New Line Cinema | Release Date: August 18, 2006
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 446 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
312
Mixed:
55
Negative:
79
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
avatar16Nov 10, 2011
Avec Des Serpents dans l'Avion, je ne vais pas tourner autour du pot : c'est scénaristiquement invraisemblable, visuellement laid (en tout cas, pour les effets numériques), joué sans conviction... EnAvec Des Serpents dans l'Avion, je ne vais pas tourner autour du pot : c'est scénaristiquement invraisemblable, visuellement laid (en tout cas, pour les effets numériques), joué sans conviction... En somme, et je pèse mes mots, c'est entièrement con (il n'y a qu'à voir le titre...). Et pourtant, ce nanar se laisse regarder avec un plaisir coupable, parce qu'il est en quelque sorte fun, et notamment grâce à des séquences plutôt désopillantes et énergiques avec les serpents, et surtout que le film ne se prend pas au sérieux. En somme, le film de David R. Ellis (à qui l'on doit Destination Finale 2) arrive à nous livrer un film, certes ridicule, mais qui se révèle être un divertissement de taille si l'on veut s'éclater entre potes avec du grand n'importe quoi. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
OscarPicks2010Dec 20, 2010
An unfamiliar plot with likable leads, Snakes on a Plane (2006) can almost live up to its original. The story is based on a guy who witnessed a murder by a violence gang member. The witness was suppose to fly to LA to testify against theAn unfamiliar plot with likable leads, Snakes on a Plane (2006) can almost live up to its original. The story is based on a guy who witnessed a murder by a violence gang member. The witness was suppose to fly to LA to testify against the murderer. To prevent the witness from going, the murderer puts hundreds of poisonous snakes in the cargo to kill everyone and bring the plane down. Although this plot isn't anything new to Hollywood, Snakes on a Plane features Samuel Jackson and Julianna Margulies, likable stars, and a lot of snakes on a plane. It's all we wanted. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
RikiegeJan 24, 2013
It's a very entertaining movie, but it's very simple.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
GaborA.Aug 20, 2006
Snakes was a decent movie but what the hype is distracting from is this movie really isnt unique at all. Every year we have these creature features like deep blue sea and company. That movie wasnt meant to be taken all that seriously either Snakes was a decent movie but what the hype is distracting from is this movie really isnt unique at all. Every year we have these creature features like deep blue sea and company. That movie wasnt meant to be taken all that seriously either and Sam Jackson made an appearance there as well. Snakes is worse action and funnier than Deep Blue. Its more in the ball park of Lake Placid which i thought was pretty funny as well. Its a good flick but besides the absurd title this movie is doing absolutely nothing that hasnt allready been done. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarkBayerOct 2, 2006
Despite all the hype, this would-be exploitation/ action/ camp smash wasn't one for two very basic reasons: the plane doesn't fly and the snakes don't bite. The first 25 minutes, in which a mob kingpin, in a literal case of Despite all the hype, this would-be exploitation/ action/ camp smash wasn't one for two very basic reasons: the plane doesn't fly and the snakes don't bite. The first 25 minutes, in which a mob kingpin, in a literal case of overkill, plots to eliminate a damaging witness by loading the plane he's traveling on with cobras, vipers and mambas (and we learn that joining the Mile-High Club can be hazardous to your health) are promising, and it's impossible to completely dismiss an airplane-calamity movie that includes a parody of Legally Blonde's Elle Woods on its passenger list. Ultimately, however, director David R. Ellis (a solid B-movie craftsman who's done far better work with Final Destination 2 and Cellular) can't sustain the balance between gore and satire that Roger Corman, Paul Bartel, Joe Dante and other New World Pictures writers and directors accomplished so effortlessly in such classic 1970s drive-in fare as Death Race 2000 and Piranha. Speaking of the 1970s, part of the problem is this movie's slavish adherence to the blueprints of another of that decade's most notorious genres: you don't have to be afflicted with disaster movie deja vu to know instinctively which of the plane's passengers are either too loathsome or too lovable to live, or that children will be threatened but not totally turned into snake kibble, and that at least one of the three major characters will be involved in at least one false alarm. Worse still, Snakes on a Plane ultimately becomes stagy, contrived and dull because of the behavior of the snakes themselves: due to certain plot contrivances they go on sporadic feeding frenzies and then disappear entirely from the movie for long stretches of time. (What were they doing, reading the in-flight magazine? If so, that explains it--they all fell asleep!) Even though we all know that this movie has about as much chance of actually being shown on a plane as United 93, the airlines might want to reconsider: with all the recent controversy over the latest tightening of security regulations, Snakes on a Plane DOES present the very convincing argument that in the event of on-board snake attacks, too much carry-on luggage will definitely hamper your getaway. And you certainly can't fault Samuel L. Jackson's energetic performance as an FBI agent: not since Jane Fonda in last year's Monster-in-Law has an actor so thoroughly redeemed a completely shallow, one-dimensional part by displaying so much joy in the playing of it. His delivery of the line about being tired of those m***********g snakes on the m***********g plane is already the stuff of legend; it's easy to understand why audiences, seeing through the malarkey and recognizing this mediocrity for what it is, grew equally (and very quickly) tired of seeing these m***********g snakes in their m***********g theaters, too. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NickB.Aug 18, 2006
The meeting of expectations - which were set low - was surprisingly satisfying. And I don't know if I'm embarrassed to say that I was fully engaged and entertained all the while feeling like I should know better. Advice to The meeting of expectations - which were set low - was surprisingly satisfying. And I don't know if I'm embarrassed to say that I was fully engaged and entertained all the while feeling like I should know better. Advice to potential viewers: just enjoy it and don't expect more than the title. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChadShiiraSep 21, 2006
To be a true cult film, "Snakes on a Plane" needed Jim Brown in the lead. Samuel L. Jackson should be on a plane full of terrorists, not snakes. The film goes on with its business as if "Airplane" never happened. When Jackson tells his FBI To be a true cult film, "Snakes on a Plane" needed Jim Brown in the lead. Samuel L. Jackson should be on a plane full of terrorists, not snakes. The film goes on with its business as if "Airplane" never happened. When Jackson tells his FBI buddy about scenarios that were never drawn up, he might as well be talking about the scribes who penned the four "Airport" movies. "Snakes on a Plane" is an inspired basic cable network movie, but nothing more. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SKAug 19, 2006
Cons - plot, script, cast, acting, directing Pros - less than 2hrs long I was bored through most of the movie. Only laughed couple times. I felt like I was sitting through a plane ride waiting to get off. Yawn!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AllistairP.Aug 23, 2006
Probably a blast with an awesome audience, but a bore with an empty audience. And we were drunk off our ass so that's saying something. NY and LA enjoy it while you can, everywhere else good luck finding a fun, interactive audience.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JimS.Aug 27, 2006
People seem to be talking past each other in some of the reviews...I think if you expect a good movie, you're really missing the point. Then I've heard some people walk in expecting it to be terrible, and it ended up not being as People seem to be talking past each other in some of the reviews...I think if you expect a good movie, you're really missing the point. Then I've heard some people walk in expecting it to be terrible, and it ended up not being as bad as they expected. But that's my problem w/ the movie, is that it seems to know it's a joke, but it doesn't really care. Even though I wouldn't rate it as harshly, I think Rolling Stone review of that "it's not so bad that it's good. It's so bland that it's boring." hits the nail on the head, because the movie is extremely medicore in all respects. It's not really bad enough to be hilarious, and it's not really good enough to thrill. A lot of potential comedy never seems to unfold. There are lots of really stereotypic characters which I thought would lead obvious, but great comedy, but most of them never end up doing anything. I guess a great audience could make this movie a lot more fun, but that's true w/ every film. There have already been other big budget stinkers which I've found much more entertaining to watch like last years Alone in the Dark, or maybe the grandaddy of all great terrible movies, Rollerball. This is just a medicore action movie w/ some half assed attempts at comedy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SeamusAug 19, 2006
The whole enterprise has the sweaty sheen that comes from trying too hard to be cool. Sadly, that's all too true.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AaronM.Aug 31, 2006
Not really what I expected...but it is still pretty entertaining. Not quite as good as I thought it would be.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
Tall_But_ShortJul 25, 2012
Just stupid, with terrible acting except from Samuel L. Jackson who also didn't do a fairly great job either. The story was dumb and pointless but it was entertaining to watch. I've heard so much from this movie and expected a lot more. ThisJust stupid, with terrible acting except from Samuel L. Jackson who also didn't do a fairly great job either. The story was dumb and pointless but it was entertaining to watch. I've heard so much from this movie and expected a lot more. This was just....well, stupid. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
EpicLadySpongeJan 25, 2016
Without Samuel L. Jackson, this movie would've been in the negatives due to how boring it is. At least he saved the movie by one line that's memorable to everyone.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JeBjBoMay 18, 2022
Bis auf DIE Szene mit SLJ und ein paar lustige CGI-Schlangen-Kills ein recht belangloser und auch langweiliger Film (Siehe Deep Blue Sea). Wäre auch gern mit Taylor Kitsch im Mile High Club.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
geewahJan 24, 2021
A movie that doesn't try to be anything more than an entertaining b-grade action thriller. A thin plot but big on over the top action sequences.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
AmadouIraklidisAug 11, 2023
Awful. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

But it was funny given how bad it was and watching the iconic line was somewhat worth it. It is a stereotypically awful movie with terrible lines and acting and stereotypes, but that coupled
Awful. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

But it was funny given how bad it was and watching the iconic line was somewhat worth it. It is a stereotypically awful movie with terrible lines and acting and stereotypes, but that coupled with how known the movie is made it funny at times.

Not really worth watching, but also not the worst thing to watch.

All in all, it was an enjoyable watch.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews