be as good as Samuel L. Jackson. No luck. The rest of the cast is virtually nothing worth talking about, with a couple "eye catching" cameos and appearances, one of which is that of "High Fidelity's" Todd Louiso.

"Snakes on a Plane" pits lots and lots of snakes inside a plane. Whoopdie freaking doo. That means that there's PLENTY of venomous-side-effect scenes and even more snake-bite vignettes. I can't say that I give a damn since I'd rather have true fun than THIS. The snakes are CGI, as they should be in this time period. They don't look half bad and some of them were made for 3D, although sometimes they can look incredibly off in their animation. The cinematography is average, and the film has a nice look to it overall. But then again, all films of this time should look good. The music is completely generic and does so much to hurt the film. I can see the target audience rocking out to the tunes, but I can't see any film buffs doing so. Because it's not really music, after all. As far as Hollywood appeal goes, "Snakes on a Plane" might as well have a lot of it. It will no doubt please the audience that it was made for, but the problem is that I am not part of that audience. What the movie needs to work on is its ability to appeal to a REAL audience rather than the simple-minded, ADD riddled bastards that feed the box office their hard-earned (or not so hard-earned) cash. It's not that hard, guys. It really isn't. Is it too much to ask that you be CREATIVE, and with a movie that you apparently took a decade to truly piece together? Yes? I mean really. What the hell.

If you go to "Snakes on a Plane" expecting snakes and death scenes, then you've come for exactly the right reasons. However, if you came to the film expecting anything more, then no luck, kid. There's not a whole lot more to this film than snakes. Oh, and it has Samuel L. Jackson and one moment of epic dialogue. Does that serve as a selling point? Hell no. Should it make YOU want to see this movie? Not unless you're fond of no-ambition-films. I know that I'm not. So in the end, "Snakes on a Plane" may deliver on its all-too simple-minded promises, but it can't manage to do much more than that. It will please the general audience, but I thought it was just too stupid for my admiration. A film has to deserve something like that. And honestly, "Snakes on a Plane" does NOT deserve any of my praise. All it deserves is my scorn. Not completely revolting, not unwatchable, and not fun. That's what "Snakes on a Plane", the movie that has been hailed as "fun", is. Nothing more than another bad popcorn flick.