Le détournement

Where do I even start? This film has its ups and downs, but honestly, the negatives really overshadow the positives.

Let's start off with the good: the four actors playing the hijackers were pretty solid, especially Owiwi and Iku. The movie at some point stuck to the thriller vibe, with some genuinely tense moments. I also liked how the hijackers slowly began to realize their mission has failed, I think that part was done well. And I couldn't help but chuckle at the subtle shade on dentists not being "real doctors." That part genuinely made me laugh out loud.

Now, onto the bad: this movie is a total mess. I could go on and on about its flaws, seriously, I could write a thousand-word essay about it. The characters had zero backstory or distinct personality, so there was really no reason for us to care about any of the characters. At some point you couldn't tell who was who, I lost track on some of the characters (even though they weren't a lot of them) And let's be real, the acting from about 90% of the cast was pretty subpar.

And I get that it's based on real events from 1993, but it didn't feel like a movie set in the '90s at all. At some point, you forget this happened in the early 90s with their modern guns and vehicles. Honestly it was laughable

Another thing that wasn't done right was the hijackers being portrayed as a bunch of young guys looking for "social change" by taking on a military-backed government. This is a very oversimplified take on their real motives, which were more about protesting the annulment of the 1993 election in Nigeria. If they had focused on the actual political tensions, show us the political events that led to the whole thing, it would've made the film way more engaging and educational for anyone interested in Nigeria's history.

I also feel this movie would've benefitted from a closer look at the meticulous planning of the hijackers and the psychological pressure or mental stress of the passengers, it could have really cranked up the suspense, you know like those classic thrillers that draw you into the hijacker's and passengers emotional rollercoaster.

I know the the film touches on some government criticism, but it completely misses out on the broader historical context, like the political climate under General Babangida, which was crucial in shaping the real life hijacker's motivations. Adding that context would have clarified the hijackers' desperation and the bigger impact of their actions on Nigerian society.

I could keep going, but honestly, I just wish Nollywood would put in a bit more effort into movies, especially those that hinge on historical context.

This is badly made by based on an actual event happened in Nigeria. And apparently nobody hurt or died in real which is a relief. Considering this is a hijack of flying airplane but there is no intense or thrill at all.

Maybe acting is bad as well as its script.

The stories behind every hijacker are not developed well and their characters are also weak and vague.

Could make more interesting flashbacks of each hijacker so know more watchable.

There is no tension between hijackers and passengers or army officers.

This is disappointing, one of the worst hijack movie I have ever watched recently.

Unlike other reviewers, I did feel like the tension was largely maintained throughout the film. I intended to watch it as I did chores around the house, but I instead ended up glued to my seat (it's a pretty short film, so that helps).

I do think that there could have been a bit more backstory for the hijackers to help us better understand their motives. And yes, at times, the background actors (hostages) didn't look as scared as I would imagine they'd be.

If you're looking for an entertaining movie with a decent degree of tension and intensity, you'd like this. It's not going to necessarily blow you away, but to me it felt like an intriguing take on a real-life incident.

An illusion of a Thriller

I heard a lot about this movie from my friends. Out of curiosity, I decided to watch it. When I finished watching this movie, the realisation dawned on me that if I want to use the European and American stand point to critique this movie, I may be misjudging it.

Thus I decided to view the African standard to evaluate the movie and I was sad to say , it even fell short of that standard.

First , the movie built up a false tension and I was really geared up to see a thriller that would sway me. It takes just five minutes for me to revise my expectations because the tension and heart thumbing scenes I wanted to watch never materialised.

Secondly, I saw very little fear from the passengers. Even those ones look fake. This made the scenes unrealistic and hijacking a plane lean itself into fear and disorderliness.

Third, the movie did a flashback on the background of the hijackers which doesn't connect well with their reasons for hijacking a plane. I mean the relationship between the flashbacks and the terrorists' motive for hijacking the planes was unclear and ambiguous.

In the fourth place, the movie failed wholly to capitalise on the historical antecedent of the movie,which was the 1993 hijack of Nigerian Airways to lay a good background and context for the movie. Example , it could have created scenes or do a flashback to 17 November 1993 where Abacha toppled the interim government in a palace coup and then dissolved the legislature, as well as the state and local governments, and replaced the elected civilian state governors with military and police officers. This would have directly helped the viewers to understand why the young adults were attempting to hijack a plane to protest the usurpation of a democratically elected government.

Another observation is that, the characters themselves didn't seem to have enough background knowledge on their scripts. They took the script on the face value instead of digging deeper to get some context and setting for the movie.

Moreover , the actors and the entire set up didn't reflect a 1993 setting. Look at the guns, technology,clothes and food they're wearing. It doesn't look like the people were doing the hijacking in 1993. It looked too modern. This blatant anachronistic error cannot escape the critical eye.

In addition to all these, one can observe that the plane flew for just a few minutes and was forced to land. From that point on there are more talking in the landed plane than action. This quickly took the steam of the movie and reduced it to a mere talk show.

Finally, there were many unnecessary scenes like the subtle reference to a dentist not been a proper doctor,The excuse given by the supposed parliamentarian to go and urinate and trying to bribe one of the hijackers,the subtle attraction between one of the terrorists and the interpreter, the presence of the military men in the plane.

In summation, this movie is good for entertainment purposes but not a good enough one if you want to watch a real thriller.

Hijack '93 on Netflix. The subject of Hijack is very dangerous. Be it is hijacking of aeroplane, bus, train, car, ship etc that deals with total terror in the eyes of the passengers and those who are hijacked. Their body languages totally go for toss during to terrible pressure of the highjackeers. In this film, the passengers hardly felt any pain or pressure may except one or two. All the passengers took the high acting very lightly. The direction is gone for a big toss. This not the way the director should project film. Further, there is no tension seen among the airport security where the plane lands. No government of either country is bothered about the situation. Negotiations/conversations are handled very badly. Acting and performances are mediocre. Overall, a very badly made film. Please give this film a huge MISS.