Lento

The authentically tattered Denzel Washington turns in a great acting performance. Robert Zemeckis directs as if he himself is sobering up after a (CGI) bender. The timeless story of (in)voluntary dependence and the regaining of lost control is sometimes told in a unfocused way and very slowly so that we can grasp every idea conveyed to us and almost undramatically (for example, the suspense of the airborne introduction is weakened by the second storyline with Nicole). Whereas the first, more action-oriented half of the film, which promises a quick transformation of the protagonist, is still nicely rhythmised with alternating quiet scenes and scenes underscored with modern music, everything blends together in the second half and the hope for change diminishes. After being jolted by the plane crash, thanks to which he literally gets his feet back on the ground, Whip is determined to get his life in order. However, his determination is perceptibly weakened by the necessity of facing his own misconduct and waging a battle whose cause he considers to be nonsensical. Though Whip did a heroic deed, he is not a Hollywood-style movie hero. In a crime thriller, he would be both the culprit and the investigator, and Washington succeeds in brilliantly portraying this inner ambivalence even though he wasn’t given many big dramatic moments or the possibility to bring clarity to his character’s gradual transformation. He doesn’t undergo continuous development toward being better and, as such, he does not deserve sympathy. The director is interested in him without pathos, without empathy, as if he is merely an object to be observed; there is definitely nothing cool about his constant intoxication (so there are no subjective shots, no boozy sequences with rock music).  SPOILER – With views from the outside, when Whip becomes a witness to his own actions (through television news reports), Zemeckis lays the groundwork for the final revelation of who has (apparently) held the narrative perspective throughout the film. The film also comes across exactly like a sincere confession by a reformed sinner who despises his former self. – END SPOILER. Flight is an exemplary “crisis” film. Somewhat naïvely, but without exaggeration or the cheapest screenwriting tricks (those don’t come until the end), it warns against seeking solace in drugs and alcohol. Though the film has hints of a religious message, deliverance ultimately doesn’t come in the form of God (at whose fanatical following Flight glances askew), but simply and ordinarily in the form of family. Cynicism aside, even such films as this are necessary today. 70% (21.02.2013)

Zemeckis lives! After three techno-animation flicks, he’s finally back to live action with an ambitious drama with Denzel Washington in the main role. But it’s not really reason enough to uncork the bubbly. Flight is nothing more than a slightly above average film hurt by a too long run and going in circles (I drink. I won’t drink. I drink again. Now I won’t drink again, really), and the pointless subplot with Kelly Reilly, who gets into Denzel’s life out of nowhere, only to equally fast disappear. The plane crash scene is breathtaking, though, and one of the best of its kind I’ve ever seen, it’s a pity that it’s right at the beginning and the film has nothing else to climb with, on the contrary, it dives down from there; like a plane. (10.01.2013)

It was impossible not to know about this movie before its premiere. You see, I found the premise really appealing anytime I thought about it. I mean who wouldn’t like to see an airplane pilot save most of the passengers and crew with an absolutely incredible maneuver, all this while drunk and as high as a kite? The scene of the plane crash is so brutal that I could barely breathe in the first thirty minutes of the movie. Then the movie moves on to the investigation and at that point I sort of thought that the film would slow down somewhat. It did, but surprisingly, it didn’t get boring. For a movie that takes two hours and fifteen minutes, I must say ‘good job!’. On top of that, Denzel delivers a very good performance. I haven’t seen a person dissected so naturally in a movie for a long time. Absurdity mixes with reality, but the result and the final scene were definitely worth it. (21.02.2014)

The course of the flight: the first third full of kerosene fumes of audiovisual brilliance, humor as black as a box and the promises of "character" drama. Then the flaps get stuck and the descent begins: slow dialogues, underdeveloped characters, a faint "investigative" drama that is displaced by the image of a decomposing protagonist letting the viewer in - even though Denzel is first-class swollen and he is a loser, it's not something that will invest you in the story. Instead, we get into subtle turbulences of predictability. However, the unraveling is not in vain, it has an edge and a charge... which the film then sticks into the ground with a lemonade conclusion, which actually breaks the whole effort to remove the hero aspect and the moral ambiguity of the story. Every sermon needs at least one improved sinner, something Švejk already knew, but when someone starts screaming at the altar, it is not yet a sign of God's enlightenment. Rather first-class amateurs, in this case a showy sniff at the audience, who like exemplary "self-criticism". From my point of view, it blunts all the blades that Flight 93 manages to hold on to. Nevertheless, it’s a sympathetic film which, thanks to a few juicy moments for me (apart from the first forty minutes or so, for example, the character of John Goodman and Zemeckis' still elegant direction) stays in the safe flight level between three and four stars. (12.02.2013)

Denzel is cool! His nomination for the golden baldy is deserved. Although Flight claims that booze is bad, it basically says that cocaine is fine (if you have a tendency to overdo it with booze). I have one problem with this picture, I would have ended it after the first “no" before the commission. Then it wouldn’t have been such a propaganda stunt. Robert Zemeckis was missing in the classic movies genre, and his talent speaks for itself. His intimate scenes are sensational and he does visual masterpieces (plane falling) even better. Next time, a little shorter and pick a slightly better screenplay. Praise be to Jesus! (11.01.2013)

A slow, moderate and conservative film with as much humanism as possible and a proper moral lesson at the end. Robert Zemeckis is a skilled director and leads the actors excellently and Denzel Washington delivers an extraordinary performance. The crash scene is not as intense as I imagined, but overall the drama is okay. The hero behaves logically, I enjoyed the dialogue sequences, and we also have a solid twist. The character of Kelly Reilly seems a bit redundant and forced (just to have a romantic storyline), but that's a minor detail. Maybe not the second Forrest Gump, but I expected something much shallower. (31.03.2013)

The first half-hour of Flight is a perfect lesson on how an elite pilot should behave in a crisis situation – knock down a pint of vodka with juice, turn a plummeting plane upside down, and land it in a field full of religious people. Zemeckis handles this little excursion into the disaster genre so masterfully that even James Cameron should applaud him from the deck of the Titanic. The rest of the film, however, is a rather painful confession of a broken alcoholic, which is not as dynamic as the spectacular opening, but it maintains an admirable emotional level, mainly thanks to Washington's first-class performance and the very naturalistic direction. Sometimes it hurts to look the truth in the eye, but this is the kind of film worth enduring that pain for. 80% (02.09.2013)

I have to say that I approached this film like a blind person to a violin. I hadn't read anything about it, I was only interested in the cast, the fact that it was nominated in several categories at the Oscars, and of course, the presence of Denzel Washington in the lead role. But what caught my attention even more was the director's name - Robert Zemeckis. Lately, I associate him mainly with visually demanding films, where animation is highly emphasized. After all, his last three films ("The Polar Express", "Beowulf", and "A Christmas Carol") were all 3D animations. However, I somehow forgot that this director also has films like "Forrest Gump" or "Cast Away" under his belt, where visual effects were limited or went unnoticed. He had a talent for strong storytelling, and as it turned out, he still has it when he departs from motion capture. The movie "Flight" is about a plane flight, that's what I expected, but what I didn't expect is the fact that this is a film about addictions. Addiction to drugs, but mainly to alcohol. How thin the line is between heroism and complete rejection. It takes very little - one or two glasses at the wrong time, and then a large quantity of others. Zemeckis, which is his strong suit, managed to perfectly depict the problematic flight that the film tells about. You will feel dizzy, you will feel sick from what is happening. You will realize that you are truly in a great coffin that, when it crashes, you are usually screwed. I am decent. Truly a great phase of the film, which must be highlighted. The rest is held together mainly by Washington's great acting. This person truly grew into a great actor. If the film didn't unnecessarily focus on religious babble, it would be more tolerable for me. Likewise, if it paid more attention to the supporting characters, who are truly secondary in this case, but the overall result is good. "Lincoln" had Daniel Day-Lewis, who was perfect, but "Flight" has not only a great actor (Denzel, but this time he won't reach the statue), but also a story and execution that are worth seeing. It works much better as a whole. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2013/01/divosi-10-years-divoka-stvoreni-lets.html (05.03.2013)