SamT
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2010
- Messages
- 5,824
- Real Name
- Sam
Flight was indeed fiction. And other than the actual crash, I thought it was a mediocre effort from Zemeckis.This must be my most anticipated movie. I'm as excited to see this as if it was a Star Wars movie.
It must be the uplifting version of Flight (2012). Seems the same story structure, the incident and the afterward. But this is way more fascination and interesting to me. Was Flight (2012) fiction?
apparently, it was largely shot with IMAX cameras (not like, say, The Force Awakens or Captain America where it's only a few minutes) so it'll be worth spending $19 on an IMAX ticket.
I'm excited for that. It's the IMAX digital camera, not 15/70, so the IMAX ratio will be 1.90:1 rather than 1.44:1.
I was at a 15/70 venue last week and the preview for Sully filled the screen convincingly. If the film itself looks that good, a 15/70 screening would be worth the detour.I'm excited for that. It's the IMAX digital camera, not 15/70, so the IMAX ratio will be 1.90:1 rather than 1.44:1.
Only 96 minutes! The good reviews and Eastwood & Hanks' consistently excellent work have me looking forward to this.I can't even begin to see how this is a 2 hour or more movie...
I echo your thoughts on this film. An excellent movie! Frankly, I don't understand how the Rotten Tomatoes Reviews aren't higher, but what else do you expect from the reviewer crowd. They rather complain about the movie being only 96 minutes long.Excellent performances from the entire cast and Clint is, as always, at the top of his directorial game. They show the crash multiple times and it's always suspenseful and scary. Considering that the audience knows from before the movie starts that they make it, that's a heck of a feat to pull off. One of the year's best so far.
A nice thing about the movie is that they even make a point to give some credit to the other people who helped in the rescue in the end title card.