Flug ohne Rückkehr

The flight in question originated in Toronto, not New York. Why is that so difficult to handle. This is a movie that tries to present a logical argument to bolster a premise. Yet it deliberately falsifies a key fact. So how can you believe anything else in the film? Why could the principals not have taken a connecting flight to Toronto. Contrary to Hollywood myth, Toronto does have an airport into which most of the world's major airlines have flights. The airport even has indoor plumbing! Even after that outrageous and unnecessary "poetic licence" the film is weak with mediocre acting and mundane production values. Obviously a low budget piece of work. Angela Lansbury was a divinely inspired wrong choice for the female star.

Having read several books on this subject (Shootdown of Korean Air Lines flight 007) I have to admit that the facts and points about this sad story extremely accurate. I was surprised to see some comments about this movie stating that the facts cannot be true. All those believing that should pick up a book on the topic from your local library, read it and then judge the facts. I have to admit that since the movie was made (1988) there were several key facts revealed that do not match the movie (example: the name of the Soviet pilot that shot it down), but keeping in mind that the movie is over 16 years old, I have to say that the facts presented in the movie are as close as you'd get back then (I will try and add some interesting facts about this to the "trivia" section).

On the other hand, the movie acting-wise and script-wise is poor. It is on a level of a network movie (just as this movie actually is), so my expectations before watching it were set lower than usual. But the movie raises interesting points on whether the US intelligence agencies had anything to do with this plane straying off course.

I suggest reading a book on this topic before watching the movie. It may be confusing to those exposed to the story for the first time.

The movie took too long to set up the characters in the begin, all of whom were poorly acted. The story was not worked enough, and many interesting theories that could have been looked at were left out. Some of the sounds, in particular the radio message and the firing of the missile most definitely came from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. The movie did have a valid social outlook, suggesting that the U.S. government quite often has not-so-innocent motives to classify and stonewall events, in the name of 'national security', that should be made public knowledge. Otherwise the movie was quite poor overall, my vote being a three out of ten.

This movie was obviously made to compel viewers to search for the truth to the event, and this it achieves by showing the viewer exactly why the truth needs to be found. It attempts to present the human side of the tragedy, and compels you to feel sympathy for the victims. This it does, but that is all. Nan Moore is the main character, and she is played by Angela Lansbury in a remotely realistic, and occasionally believable way. In the first hour, this is because of her over acting, but in the end because of the script. The last two scenes, which are meant to provide a strong anti-war theme, sounds so pathetic that I was compelled to laugh as Nan Moore preached about how we as a race must strive to achieve peace and to stop shooting down aircraft over eachothers territory. because of this, the solemn message is lost, and the climax of the whole long, boring film is rendered pointless by the shocking way it is done. Over-all, the movie is not worth seeing under any circumstances- not for entertainment, not for information, and not for drama.

Contrary to the comment of rps-2, flight 007 DID indeed originate from JFK. I don't know where RPs-2 got the idea it was Toronto.

I happen to have been on that flight both in-bound (to United States) and out-bound (to Soeul, then Hong Kong) many times. My last time was just 2 flights before that incident.

I cannot yet comment on the overall factual accuracy of the movie, as I still am unable to obtain it in DVD. However, I am absolutely sure that it does not "...deliberately falsifies a key fact."

The rest of this is just plain padding. This site would not allow comments less than "10 lines of text."