Flight

I am an aircraft mechanic, so admittedly I have trouble watching a movie which will undoubtedly abuse reality in terms of physics and aircraft design. I recall seeing previews for this and being stunned at the laughable scenario of an inverted passenger plane. That experience dropped my expectation to essentially zero.

When I watched this film I was surprised in two ways. Firstly, the scenario was more plausible than I had given it credit. Inverted flight is a problem for most planes because of aerodynamics. And while some aircraft are aerodynamically capable of inverted flight (even some passenger planes) it is additionally a problem because hydraulic and engine oil systems are often gravity fed. This means that if a plane is able to fly this way, most of them won't fly for long before systems begin to fail. The film did a reasonable job of portraying this as the plane was just barely able to sustain level flight with a full pitch down elevator position and displayed low engine oil press warnings which led to engine fire. I suspect the roll maneuver would require more altitude than the film suggests...but otherwise it's not far from what could happen in reality if this was actually attempted. Most engine fire T-handles are designed to instantly shut fuel and bleed air valves for an engine...which doesn't seem to happen here, but that was my biggest realism gripe.

My second surprise is that this movie has very little to do with aviation. Aviation seems to be the setting for the story, but the subject itself is substance abuse. The story could have just as easily been set around a bus driver or a ship captain. Given the fact that aviation was merely a setting for the story I have to give credit to the film makers for paying at least some attention to realism.

I thought the story was fascinating. It's the sort of film that requires something of the viewer. You can't watch this without making moral judgements and that process requires each viewer to evaluate how they feel about certain subjects. The story creates just enough moral dilemma to get people thinking and any story that can succeed in that gets a pass from me.

Trailers might lead you to believe this is a film about flying. Or about an amazing flying feat. But it is all about the lead character, Captain "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a man who is a pilot and an alcoholic. The flying and a terrible crash provide background for the story of this man, who has struggled with his illness for years.

In many ways the story is not that original. We have seen numerous stories about alcoholics and heard real-life testimonies of the behaviors that accompany alcoholism, and this film tracks with all of them.

It is worth seeing for the brilliant portrayal of Captain Whitaker and the performances of the other actors in the film. Some parts are difficult to watch because the acting is so engaging.

I also think the film raises some interesting questions that some viewers may not be willing to acknowledge. If one is an alcoholic, is the entire worth of that man nothing more than what his sickness drags him down to? Are we what we do? Can we rise above our neuroses or our worst behaviors? Often we see public figures condemned in media for indiscretions or harmful acts; is that, then, the measure of the man or woman?

The film, even if judged solely for its dramatic content, is worth seeing.

All the way until the ending I was eating this up. "Flight" is a tense, character-driven drama about a heroic pilot who averts an epic disaster only to be caught in the crosshairs of a long, ugly investigation of his life. It presents a highly complex story, weaving themes of heroism vs. arrogance, good intentions vs. bad results, and bad intentions vs. good results. For 80% of the film, "Flight" is on par with the greatest character studies since "12 Angry Men". However, be prepared for a less than fitting ending, or at best an ending that was rushed so quickly that it leaves you wondering "did we miss an entire scene where the ghosts of Christmas past, present & future showed up?"

That's the only negative I have, although it's a big one. For the rest of my review I'll focus on the positives. The biggest positive is, of course, Denzel Washington as pilot "Whip Whittaker". He certainly doesn't disappoint. The role is a challenging one: a man whose personal life is a disaster even though his professional life is spotless. His professional arrogance leads him to deny the failure of his personal life, and this is the conflict that makes the film riveting.

Although this film is squarely about him, there were some peripheral characters who really added to the pot. British actress Kelly Reilley pulls of a convincing southern accent (though southern sticklers may spot it as more "Alabama" than "Georgia" haha) and more importantly gives us insight into the mind of a damaged person who is genuinely trying to better herself, unlike our hero who denies his faults. Another great character, though minimal, is John Goodman who shows up as a bizarre, surrealistic "fixer" and adds tremendous color and humor to the show. The attorney for Whip Whittaker is excellently played by Don Cheadle who balances slick legal professionalism with utter frustration at his client's self-sabotaging acts.

Even the action scenes were incredibly done, using a full sized commercial jet cut into sections and hoisted up on a weird contraption that made it flip around for the cameras. This is a first class production from start to finish.

It only falls shy of monumental because of its Zemeckisy ending, a trademark of many 80s directors like Spielberg and Ron Howard where everything has to be neatly tied up in a bundle with a moral ending, even if it seems out of left field considering the characters' personality. But that's just my opinion and the reason why I docked "Flight" a few points. You may find it perfect. Regardless I think everyone can agree that most of the film is phenomenal.

"Flight" hinges on one question, but before I get to the question we have to set the stage.

Captain William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a commercial pilot, spent a night of boozing, snorting, and sex with a flight attendant. The next morning he had a flight out of Florida to Atlanta with a manifest of 102 persons. The weather was extremely rough upon take off, but not enough to ground the flight. Whip deftly maneuvered through the storm then the flight was relatively smooth after that, so Whip slept. Somewhere over Georgia the plane experienced mechanical problems and went into a nose dive. With the utmost calmness Whip pulled yet one more set of maneuvers to land the plane with minimal loss of life. Six people did die, but it could've been so much worse.

Whip's lawyer, Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle), did some maneuvering of his own and had Whip's toxicology report suppressed. The NTSB, after an extensive investigation, found that Whip performed outstandingly. They attempted with simulators to have other experienced pilots land Flight 227 and they all failed. Whip was a hero. So then, here's the question:

Was Captain Whitaker's inebriated state a matter of importance with him flying that day?

Whip was an incorrigible drunk, but a functional one after a few lines of cocaine. His problem ruined his marriage, his relationship with his son, and was threatening his freedom. It was an unshakable factor throughout the movie and one that would cause you to shake your head in pity as well as embarrassment for him.

What makes "Flight" a good movie is the question I posed because how many people in society are functioning addicts or alcoholics? I just watched "Puncture" with Chris Evans who played an addict lawyer who was superb at his job as long as he was high. Such people exist.

Flight was a top tier production with awesome performances from the likes of Denzel (naturally), John Goodman, Don Cheadle, and Bruce Greenwood. The production and acting helped make the movie standout, but the plot itself and the central question it poses makes it what it is.

Robert Zemeckis' latest film Flight starring Academy Award Winner Denzel Washington is not only thoroughly entertaining and terrifically structured, it encompasses a soul that Hollywood hasn't really delivered in quite some time. The film, that closed the New York Film Festival, is simply one of the best films of the year.

Flight tells the story of Whip Whitaker, an airline pilot that saves a plane and nearly all its passengers from a certain death. When an investigation is carried out to look into the details of the crash, Whip's troubling lifestyle begins to surface. Writer John Latins creates a dynamic and an internal narrative confrontation for viewers to become immersed in a story full of mental struggle. It's a unique and very engaging story that stands as one of season's best efforts.

Denzel Washington, and not to be taken lightly, is fully in the zone and portrays one of his finest screen moments in years. I haven't been this impressed with his abilities as an actor since The Hurricane (1999). He lands solidly in Whip, giving us his natural aggression, charisma, and flaws. Allowing us to travel with Whip on this journey, Mr. Washington proves once and for all, he is one of the great treasures of American cinema. Denzel gives an access root into the character for all intended purposes, a clear understanding of the inner resistance that will not only plague Whip, but the movie audience as well.

The story doesn't seem like an obvious choice for Robert Zemeckis, who has excelled in genres that have provided masterpieces like Forrest Gump (1994) and Cast Away (2000). As the film provides a more dark and jagged approach in his directorial style, Zemeckis executes with precision. It's a satisfactory effort from the director who makes his return to live action after a long string of motion-capture efforts. Assisting Washington's bravura performance is Oscar-nominee Don Cheadle, who teamed up with Denzel in the 90's classic film, Devil in a Blue Dress (1995). As the wise-cracking lawyer, whose own moral values may be tested in exchange for corporate and criminal immunity, Cheadle is a relieved presence. In a comedic and near-brilliant performance, John Goodman steals Flight from every actor including Washington in his short, two-scene appearances. Goodman continues to show an effortless range, even in poor film choices, and a confidence that makes him one of the great character actors working today. It's a performance that Oscar should consider on multiple levels. In a heartbreaking turn, Kelly Reilly as the drug-addicted Nicole, provides an emotional epicenter and boundary that stands as one of Latins' great writing achievements. Reilly is simply marvelous.

Continuing to beef up their acting resume, the great Bruce Greenwood shines while Brian Geraghty continues to prove he is one of Hollywood's best kept secrets.

Composer Alan Silvestri orchestrates an outstanding score that is both melodic and soothing. Cinematographer Don Burgess, once-nominated for Forrest Gump, gives clean, fresh camera lenses look into a shockingly dirty and gritty story. Zemeckis' handle of the astounding opening scenes, especially the plane crash, is one of the best visual and nail- biting moments of the year. Its Zemeckis at his best!

Flight is not only one of the best cinematic efforts of the New York Film Festival; it stands as a great surprise and entry into the 2012 Oscar season. Denzel Washington is completely Oscar-bound but the buck shouldn't stop there; a deserved consideration campaign should be given to John Goodman and Kelly Reilly along with screenwriter John Latins. Flight is a home-run!

Read More Reviews at The Awards Circuit (http://www.awardscircuit.com)