Hijacked: Flight 285
While being escorted to prison from Phoenix to New York, crazed killer Peter Cronin (Anthony Michael Hall) hijacks a commercial jet in flight with the help of accomplices. Holding the 200 passengers and the crew members hostage, Cronin forces the plane to land in Dallas, then demands another, more powerful aircraft for the last leg of his escape. As FBI agent Frank Layton (Perry King) and detective Deni Patton (Ally Sheedy) attempt to negotiate with Cronin, time runs perilously short for the hostages, who know that the killer isn't bluffing when he threatens to kill one prisoner per hour unless his demands are met.
- Stars:Susan Batten, James Brolin, Michael Gross, Anthony Michael Hall, Perry King, Casey Sander, Ally Sheedy, Barbara Stock, Hudson Leick, James Lancaster, Earle Hyman, Montrose Hagins, David Graf, Kim Miyori, Kyla Pratt,
- Director:Charles Correll,
- Writer:David E. Peckinpah
A convicted murderer is escorted by marshals on a regular flight from Phoenix to Dallas. Shortly after take-off, two of his aides, traveling as ordinary passengers, take control of the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Hijacked: Flight 285 torrent reviews
(kr) wrote: Good story line with a few twists and some gore. would recommend a watch.
(it) wrote: The mission impossible part is right...... Eveyrone always knowing what is going on and what will happen . Oh too much..............
(it) wrote: This movie was great! I know everyone says these types of movies are "inspiring," and that always seems silly of me to say, but there's no other word to describe it. It was so inspiring and incredible to watch these young, blind kids go from being sad and having nothing to climbing a 23,000 foot mountain. I still can't believe they got so far. It is a very interesting story, thought it is very sad indeed to see how these kids were being treated by the other Tibetans. Its a great movie, and definitely one of the best documentaries I've seen in a while.
(kr) wrote: Beautiful story. Amazing characters. Perfect direction.
(au) wrote: Not a film for mainstream audiences at all - with the first sequence a close-up mosaic of male bodies grappling each other, the homoerotic (and thus, incestual) undertones are undeniable no matter how much the director urges against this interpretation. But it is also known that Sokurov, like his mentor Andrei Tarkovsky, comes from a line of arthouse filmmakers aiming to capture spirituality and humanity in the most avant-garde of ways, and it's this notion that separates "Father and Son" from drawing too much attention to its more obvious entitlements. Underneath it is the simple story of a father and a son who have lived together all their lives, the latter having already reaching the end of adolescence, and the psychological bond they realize must be severed as both inevitably face separation in the near future. A gorgeous, poetic film by a visionary who seems to stray further away from cinematic convention with every new work he creates.
(br) wrote: I have always been someone who likes watching something more than reading it. The movie O was not much different from Othello, but it was adapted into a more understandable scenario. The main thing that makes Shakespeare so hard to read, is his use of language. Watching a movie makes things a lot easier to understand, especially when it is set in the 2000s. I liked the seriousness in the text of Othello and it made the severity of the play more extreme. I think the movie O lacked that. Since the movie was set in such a relatable way, with high school students, the movie was easier for me to understand. On the other hand, I think the fact that it was written with such a modernistic approach, made it lose some of the drama of the written play. When Oden is playing in the basketball game and ?loses it?, I thought that it was harder to understand why he was acting the way he was in the movie. I also did not think that the relationship between Hugo and his dad mirrored the relationship between Iago and Barbantio in this movie. I think in the text, Iago seemed more jealous and more wanting of Barbantio?s affection, than in the relationship between Hugo and his dad in the movie. The coaches power was lacking and I felt he did not have as much authority in the movie, as his equivalent does in the play. Another thing to mention, is that the racial tension in the play is much more prominent than in the movie. Maybe they had to leave out a lot of the racial comments in the movie for obvious reasons, but I definitely thought that the racial tension was not as strong as it is in the play and it should be highlighted because this is a huge reason of why Othello acts the way he does. Oden, portraying Othello in the movie, is seen as way more popular than Othello is in the play. Oden is seen as the ?cool kid? and liked by all of his peers. Othello is seen as more of an outcast in the play, and is rarely seen as a ?cool? character. Overall, I do like watching movie interpretations, but it sometimes confuses me on which things are from the movie, and which things are from the original text. I am a visual learner, so I understand things better when I watch a movie or video about the topic, rather than just reading the text. I would say that ultimately I choose watching the movie interpretation, over reading the text, especially with Shakespeare. One must be careful though when choosing a movie to watch, because sometimes the movie?s interpretation can lead the reader astray from what is actually happening in the original text. I did not get too confused with the difference between O and Othello and I think that was largely due to the setting of the movie, versus the play. I would recommend reading the original text and watching the movie adaptation, because I did get a better understanding of what was being told in the text, but do not let yourself blend the two plots together, because they are usually not the exact same.
(nl) wrote: Extremely forgettable.
(gb) wrote: This was an interesting look into the relationship between Herzog and Kinski. I have been thinking often this month about Aguirre, The Wrath of God and Fitzcarraldo. I have an ever-growing appreciation for what Herzog accomplished in those films and for the explosive yet magnetic nature of director and actor.
(de) wrote: A better than average teen horror film that follows the expected terror road, but offers some fine moments of suspense. The sequels, however, were embarassingly bad.
(br) wrote: Saw this a long time ago and though I don't remember it being that exceptional, I wanted to see the Italian countryside again.
(ru) wrote: Patrick Swayze & Wesley Snipes in dresses. Who'd have thought?
(nl) wrote: Ford is good in every movie he plays. This one runs slow but it's very interesting and has a great point in the end.
(kr) wrote: An action packed thrill ride that;s every bit good today as it was in'83.
(gb) wrote: Saw this movie at the Roxy cinema oldham in 1980. Brilliant
(gb) wrote: Pretty good movie. As good or better than the original!
(au) wrote: Wong Howe's cinematography made the film visually more interesting given such a simple story. John Garfield and Shelley Winters characters were complex and I wish the story could have stretched longer to explore deeper with what could have happened if Nick and Peg really escaped.
(jp) wrote: This could have been a decent movie if they did not go for the cheapest, most cliche action dialogue possibleAlso there are numerous confusing moments such as :Blade throws UV lamp grenade in sewer water Vampires break van sunroof and disappearsInconsistent infection time of supporting charactersConfusing villain motivationImmensely obvious jumpscares
(us) wrote: you don't really watch 'our family wedding' as much as you stare at it with shark eyes waiting for something funny to happen. it never does.
(kr) wrote: A movie that in reality shouldn't work, but somehow really does. It's filled with so much pop-culture references that it becomes so incredibly dated, yet somehow it keeps on getting better and better with time. It's entirely dialog based with alot of it not being relevant at all to the plot, yet it feels entirely focused. All of the scenes feel more like the things that happen in between a whole different movie and less like a regular R rated thriller, yet it never feels boring. Pulp Fiction: one of the most endearing, hilarious, chocking and intelligent movies ever made, somehow became perfect because of it's flaws. The kind of story, dialog, characters and presentation that will only ever work this once! 5/5