In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

A p***ed off air traffic controller builds a system to control planes in flight. Kind of a poor mans Mission Impossible feel to it at the end.Maybe it was dull, but it was shown just 3 days before 9/11 WTC crash.So when I saw the first tower get hit, I thought of this movie, and started thinking of how those planes could have been under remote control.Smith controls the planes with a dish tied into the FAA's computer. It made me think...could this be possible? New commerical jets are all "fly by wire", computer controlled, where take offs and landings are all done by computer.Hack in and take over is what stuck in my mind about this movie.

John Dantley investigates a midair collision between two planes that killed over 130 people. At first it appears human error is to blame, however the controller, Henry Drake, insists that a blackout causes one of the planes to disappear temporally from his screen. Dantley investigates to find a history of equipment failures and complaints has not been recorded and that Drake may be the most likely suspect. However with time things begin to look more complex than he first thought.The story essentially is a condemnation of lack of investment in air-traffic control in contrast with spiralling air traffic. It could have coldly looked at that and been damning in effect, but instead it tries to turn it into a thriller and ruins it's credibility as a serious film. The glitch that caused the plane crash is far to specific to have it represent the whole system of the failure and Drake is far to suspicious (what was he doing on the CCTV? It's never satisfactorily revealed) to be an `everyman' type - in fact Drake is totally misused as the film changes his character to create a `tense' `standoff' finish to the film. Why?Another example of the plot stretching to make it more of a TVM thriller than a serious movie is the way that Dantley's ex-girlfriend was on one of the planes that crashed. This adds nothing to the story and only succeeds in clouding the issue. The main point of the film is valid - that systems are close to breaking point and are not up to the job, but it's lost in a bigger conspiracy, Dantley's personal loss and Drake's unlikely actions at the end.Charles Martin Smith is good right up till the very unlikely last 30 minutes, but Stoltz is mixed. At times he seems OK but some scenes are terrible - the one near the end where he confronts the site manager with a forced emotion and bad dialogue is a good (bad) example.Overall, this has a valid point to make and it makes it well for much of the film. However the makers added too much baggage (a thriller climax, a dead ex etc) to make it work. Some scenes are great but mostly this is a C movie - and only for trying hard.

This was recently shown on BBC so I had a chance to watch it. An Air Traffic Controler's life is one of the most stressful, as is illustrated in this drama. It has an interesting plot, which (I think) is well played out by the actors. Although Charles Smith's character is a little over the top.All in all it's a pretty good movie.

I have seen this movie several times, and think that it is one of the better TV movies out there. No, it's not the best, but it has a good story line that flows quite well. Some things, as stated in a previous review, may not be totally accurate, but pretty much anyone smart enough to notice those technical mistakes should know that made for TV movies don't have a large enough budget to get every little detail correct. I have to say that this is a movie worth watching.