lrod I caught the last couple of minutes of this recently and set up a timer to catch the next showing. I told my wife at the time I was wholly expectant to be disappointed when I finally got to see it. She laughed, knowing how thin my skin is about the job I did for 30 years.So today it appeared on my list and I queued it up. Holy crap! It wasn't two minutes in when they set the scene of the ostensible Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center (the chyron claims 3 July 1993 1300). I immediately started laughing. I was there in 1993 (and probably on 3 July, too), and Chicago Center never, ever looked even remotely like that. I was there from 1973 until 1997--you can take it to the bank.In truth, it's still sitting on pause because I wanted to come here and report this. Having read all the reviews, especially the ones from my fellow travelers, I know I don't really need to subject myself to it (although I will). Films featuring ATC universally get more wrong than should be humanly possible. From phraseology ("Over and out", "Roger that", and "Runway 37"), to equipment, to scenarios.Five years off and then begged to come in to help out? I was out for twenty months (guess when?) and while I was able to get all of my groove back, it wasn't simple and it certainly wasn't done in a day, or a week, or a month. Someone gone five years would likely never have recertified. It's tough.Was it too hard to get StarSets (headsets)? I hated them--my original Plantronics M-50 was so much better, but about 95% of the controllers used them. The rest used the old Bell 52--same one Ernestine used on "Laugh In". Whatever those things were, aren't FAA issue.I agree with other reviewers--how hard would it have been to get a real controller (I was available) to come in with real tips and knowledge and then LISTEN to him/her? It might have elevated this film to a 2 (which would put it above the execrable "Pushing Tin").For those reading this with whom I might have worked (Jacksonville ARTCC, O'Hare TRACON, Chicago ARTCC), yes, that username is me, LRod.Try this website on for size: http://www.TheBigSkyTheory.com It's all about big time ATC in four decades.

gashmanflirty Am not gonna lie, i love this film because it shows Kiefer Sutherland developing the talent he would need for 24- in terms of his emotional acting skills. But the film itself is a small gem. There's just something about that makes me watch it every once in a while & that time was 13/05/2011. Like Jack Harris's struggle to cope with the situation & its just great to see Kiefer act, his voice, perks of the way he acts, things he does- everything just does it. A hard days work & i was in the mood to watch it. There's just a determination inside of the film that you appreciate. But yeah, Kiefer Sutherland and the actors around him did a good job. Its clearly a low budget film but the storyline and how it all takes places more than compensates. This isn't a film about big bangs and special effects: its about showing acting quality and giving great performances. Also there are small touching moments that all add- with a good soundtrack that aids the emotion. This film isn't about any one scene.

MovieAddict2016 And that's basically all you need to know.I saw this film because of Kiefer Sutherland but was totally unimpressed. Basically he's an air traffic controller who runs into trouble and finds himself in a tight spot.I saw this screened on Channel 5 in the UK and it's so forgettable I don't wish to critique it on a normal basis as I regularly do. Instead, I'm going to simply say: The acting is poor, even by Sutherland; the script is cliched; the direction is mediocre.I'd say this isn't horrible but certainly not worth your time.2/5.

bob the moo Five years after he was kicked off the job after being on shift during a plane crash, Jack Harris is called back into the job to cover a busy Christmas period (if only to run the printer tags). However, Jack takes over from a rookie and gets back into it despite flashbacks. However his skills are pushed to breaking point when the traffic control system suffers several major failures and power cuts.Like the vast majority of viewers, I came to this film on the back of Sutherland's recent return to the spotlight in 24. In the advertisement this film appeared to be a tense film about the tight world of air traffic control, however in reality this film fails to ever really get going or have anything which grips or engages. The plot is pretty full of holes and episodic, it relies on the characters speaking jargon really quickly more than making the danger and urgency of any of the situations seem real. Some have said that this film is not realistic - I don't know, but I suspect they are right. Certainly it fails to make any valid points about a system that (in the UK) many acknowledge is starting to show cracks at best.The film's episodic nature suggests it lacks any sense of focus other than the general situation that made up the film's pitch. This sucks any momentum out of it and leaves it stuttering a lot. The cast look like they will prevent this - at least on paper they do, in reality they are bogged down by a film that must have looked like it had potential to be as taut as an elastic band. Sutherland does OK but can't find the tension any better than I could. Comparisons with 24 are null and void, even if his character here is called Jack. Leonard is pretty good in support but not even a cast that includes faces like McGill, McGillis, Swanson and Winkler can raise this above average.While it is not awful, it is just really unmemorable to say the least. The plot isn't sure where it is going and goes nowhere as a result. With this the tension falls away to zero and the well-known cast only serves to remind that potential is being lost in all areas with this film.