Le train de l'enfer

...but only because my husband was laughing so hard at it! at one point in the movie this helicopter is a round, modern red helicopter and then suddenly it changed to this green military one - and back again to red, and then back to the green one. We couldn't help but watch the last 15 minutes because we were laughing so hard!!what a load of c*ap. apparently this movie is supposed to be some kind of action drama with a lot of suspense but all we could focuses on were all the faults, the BAD acting and all the goofs! The people who edited the movie must really have had a hard time, because especially the color of the helicopter goof is so obvious and horrible, there IS no way of editing that huge mistake out. if you want to watch a comedy, which wasn't intended to BE a comedy in the first place, then watch this one 10 stars for laughing credibility and 0 start for it's actual intention!

And they're ALL on board Americana Rail's crack Grand Royale: the Disposable Engineer, the Cute Little Kid, the Arrogant Politician, the Sick Passenger (who needs immediate help), the New Stepmom (who just wants to fit in), the Ex-Quarterback-who-lost-the-Big-Game (but who gets a new chance to save the day), and... the Unlikely Hero! What I mean is, they've already parodied this sort of film in the "Airplane" series and "The Big Bus". Still, this could have been done very well; but there are so many distracting factual errors that we keep getting thrown off....the track. Railroad disaster dramas are hard to pull off, anyway; trains go, or they don't. So they made this one hard to stop, with so many goofy reasons for it that railroaders will be rolling in laughter. (That schtick was tried in 1973's "Runaway", with the same results.) It's not all bad; there is some great British Columbia rail photography to be seen, and the interior scenes are done well. But when the plot says the Grand Royale is doing over 80, we can see it's obviously more like 25 at best, even with the tricky camera angles that are used. Stuff like that is just carelessness. A pity; I wanted to like this movie.

This action packed movie is really suspenseful and does a good job of keeping you on the edge of your seats. I hope that this one comes out on video, I really want to watch it again. This is a great film for someone who likes suspense, action. There is the perfect amount of thrill for those interested in mechanics.

There wasn't a moment of this film that I didn't enjoy. It was soooo bad that it has to be fattening! But because of its terrible script and using every cliché under the sun, it's hilarious! You have to see this film just to believe how terrible it is ... but only once! I think this film is actually a spoof but the creators didn't say this, just to add to the spoof effect but didn't work out how they planned. One thing that leads me to believe this may be the case is the sheer amount of crazy clichés, such as the runaway train with the driver killed, a passenger who just happens to know how to drive a train, a man having a heart attack, the rail points jamming until the last second when they open effortlessly ... the list goes on!

It's absolutely awful ... see it!

I won't repeat the vast list of technical errors and impossibilities that the previous commentators made, I think we all spotted them for ourselves. My comment is in a different direction.

I frequently have issues with commentators who concentrate on technical errors in movies. I think that often they have missed the point. In this movie, however, such commentary is entirely relevant. Here, the entire movie is about (correction, is SUPPOSED to be about) the "technics" of a modern computerised train gone wrong. Thus, in my opinion, in a movie like this, the movie makers have an obligation (to their own credibility, if nothing else) to get the technical details right, because in theory, that's what their movie is trying to show! If they don't, they suffer the consequences: as so many of the other commentators said, the movie becomes a spoof of itself.

Also, and I'm a bit surprised that no-one else has picked up this point, I would have thought that by 1999 we would have gotten past the cliche of "infallible computer fails". Or was this some kind of twisted pre-Y2K hype?