An action movie about a hijack, with Byrd foreboding something of Willis' outline, but in a dissimilar role, and Jolley making a sharp mastermind, though the hijackers' plans are relatively easily foiled; it's also very unlike later disaster movies, and as such it's not really more than a heralding of certain elements of a much later genre, here the plot is a bit meager, and most of the story-line is a romance, with a virtuous purser and a reluctant swindler girl. What this movie has is some sympathy for its characters, a feel for them, which is nicely mirrored and boosted by a delightful cast: Byrd, Mulhall, Julie Duncan (who deservedly got the leading lady), Jolley, Harlan, Edwards, Hagney, H. Depp. Blanca Vischer and Vallin have bit parts. For the two 3rd s of romance, the leading man was perhaps less glamorous than required, but then again the movie's style has a predilection for ordinary people, and this everyday look of the lead may serve it; I like him, but am fonder of other nowadays unjustly underrated action players of the '30s.
Young (the purser, the two girls, the racketeer) and older (the newspaperman, the dignified captain) players, and good character actors.
The few passengers are cordially nettled for their blunders.
The liveliest character is Ann, who tries to disarm a brute and is assaulted by him. And the actress' performance has a refreshing quality.
An otherwise knowledgeable reviewer contributed a goofy review; the player who takes down his coat and shirt, and 'strips down to his undershirt', is Byrd, not Mulhall. The newspaperman is played by Mulhall, not by Byrd. The cheerful Edwards is Thornton, not Thomas. And the henchman ought to be a match for Byrd, not for the mild Mulhall.
The undisclosed secret might be that this movie was aimed at an audience of women. The only convincing menace is the rape. The heist takes place on a plane that is hijacked and then set afloat, so there's no disaster impending, and no fright of the passengers because of an insecure flight; it might of been in a stagecoach or on a train, or in a railway station. Yet, there is an use of the sets, of the space, which gives this caper a modern look, more akin to '80s and '90s hostages dramas, than to '70s disaster thrillers ; the floating plane is filmed more like a building would be, with rooms, empty corridors . But the gangsters, and with them the movie's director, seem to handle the heist clumsily, a bit loosely, a bit carelessly, like it had been an afterthought; instead of being the core, it's telegraphed, sketched, in what is mainly a romance (and I understand why this could be a woman's idea of a disaster movie, as the thing seems directed to a female audience). To viewers accustomed to 75 more yrs of heist movies, capers and hostages dramas, the heist plot seems somewhat silly. Is this all, the lead strips a bit and then swims near the floating plane? The thrust obviously was the romance, and not this reel of action. And the shocking brutality, if it may be called so, belonged to the rape attempt, not to the manly fights. The long setup isn't only a setup, but a romance.
I expected to like this movie much more than I actually did (but the more I think about this movie as a romance, the more I like it). But if you don't misinterpret it as an action movie, as the misleading title prompts you to, there is a romance, quite charming and subdued beneath the screwball.
Young (the purser, the two girls, the racketeer) and older (the newspaperman, the dignified captain) players, and good character actors.
The few passengers are cordially nettled for their blunders.
The liveliest character is Ann, who tries to disarm a brute and is assaulted by him. And the actress' performance has a refreshing quality.
An otherwise knowledgeable reviewer contributed a goofy review; the player who takes down his coat and shirt, and 'strips down to his undershirt', is Byrd, not Mulhall. The newspaperman is played by Mulhall, not by Byrd. The cheerful Edwards is Thornton, not Thomas. And the henchman ought to be a match for Byrd, not for the mild Mulhall.
The undisclosed secret might be that this movie was aimed at an audience of women. The only convincing menace is the rape. The heist takes place on a plane that is hijacked and then set afloat, so there's no disaster impending, and no fright of the passengers because of an insecure flight; it might of been in a stagecoach or on a train, or in a railway station. Yet, there is an use of the sets, of the space, which gives this caper a modern look, more akin to '80s and '90s hostages dramas, than to '70s disaster thrillers ; the floating plane is filmed more like a building would be, with rooms, empty corridors . But the gangsters, and with them the movie's director, seem to handle the heist clumsily, a bit loosely, a bit carelessly, like it had been an afterthought; instead of being the core, it's telegraphed, sketched, in what is mainly a romance (and I understand why this could be a woman's idea of a disaster movie, as the thing seems directed to a female audience). To viewers accustomed to 75 more yrs of heist movies, capers and hostages dramas, the heist plot seems somewhat silly. Is this all, the lead strips a bit and then swims near the floating plane? The thrust obviously was the romance, and not this reel of action. And the shocking brutality, if it may be called so, belonged to the rape attempt, not to the manly fights. The long setup isn't only a setup, but a romance.
I expected to like this movie much more than I actually did (but the more I think about this movie as a romance, the more I like it). But if you don't misinterpret it as an action movie, as the misleading title prompts you to, there is a romance, quite charming and subdued beneath the screwball.