The Critic's Corner

March 17-23, 2014

Non-Stop is ‘okay’ fun

By David Laprad

Sometimes, if you’re in the right mood, a movie that’s only halfway decent will hit the spot, like a fast food burger. Last week, “Non-Stop” hit the spot for me.

“Non-Stop” pairs actor Liam Neeson with “Unknown” director Jaume Collet-Serra. Like that movie, it places the aging but strong and agile Neeson in a situation that requires both his brains and his brawn. This time out, he’s a federal air marshal with a sketchy personal life on a transatlantic flight that takes a turn toward the deadly.

Three things define the film: Neeson’s performance; Collet-Serra’s direction; and the quality of the script.

I’ll write about Neeson first because, let’s face it, he’s the main draw. He essentially delivers a carbon copy of the performances he delivered in “Unknown” and the two “Taken” movies: grizzled, slightly tortured, but capable of delivering what’s needed in each scene emotionally and physically. Sure, the clever editing and bone-cracking “thwacks” on the soundtrack help to sell the fights, but Neeson puts everything he has into these scenes, and I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of his rage.

Like the other movies I’ve mentioned, “Non-Stop” doesn’t require greatness from Neeson, so he doesn’t deliver it. (To see what he can do as an actor, rent “The Grey.” He earned enough good will in that movie for at least one more “Taken” sequel.) But at the end of the day, he’s a big part of why “Non-Stop is as enjoyable as it is.

Now to move on to Collet-Serra. I’m not sure about this guy. He shoots too close to his actors for my taste, and not just in the scenes on the airplane, which more or less required close-quarters shooting, but also in the preceding scenes in the airport. I like having room to breathe. Collet-Serra also builds his action scenes out of quick, shaky shots rather than choreographed punches and kicks. He’s not the only director doing that, though, and I guess I should go easy on him since fights on an airplane would tend to be more constricting and involve less movement.

What Collet-Serra does well in “Non-Stop” is build suspense and then let loose at the end with some crazy action. Much of the movie involves Neeson’s character connecting things he and the film’s viewers saw, but didn’t realize were important. Collet-Serra also does a good job of suggesting a variety of suspects simply with the way he shoots the passengers on the plane. So, even though he had a small canvas to work with in “Non-Stop,” he keeps the movie moving and visually interesting.

Finally, the script. While the five (5!) writers who had a hand in the script provided Collet-Serra with a decent foundation for developing suspense and mystery, it’s clunky in places, and requires viewers to accept things that simply wouldn’t happen on a real airplane. Also, Neeson is given a lot of exposition to deliver, some of it in big, awkward chunks, and it kills the momentum of the movie. Don’t tell me what I need to know; show me. Also, when was the last time people were allowed to text and upload videos to YouTube while a plane was in the air? What’s more, the motivation of the villain in the movie is weak, the first passenger death stretches the boundaries of believability, and the ability of the villain to manipulate events he can’t control breaks it.

But ... I liked “Non-Stop.” The concept - that one passenger will die every 20 minutes until $150,000,000 is deposited in a bank account – is intriguing, and Neeson and Collet-Serra do what’s required of them to keep viewers engaged. I’d normally rate the film two-and-a-half stars out of four, but since it came out in an abysmal February, I’ll grade it on a curve and give it three stars.

Rated PG-13 for intense action and violence, language, sensuality, and drug references.