The original post for my review of The Flight of the Phoenix
can be read on Vulturehound HERE. The following post is where I will be
comparing the two films rather than reviewing them.
I saw the remake of The Flight of the Phoenix some years ago
after I bought it in Woolworths. That should put a date on things. I bought it
for a few quid along with Zoolander. I bought it because Giovanni Gibisi was in
it and that’s all I can remember.
I was bored during the film as I was getting fed up with the
characters and the dynamics. To me it was hopeless cause where a group of
people were trying to survive a terrible situation but they don’t give up and
in the end succeed. There is a scene that sums up the remake, where the
remaining crew and passengers are eating BBQ listening to music (as I recall)
in the middle of the day in the desert. There are no moments like this in the
original. Things are far more desperate, everyone glistening in sweat and
always on edge. The characters in the 2004 version are at ease which makes the
film less understandable or enjoyable.
The two films follow a similar story, based on the book of
the same name by Elleston Trevor. A group of people travelling across a desert
by plane crash land, miles off course. They eventually agree to rebuild the
plane to a design but the outsider of the group in order to get to
civilisation. There are deaths along the way and plenty of angry arguments but
eventually the phoenix does fly.
The central confrontation between James Stewart’s Frank
Towns is with Heinrich Dorfmann, the so called aeronautical engineer, but in
the remake Dennis Quaid’s Towns is with a character similar to himself, Miranda
Otto’s oil rig worker/leader AND Giovanni Ribisi’s Elliot who stands in as the
plane designer. These dynamics between characters are different, maybe due to
the times the films are set. In 1965, the plane is made up of passengers from
an oil rig in Libya and jumps straight into the terrifying crash. In 2004 there
are a few scenes before setting up the situation the characters are in. The oil
rig is being shut down and everyone is being transported out. This rig is in
the Gobi Desert in Mongolia. A change of location and a shuffle of characters
makes the obvious differences.
Events play out differently in the remake, not for the
change in time but for the dramatic effect. For example in 1965 version, when
(characters names) decide to confront the raiders for help, they disappear. The
rest of the group later discover their bodies, throats slit. But in 2004
version, the raiders attack, killing a member of the crew. The former was far
more dramatic and sinister, the later plays on ‘shock and surprise’ even though
you could see it was going to happen.
Ultimately I think that 1965 wins over 2004, despite the
fact that I don’t think I enjoyed either. The 1965 film had the grit and
desperation that the remake glossed over and felt like it was an echo of what
we seen before. I was certain that the original would be better when I saw the
remake. Both films failed at the box office and it’s not hard to see why, for
different reasons. The 1965 version became a cult hit whereas most have
forgotten there was remake, just adding to the fact there is a clear winner.