Plane (2023) has been out for 42 days and still has an IMDB rating of 6.5 how is this possible?

Submitted by hambluegar_sammwich t3_11bag9r in movies

For context I’m aware voting is manipulated on sites like IMDB, and movies, especially low-budget movies on the verge of straight-to-streaming that are rated in the 6s and 7s during their theatrical release often fall into the 3s and 4s when all is said and done. I would also like to clarify that I am a lifelong fan of low budget cinema, from Troma films all the way to one of the greatest IRL movie theater experiences of my life: Snakes on a Plane.

That’s why, on that fateful day over a month ago, I gladly shelled out matinee money to campy action juggernaut Gerard Butler in a movie simply titled the word for the thing he drives, titled in black and white helvetica like it’s a bougie art film. All signs pointed to campy low budget fun. Holy Sam Jackson was I wrong. There would be no opening sex scene with snakes biting all the naughty parts, no deadpan lines about muthafucken’ snakes, just a very low-budget series of boring, humorless cliches. Shaky cam to cover the lack of fight choreography, endless plot holes including the opening fight sequence even happened. Terrorist sees a defenseless Butler. Does he shoot him at a distance? Nope. Time for a lazy, barely choreographed fight. Escaped prisoner is armed and dangerous. Nah he’s immediately Gerard’s buddy. Oh, and the early 2000s sci-fi channel CG.

To conclude I’d like to rewind a second that polar opposite theater experience involving a movie about a plane. I’ve seen some pretty wild opening nights, but nothing will ever compare to Snakes on a Plane opening night. The crowd was buzzing loudly through the previews. Every trailer was boo’d for not having snakes, and when the movie came on it paid off in a way I’ve never seen a movie amp up a crowd. Boobs and weiners were getting bitten everywhere. Every minute had an incredible Sam Jack line. WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE the extreme polar opposite vibe at this premier. You couldn’t just hear pins drop, you could hear subatomic particles bumping into each other. I’m pretty sure the only thing that kept people occupied for the first five minutes that is LITERALLY JUST A BORING DEPICTION OF A PLANE DEPARTING aside from one Checkov’s prisoner, was one older couple that kept loudly switching seats.

So yeah, I love me some corny Gerard Butler action, I love low budget films, but I am going to be checking every single day on IMDB until this gets AT LEAST into the 4s. May god have mercy on the soul of any poor creature that sees this abomination.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DemecoMakesMeFreako t1_j9wupmc wrote

I enjoyed plane. It’s a typical dumb action movie that he always does. Good to have in in the background. Some funny over the top shit that wouldn’t ever Happen. It reminded me of a 90s action flick in a way. Solid 6/10

11

gautsvo t1_j9wupnx wrote

Why would it go that low? People seem to enjoy it, mostly. It did okay at the box-office (over 30 million in the US), and even reviews from critics were positive (it has a green Metascore). It has a 3/5 average on Letterboxd from over 30k ratings.

6

hambluegar_sammwich OP t1_j9xaagm wrote

Yeah, that’s why I made the post. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I grew up on the lowest budget movies out there and have loved lots of them. What was lacking in special effects, cinematography, writing, et al can sometimes be made up for with quirky fun stuff like a deformed hero with a mop for a weapon.

I just got zero fun out of this movie at all. Even the old straight to video/sci-fi channel movies had some campy jokes. This was just a straight forward disaster/terrorist action flick with zero inspiration and a $10 budget. People were rushing out of the screening in total silence. Idk just a weird experience seeing it have an audience.

−3

jamesneysmith t1_j9yaotb wrote

The issue seems to be you were expecting a campy movie when it's actually a sincere movie. This is not even in the same category as Snakes on a Plane. You're grading it's 'fun' level on a campy scale. Whereas I think most people are enjoying it sincerely. It's just a fun movie that's more akin to straight to DVD action films than campy shlock produced by Troma.

2

hambluegar_sammwich OP t1_j9yxxv7 wrote

I didn’t know anything about the movie aside from it being attached to a big star and that it had a theatrical release, so I was assuming it would be a mid-budget action movie kind of like John Wick. Within 30 seconds I realized it was either extremely low budget or very poorly made, at which point I was at least hoping for some camp.

Anyway I didn’t make the post to be a jerk, and I know lots of talented people worked hard on this movie, but I am genuinely shocked by the response this movie is getting. What I saw was a $25million movie that I swear to all things holy looked like it was done for $10k. I’ve seen found footage movies that looked better.

1

jamesneysmith t1_ja0ppei wrote

I honestly don't understand your critiques of how it looked. I thought it looked fine for it's budget. The only bits that looked a little wonky were the nighttime shots of the exterior of the plane flying and crashing. It looked like a budgetary constraint thing and directorial choice thing to make it look more stylized than realistic. But even then those shots were short and they were fine for the budget.

And going forward I feel like a better comparison for Butler movies are the Liam Neeson movies he did for a decade. They're dad movies, usually low budget with the appropriate action and cgi to reflect that, are surprisingly sincere, fun in a good guy saving the day way as opposed to shlocky or 'cool' way, and are just an easy watch with broad appeal. He's not making John Wick movies nor do I think he wants to. He's right in his preferred pocket of the 90's B-tier action movie. And personally I love that he's making these movies that kind of died in the 90's.

2

hambluegar_sammwich OP t1_ja64292 wrote

Normally I would point out things like framing the shot or design, but I swear this movie looked and sounded worse than any movie I’ve seen from the past 30 years by a wide margin.

1

Lolalolita1234 t1_ja0w6cc wrote

I wouldn't say it's akin to straight to DVD.

1

jamesneysmith t1_ja14pox wrote

"More akin than ..."

1

Lolalolita1234 t1_ja165a0 wrote

Even with the qualifier

1

Lolalolita1234 t1_ja0w3ic wrote

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a great movie or that many other people loved it.

1

starsInThineEyes t1_j9wwmed wrote

I liked how (at the end) they all jumped on the plane to fly a stone's throw away to land on the "safe island". That was hilarious.

3

AngryCod t1_j9wxyxm wrote

You mean how they took off in a crashed airliner from a dirt road while under gunfire that somehow never hit the plane in any meaningful way?

3

jamesneysmith t1_j9yascd wrote

I mean you hear the bullets hitting the plane when they cut inside.

2

AngryCod t1_j9ynhmt wrote

Right? I mean, it's not like airliners are armored. They're made of aluminum. A couple of stray shots should have been enough to disable it, let alone the combination of sustained automatic weapons fire and the previous crash landing it suffered.

1

fart-debris t1_j9xpfo3 wrote

Because different people have different opinions.

2

jamesneysmith t1_j9yabfw wrote

I thought it was a good movie and deserves the 6.5 rating. Butler holds the movie together well, Coulter made for a fun buddy, I disagree that the action was bad. Overall the movie is pretty good and hence got a pretty good rating from most people. So the answer to your question is, your opinion is subjective and happens to disagree with the majority opinion. That's fine. Just move on and don't become one of those people that's posting hateful threads about the sequel Ship when it comes out in a couple years. Because it's probably going to be more of the same. So save yourself the headache and just move on.

2

darkness_escape t1_j9yp4kj wrote

It's a good action movie. A lot of people liked it. It's even certified fresh on RT and getting a sequel. It' just boils down to that you didn't like it. Not that other people are wrong

1

Metroskunk t1_j9wx1j9 wrote

I was surprised at 6.5 rating, too. That movie was a 5 at best on IMDb rankings. What was silly was Butler plays a veteran international pilot familiar with that route. In reality, experienced commercial pilots would have been aware of known hostile regions along their route and after being forced to land would have immediately considered they may be in some deep shit. That's not the case in this movie.

0

mikeyfreshh t1_j9wvvkk wrote

It's the type of action movie that no one would actively seek out unless they're just a fan of the genre. Most of the shitty Liam Neeson movies have decent ratings for the same reason. Everyone that would dislike the movie knows that they're going to dislike it so they don't bother seeking it out.

−1