Story by John W. Richardson & Chris Roach
Screenplay Written by John W. Richardson & Chris Roach and Ryan Engle
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra
* 1/2 (one and a half stars)
Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. "Non-Stop," our annual Liam Neeson action film is one of the year's worst films and while I certainly was not expecting to see any sense of greatness, I was indeed surprised to witness just how lazy, stupid and downright mercenary the thing actually was.
Look, I kinda have to give it to Liam Neeson for somehow stumbling upon a personal niche, essentially an entire film genre that is entirely built around himself. Who knew that when that nasty action film "Taken" (2008) was released that it would not only become a gargantuan box office smash hit but one that somehow touched a societal nerve made increasingly jittery by post 9/11 fear politics?
In a way, an actor of Neeson's specialized brand of gravitas actually made that film more than worth watching but ever since, he has found himself in one film after another that essentially exploits the same theme: Liam Neeson finds himself trapped in a series of precarious and escalating circumstances and is pushed to the breaking point where he is then forced to fight his way out....and Lord have mercy for anyone who stands in his way. More power to him for taking a role so unlikely and milking it for all that it is worth, from films like "Unknown" (2011), "The Grey" (2012), "Taken 2" (2012), next year's inevitable "Taken 3" as well as a bunch of films from "The A Team" (2010) to "Battleship" (2012) that he certainly must be ashamed of. I hate to be so harsh, especially for a wonderful actor that I have loved for so long, but who also knew that after the release of "Taken," Liam Neeson would essentially stop being an actor? If you disagree with that assessment, then look no further than "Non-Stop."
Let's not use any more time than necessary shall we? Liam Neeson stars as alcoholic U.S. Federal Air Marshall Bill Marks, previously discharged from the police force, who embarks upon a non-stop transatlantic flight from New York to London to find himself trapped within an aerial mystery. While en route, Marks suddenly begins receiving a series of text messages demanding that he wire 150 million dollars to an account or else one passenger will die every 20 minutes. As Marks races against time to try and find the terrorist and suspicions move from passenger to passenger, bodies begin to pile upwards, making him appear to be the terrorist himself.
Now, for a halfway decent pulpy thriller concept with an Agatha Christie styled plotline, one would think that "Non-Stop" would make for a tight little adventure or at the very least, a fun diversion. Yet, if you are going to title the film "Non-Stop," certainly describing the flight as depicted in the film but also utilized as a double meaning to suggest the non-stop action and intensity of the story, then why was this film so pokey? Honestly, watching Liam Neeson type and read a series of text messages does not suggest anything speedy, let alone intense no matter how well Neeson glowers at the screen.
But furthermore, in order for a film like this to work, the plot needs to be air-tight and with "Non-Stop," there are more than enough lapses in logic and plot holes large enough to fly a plane through. For instance, and truly on a most basic level, I just found it odd (as well as quite unintentionally funny) that for a flight with supposedly over 150 passengers that only two flight attendants (played by a completely underutilized Lupito Nyong'o and Michelle Dockery from "Downton Abbey") seemed to be employed. Budget cuts, I guess.
But, hey, I am not an air traveler so perhaps, I will let that one slide. But onto the film's main plot, I just have to say that "Non-Stop" is the type of film where there is absolutely, positively no conceivable way for Liam Neeson's character to trust anyone on the plane, let alone the lovely Julianne Moore (clearly just cashing a paycheck) who begins as Neeson's seatmate and then ascends to become his closest companion to unravel the terrorist plot. In fact, when Moore's character actually is looked at sideways by Neeson's character as being a potential suspect, she just ends up embarking upon a rapid fire, wholly ridiculous and completely unconvincing explanation as to why she enjoys being seated by the window...which then somehow convinces Neeson's character of her innocence...and then he offers her a nice stiff drink. Say what????
"Non-Stop" is also one of those types of movies that features not one but three screenwriters, and yet, all they seemed to come up with in their meeting of their so-called creative minds was nothing more than the most perfunctory dialogue, characters that are less then cardboard cut-outs but that would be an insult to cardboard cut-outs, events and actions that occur simply because the script dictates that they must happen or else th emovie would simply end, and finally, a mountain of cliches that went out of fashion after the team of Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker eviscerated them all in "Airplane!" (1980).
And yet, for a film this generic and under-thought, "Non-Stop" somehow found ways to include more than its share of purely bad taste. First of all the film's director is Jaume Collet-Serra, who also helmed Neeson's "Unknown," as well as the disturbingly effective but truly tasteless demon seed thriller "Orphan" (2009), a film that almost seemed to take sheer delight in placing that film's children in all manner of cruel, grisly jeopardy, nearly always a cheap cinematic trick. Well, Collet-Serra is at it again in "Non-Stop" with the cliched inclusion of a tender little moppet, nervously boarding her very first flight and who, of course, reminds Liam Neeson's character of his own daughter who passed away from cancer. While this child is all but forgotten during the majority of "Non-Stop," she's front and center of the film's wild climax which finds the poor child almost entirely sucked through a hole in the rapidly descending plane. Yup...that's entertainment!
Even worse is when the identity of the terrorist is revealed and the reasons for this whole mid-air escapade are brought to light. Without delving into any spoilers, let's just say for a film this dopey, I just found it to be more than disingenuous and downright disrespectful to invoke nothing less than...September 11th. Yes, dear readers, the filmmakers actually went there, and unapologetically so. Look, this isn't a documentary by any means. Hell, this isn't even "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012)! "Non-Stop" is nothing more than a B movie with A list actors and production values and I'm sorry, that does not give you the right or reason to suddenly proclaim yourself as being something more serious in the final moments. Yes, "Non-Stop" is essentially an exploitation movie, but did it really have to become an exploitation movie in order to just try and be entertaining?!
I am not against Liam Neeson having fun while making movies and I am certainly not begrudging him for making action movies. But, just like the current status in the respective careers of Robert De Niro and good Lord, Bruce Willis, there is something to be said about quality control. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason for someone of Liam Neeson's caliber to openly make cinematic crap, no matter how highly he is obviously being paid. And frankly, for every moment in "Non-Stop" where his character retires to an airplane bathroom to have an illicit drag on a cigarette, the weariness on Neeson's face doesn't seem to reflect the inner "turmoil" of his heroic figure but more likely the internal anguish he is consumed by (plus the anger at his agent) for taking even one more role in yet another stupid movie like this one.
Even though "Non-Stop" was yet another box office hit early this year, there is no need to give it anymore attention. In fact, as yu are scrolling through titles, either in your local video store or through your streaming services, I highly recommend that you head non-stop past this title onwards to something much, MUCH better.
No comments:
Post a Comment