"Flight" hinges on one question, but before I get to the question we have to set the stage.
Captain William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a commercial pilot, spent a night of boozing, snorting, and sex with a flight attendant. The next morning he had a flight out of Florida to Atlanta with a manifest of 102 persons. The weather was extremely rough upon take off, but not enough to ground the flight. Whip deftly maneuvered through the storm then the flight was relatively smooth after that, so Whip slept. Somewhere over Georgia the plane experienced mechanical problems and went into a nose dive. With the utmost calmness Whip pulled yet one more set of maneuvers to land the plane with minimal loss of life. Six people did die, but it could've been so much worse.
Whip's lawyer, Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle), did some maneuvering of his own and had Whip's toxicology report suppressed. The NTSB, after an extensive investigation, found that Whip performed outstandingly. They attempted with simulators to have other experienced pilots land Flight 227 and they all failed. Whip was a hero. So then, here's the question:
Was Captain Whitaker's inebriated state a matter of importance with him flying that day?
Whip was an incorrigible drunk, but a functional one after a few lines of cocaine. His problem ruined his marriage, his relationship with his son, and was threatening his freedom. It was an unshakable factor throughout the movie and one that would cause you to shake your head in pity as well as embarrassment for him.
What makes "Flight" a good movie is the question I posed because how many people in society are functioning addicts or alcoholics? I just watched "Puncture" with Chris Evans who played an addict lawyer who was superb at his job as long as he was high. Such people exist.
Flight was a top tier production with awesome performances from the likes of Denzel (naturally), John Goodman, Don Cheadle, and Bruce Greenwood. The production and acting helped make the movie standout, but the plot itself and the central question it poses makes it what it is.
Captain William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a commercial pilot, spent a night of boozing, snorting, and sex with a flight attendant. The next morning he had a flight out of Florida to Atlanta with a manifest of 102 persons. The weather was extremely rough upon take off, but not enough to ground the flight. Whip deftly maneuvered through the storm then the flight was relatively smooth after that, so Whip slept. Somewhere over Georgia the plane experienced mechanical problems and went into a nose dive. With the utmost calmness Whip pulled yet one more set of maneuvers to land the plane with minimal loss of life. Six people did die, but it could've been so much worse.
Whip's lawyer, Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle), did some maneuvering of his own and had Whip's toxicology report suppressed. The NTSB, after an extensive investigation, found that Whip performed outstandingly. They attempted with simulators to have other experienced pilots land Flight 227 and they all failed. Whip was a hero. So then, here's the question:
Was Captain Whitaker's inebriated state a matter of importance with him flying that day?
Whip was an incorrigible drunk, but a functional one after a few lines of cocaine. His problem ruined his marriage, his relationship with his son, and was threatening his freedom. It was an unshakable factor throughout the movie and one that would cause you to shake your head in pity as well as embarrassment for him.
What makes "Flight" a good movie is the question I posed because how many people in society are functioning addicts or alcoholics? I just watched "Puncture" with Chris Evans who played an addict lawyer who was superb at his job as long as he was high. Such people exist.
Flight was a top tier production with awesome performances from the likes of Denzel (naturally), John Goodman, Don Cheadle, and Bruce Greenwood. The production and acting helped make the movie standout, but the plot itself and the central question it poses makes it what it is.