Badmovies.org Forum

There is one thing I want to talk about that I think will adress some of the reasons that people dislike Snakes On A Plane on this message board. Film is an entertainment medium. It's sole money making purpose is to entertain the masses. Which is a shame, but it brings me to a quote by the late film critic, Pauline Kael that goes something like this: "The movies are so rarely great art, that if we can't appreciate great trash, there is little reason for us to go." And we all here can appreciate some great trash. I don't think there's one of us here who hasn't enjoyed Re-Animator or Evil Dead at some time. Great trash is what made Roger Corman a good producer and what made the theremin famous. So it marvels me to see the opposition Snakes On A Plane has received from this message board. I don't declare that everybody should like it, but I do think there should be a place among all bad movie lover's hearts for this subtle resurgence of b-style movies in main stream movies theaters that breaks the monotony of romance, love, period piece, and comedy movies littering the screens today. I like to think that Snakes On A Plane will make a difference to movie-goers in the far future but the truth is that it won't. So I revel in this small blip on the radar screen and will take advantage of it as often as possible while it still parades itself across the big screen.

Some people demand a little whine when the get served some cheese.....

I'm not surprised that people on this board dislike it. What I'm surprised at is that some are pretty vicious about it.

SNAKES ON A PLANE was a blast. This is what movie making is all about. Even the CGI snakes didn't distract or take away from the film. It'a a movie that is lots of fun. See it on the big screen...........

Should we separate the hatred of the film from the burnout and backlash from the internet buzz which took on a life of its own? I'm waiting for the film to hit the cheapo theater since I think I will enjoy any B-movie charms it may have in the downmarket setting with a worn print, imperfect sound, dated trailers, etc., and I'll admit sting less at $1.50 vs. $7.00 if I don't like it. After I saw Underworld: Evolution I told people it was a great $1.50 flick. I thought Slither would be one also but I mostly disliked that movie for reasons I didn't expect.

But the building hype around SoaP was kind of the movie's own undoing. It had to meet or exceed expectations that have been building for a year when so much about the film was discussed online long before hand. Plus the attempts to turn the title and that one line into automatic catchphrases, it just felt like either a put on by the studio or unwarrented exuberance. Some things I read were calling it an instant cult classic, but cult films tend to develop their followings slowly over time as people "discover" the film on their own (say like "The Big Lebowski" or "Donnie Darko")  or are embraced by a small, sometimes outsider, clique who use it as a group event or social experience (like Rocky Horror or people making drinking games out of some films) which again grows over time. The whole internet buzz (real or "helped along", I have my hunches) was kind of the cart before the horse. Other films with large prerelease fanboy interest and internet buzz have tended to be either parts of familar series (like the Star Wars prequels) or based on other source material with rapid fan interest of its own. Look at the Harry Potter films, the Lord of the Rings films and because of that series and it's remake status, King Kong (remember all that "Peter Jackson can do no wrong," talk?)

Maybe they should have released the film a few weeks sooner, maybe the R rating did keep out some of the target audience, maybe more people saw it but they had to sneak in and other films got the box office credit, maybe it wouldn't have mattered. Hell, there's probably scores of  anthropology, film theory, pop culture sociology, technology historian, or business and marketing students doing their theses on the whole SoaP phenomenon right now.

I want to see this film at the threater (Alot of summer movies I missed) but have been broke due to going back to college and going to concerts. Didn't understand the hate for it. It was made out to be a B-movie and advtised that way.Meanwhile we get adds for "Descent" say its better than Alien or "Step Up" saying its a voice a of new generation.

Scottie wrote:

"Great trash is what made Roger Corman a good producer and what made the theremin famous. So it marvels me to see the opposition Snakes On A Plane has received from this message board."

Scottie, YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT.  Most of Corman's stuff WAS great trash.  However, SNAKES ON A PLANE is just trash.  There is nothing great about it!

No, it was indeed great trash and is going to become a considerable cult movie in the years to come. Sorry to have to break it to you but its true.

I agree with Foywonder. I think the box office might not be as good as they would like, but this thing is going to sell a lot of DVD's.

I will be very leery of airplane toilets thanks to SoaP.

I really can't wait to see it -- 'haven't yet, due to suddenly endless theatre commitments (Thankyou Lord!!) -- I mean, even after reading the criticisms & all, I still think I'm going to find a soft spot for this scaly turkey -- I do hope I'm right . ..
peter j/denny c

Burgo wrote:

"SNAKES ON A PLANE is just trash. There is nothing great about it!"

>
>
>

I disagree for a number of reasons. First there's the hype to which the whole world had been listening and which is one of a kind in my opinion. The Star Wars prequels can't be classified as having the same kind of internet hype because of the pre-existing fan base surrounding Star Wars IV, V and VI. Snakes on a Plan garnered some of that fandom before anybody had even seen a still image or a clip. Second there's the fact that New Line Cinemas paid attention to the audience and altered portions of the movie based on what test audiences and message boards said. While it's well known that test audiences are used to find weak parts of a film and edits are made accordingly, this might be the first time a company has called a cast of actors back and rebuilt portions of a set to do more filming months after primary shooting had wrapped in order to get somebody (not just Sam Jackson) anybody to say anything along the lines of "I'm tired of these mother f'n snakes on this mother f'n plane." And finally, there's the undeniable truth that this film was well made! Beginning with the first shot of the movie, a tight helicopter shot that follows a guy on a dirt bike flying down the roads of a Hawaiian island, and continuing with a roller coaster ride of deaths that follows the slasher formula for coming up with unique and gory deaths. I mean, if this isn't a slasher film, I don't know what is. Horny teens/20 sumthin's get killed! And by being bit on the nipple and dick no less! Annoying dogs get killed! Annoying passengers get killed! Even passengers who weren't annoying were killed! Indiscriminate killing is awesome. There were well done crane shots, good CGI, and a good cast. This movie was actually good for being a trashy time wasting film where snakes ravage an air plane and I think that people need to stop bashing all over it just because a bunch of kids with too much time on their hands talked about it on the internet months before it was released. To be honest, I think the film stands up on its own without all the hype and for that reason, it is good trash.