I was recently sat in
the departures lounge at Edinburgh airport and, as is so often the
case, was rather strapped for things to do. Having wondered around
duty free for a length of time which would have made me look like an
alcoholic and indulged in my favourite sport of people watching, I
picked up a free airport magazine. Flicking through it, I came across
a full-page advert for Flight,
a new film starring Denzel Washington and a film which, in its
opening act, features a plane crash. Not the smartest bit of
advertising PR to be honest. Still, I survived the flight and
promptly went along to catch an afternoon screening of the film.
Here's what I thought...
Flight
sees the return of director Robert Zemeckis to live action films,
having spent his last three films in the realm of computer animation
– most recently with A Christmas Carol, Beowulf and
The Polar Express. The film opens with a plane crash which
would have been much worse had it not been for the skills and
fortitude of its captain, Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) who
manages to save most of the lives of the passengers and crew by
correcting a nosedive by flying upside down. However, an
investigation into the crash finds that Whitaker was high on drugs
and alcohol when he was flying the plane. Many will be glad to hear
that Flight is not based on a true story.
What
you have here, then, is a tale of morality and one which poses an
interesting question: should Captain Whitaker be punished for his
actions or hailed as a hero – albeit, a hero who may only have been
able to do what he did because he was drunk. Washington sets
up a solid anti-hero and his character arc is both frustrating and
appealing. We first see him waking up with a prostitute, swigging the
dregs of last night's beer and snorting a line of coke before putting
on his pilot's jacket and swaggering onto his plane ready for duty.
After the crash we realise he has a severe drinking problem and must
try and find a way to defeat his demons. And this is where, from a
plot perspective, the problems begin.
The
opening act (the events leading up to the crash and the crash itself)
are well-paced, inventive and engaging. The crash is nicely shot and
scored only by the frantic air traffic control chatter and the
ominous beeping of cockpit instruments. But once the investigations
into the crash begin, the film settles into a much more generic,
run-of-the-mill genre picture. Whitaker's redemption in the
under-written character of a recovering drug addict, Nicole (played
by Kelly Reilly), is far too predictable and clichéd. A rather
over-hyped performance by John Goodman as Whitaker's dealer also felt
rather out of place. This doesn't detract from Washington's
dependable performance as a conflicted and self-destructive man but
it didn't seem to fit with the tone for which the film was aiming.
Personally, I felt that things began to drag half way through, although whether that was the fault of the film or the idiot sat in front of me who insisted on flashing his mobile around like he was guiding a plane into land, I don't know. Either way, the vast majority of the film could have been tighter. This isn't to say that it isn't enjoyable but it certainly isn't ground breaking in any way, shape or form. Flight is fine as a piece of film-making and equally entertaining. Denzel Washington is engaging as a male lead and the plot poses some interesting questions which, I felt, were mostly answered by the time the credits rolled. But it is most definitely a film of two halves: before the crash and after the crash. The former is much better and I'm afraid to say that things nosedive after it. Quite literally.
Clapperboard Rating: * * *
