people compare this to Captain Phillips. They are similar in some ways of course, but their main similarity besides the subject matter is that they both have very good acting.
"Hijacking" starts off slow, without the gripping pace of "Phillips" but if you give it a chance it can grow on you. It's slow paced and quite, but not layered with the artsy pretentiousness common to indy films.
You wouldn't think the cook would make a good character focus. He doesn't have stellar looks or great charisma or a harrowing backstory or any of the other characteristics common to leads in Hollywood blockbusters, even so-called realistic ones like "Phillips". Yes he is very real, if not exactly "relatable" and the psychological tole of the whole incident on him is made clear, so that by the end of the film you are quietly relieved and happy for him to see him get back home even if it isn't the great rush of catharsis you would find in "Captain Phillips".
The negotiation scenes seem tedious at fist but they follow the sort of style of tension without action you would find in older movies from the Cold War era. It's no "Fail-Safe", but it holds your attention enough if you can get past the first 20 minutes of slowness.
"Phillips" never really shows the company side of the situation. In this film it is a focus, and the film explores the delicate psychological interplay more effectively, although "Phillips" did a decent job of it for a Hollywood blockbuster.
There is also a theory about the character "Omar" which I won't spoil for you here but it's the kind of subtle mind-f##k you would not likely find in a blockbuster like "Captain Phillips".
Overall this is the sort of film that leaves a sort of quite impact on your psyche. You won't notice it standing out in your mind until a couple years after seeing it.
"Hijacking" starts off slow, without the gripping pace of "Phillips" but if you give it a chance it can grow on you. It's slow paced and quite, but not layered with the artsy pretentiousness common to indy films.
You wouldn't think the cook would make a good character focus. He doesn't have stellar looks or great charisma or a harrowing backstory or any of the other characteristics common to leads in Hollywood blockbusters, even so-called realistic ones like "Phillips". Yes he is very real, if not exactly "relatable" and the psychological tole of the whole incident on him is made clear, so that by the end of the film you are quietly relieved and happy for him to see him get back home even if it isn't the great rush of catharsis you would find in "Captain Phillips".
The negotiation scenes seem tedious at fist but they follow the sort of style of tension without action you would find in older movies from the Cold War era. It's no "Fail-Safe", but it holds your attention enough if you can get past the first 20 minutes of slowness.
"Phillips" never really shows the company side of the situation. In this film it is a focus, and the film explores the delicate psychological interplay more effectively, although "Phillips" did a decent job of it for a Hollywood blockbuster.
There is also a theory about the character "Omar" which I won't spoil for you here but it's the kind of subtle mind-f##k you would not likely find in a blockbuster like "Captain Phillips".
Overall this is the sort of film that leaves a sort of quite impact on your psyche. You won't notice it standing out in your mind until a couple years after seeing it.