Snakes on a School Newspaper

Throughout history there have been influential figures that end up shaping a huge following. Gautama Buddha. Martin Luther. L. Ron Hubbard.

And now, in the year 2006, a new man has stepped forward to show us the light…

Samuel L. Jackson.

He is a man of many names and talents, but there is no disputing that he is one bad-[censored] mother-[censored]. His name has inspired bloggers, photo-shoppers, and movie-hoppers alike. He has tired of these snakes on these planes, and he will lead us toward a safe landing in Los Angeles.

Although Snakes on a Plane was buzzed about for more than a year before its triumphant, near-euphoric premiere, and has developed a fanatical fan base that would make Spanish Inquisitors blush, we faithful have noticed that the movie hasn’t reached the masses the way we thought it would. We were expecting riots, bloodshed, maybe a Crusade or two. However, the dismal box-office revenue points out the fact that it was what it was. It was a really, hilariously bad movie.

…Or was it?

I had an email interview with Brian Finkelstein, the creator of Snakes on a Blog, about this revolution in cinema that doesn’t seem to be paying off.

He was enthusiastic. “Nobody walked out of Snakes on a Plane and thought ‘Boy, there just weren’t enough snakes on that plane,’” he wrote.

“The movie likely would have made zero dollars if it hadn’t been for the online enthusiasm, so I don’t think it was a failure. People got excited by the hype, but their expectations may have been unrealistic,” said Finkelstein.

And hype there was. When given the ultimate test (a hit battle on GoogleFight.com), the Internet buzz was undeniable: about 18,900,000 results were found for “Snakes on a Plane,” beating “The Exorcist,” “Smurfs,” and “Orlando Bloom.” (Incidentally, “Samuel L. Jackson” beats “Snakes on Planes.” Just saying.)

This movie was supposed to open up doors for the online community. The hype was so extreme that people thought that viral movie information would outdo magazines, newspapers, and even television. But when the box office numbers came back, and there was no huge monetary gain, the idea was discarded like spam email.

The faithful are not really sure what will become of this movie. Since it was played straight, it’s not really “hilariously bad” to the uninitiated, and it’s certainly not a “good” movie. It’s comic, certainly, but just as much a serious thriller.

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle captured it in a positive light. “This is a perfectly respectable picture that, despite its modest aspirations, accomplishes something elusive: It finds and maintains that delicate balance between the genuinely thrilling and the flat-out ridiculous.”

So what lies ahead? Midnight movies or MST3K? Nothing can be said for sure, but I’m totally getting the comic book.

No comments yet.

Leave a Comment

All comments are moderated. If your comment contains profanity or libelous content, please don't waste our time.