« Recruiting Victims | Main | Segregating For Sexism »
August 20, 2006
The Case Against Snakes on a Plane
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
I certainly don't agree, but I've met many who would find that Chuck Klosterman's piece in Esquire echoed their own thoughts.
For my $9.50, it was quality low-brow entertainment, fulfilled expectations but did nothing more, and will almost certainly set the record for largest drop in absolute box office gross between the first and second weekends.
August 20, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Um. I don't feel strongly one way or another about Snakes on a Plane (I think the ideal way to see it would have been with a posse of my drunk geek friends on opening night, and that ship has sailed), but why the hell should I read any further in Klosterman's article than the line "I have not seen Snakes on a Plane, so I have no idea how good this movie is (or isn't)"?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Aug 20, 2006 9:10:20 PM
Because only 20% of the value of Snakes on a Plane is tied up in its qualities as a movie, and 80% is tied up in its status as a cultural icon independent of the quality of the movie.
The article is strictly about the cultural icon, not about the film itself. Because really, what's the point in reviewing the plot, character development, or cinematography of a film called Snakes on a Plane.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Aug 20, 2006 9:20:39 PM
(i think the ideal way to see it would have been with a posse of my drunk, geek friends on opening night, and that ship has sailed)...
.....hamilton lovecraft...the line you wrote there is perfect. no review could be better.
...........two fine writers named lovecraft!...
have you read the macabre, poetic science fiction of lovecraft?)
Posted by: jacqueline | Aug 20, 2006 9:26:36 PM
previous to seeing the movie i'd probably have agreed with klosterman.
having seen it i feel differently. frankly, i had a good time. i went in anticipating an overdose of irony (i'm already approaching dangerous levels as a college student. college students appreciate 70% of their entertainment ironically, its maddening), but I just really enjoyed the movie. it was fun, exciting, and hilarious, but the funny parts weren't just unintentional comedy. there were funny one liners, and a nice (but generally not overdone) self awareness of the absurdity of its existence. its not THAT new of a concept. tons of b movies are somewhat aware of the fact that they're ridiculous, snakes on a plane just too it to the next level.
it was a fun night, particularly with the huge excited audience.
Posted by: b. schac | Aug 20, 2006 9:32:51 PM
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking pundits in the motherfucking Esquire.
Posted by: Jacob | Aug 20, 2006 10:02:24 PM
The marketing campaign and their response to all of the internet fame has been brilliant. The movie has never claimed to be anything more than a couple of hours of escapist fun on a hot summer day.
While I understand that some movies can be powerful statements about our society, or can inspire heartbreak and rapturous joy, who is it that declared all movies must attempt this? The vast majority of critics, even if they are experts at plot, character, lighting, pacing, dialogue, production values, casting, marketing and editing, show their incompetence at their job by the fact that they apply the same tired criteria to every single movie they review.
I just can't understand the mentality that revels in enjoyment of only those things that fail to appeal to groups of people larger than 100.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 21, 2006 12:21:03 AM
This article reaches the height of its wrongheadedness when Klosterman writes "irony in reverse", by which I can only suppose he means "sincerity".
Snakes on a Plane is a winning idea based on its sincere devotion toward escapist fare. The title acts as a signaling device. At a moment's glance we know this movie intends fun. Have fun with it.
Posted by: talboito | Aug 21, 2006 12:32:27 AM
"For my $9.50, it was quality low-brow entertainment, fulfilled expectations but did nothing more"
How is this a case against the film? That's all it ever claimed to be, and all anyone ever wanted it to be. I mean, right after I heard about it, I harboured a small hope that it might be the worst film of all time, but I was soon disabused of that notion after learning more about it - it takes a really awful film to beat Battlefield Earth. The simple fact is that there aren't enough decent (as in unashamed, funny ) B-movies around that aren't derivative slasher flicks. Slither, for instance, was great more because it was so rare in the current environment than for its own qualities. Everybody loves a Critters or a Tremors, but you just don't get them that often any more. You either get B-movies with a budget and pretensions, like say The Day After Tomorrow, or you get overblown action movies that fail to deliver on anything but explosions (Charlie's Angels, for instance). Hollywood could learn a lot from Hong Kong in this respect.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Aug 21, 2006 11:38:44 AM
Because only 20% of the value of Snakes on a Plane is tied up in its qualities as a movie, and 80% is tied up in its status as a cultural icon independent of the quality of the movie.
But that 80% value proposition is entirely dependent on getting in on the joke -- if you haven't made a "Snakes on a Plane" reference in the last six months, if you haven't sent a Samuel-Jackson-o-gram to your buddy, if you haven't photoshopped up a lousy fake poster for the film, if you haven't put a rubber snake on a toy plane on your desk at work, then you have no more authority to comment on the 80% than you do to comment on the 20% if you haven't seen the movie.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Aug 21, 2006 11:42:55 AM
jacqueline: "Hamilton Lovecraft" is a pseudonym, selected for Alexander Hamilton and H. P. Lovecraft.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Aug 21, 2006 11:44:36 AM
What is this Snakes On A Plane thing?
Posted by: christian | Aug 21, 2006 1:32:09 PM
For my $9.50, it was quality low-brow entertainment, fulfilled expectations but did nothing more, and will almost certainly set the record for largest drop in absolute box office gross between the first and second weekends.
And I bet it has a most satisfactory ROI too. The producers will be sobbing all the way to the bank.
Now, watch some bozo try to pass Snakes On A Plane II off as a good idea...
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Aug 21, 2006 9:18:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
