“Non-Stop” thriller keeps audience guessing

Another gritty Liam Neeson action film, directed by the painfully mediocre Jaume Collet Serra? This film already has two gunshots in the knee before it leaves the starting gate. And yet, surprisingly, “Non-Stop” is able to wince and crawl through the pain to offer the audience a competent, albeit occasionally messy, thriller.

“Non-Stop” follows air marshal Bill Marks (played by Neeson). While on a flight, he is contacted by an unknown person on a secure government phone line who is demanding $150 million. If Bill doesn’t comply, that person will kill someone on the plane every 20 minutes.

The mysterious antagonist is always coming up with new tricks while taunting Bill via text message, which creates an engaging experience. This search for the bad guy routine takes up a majority of the film, which is good, because it’s entertaining. And since it all takes place in an airplane, with a clock counting down to the next kill, there is a nice cramped tension to the whole occasion.

The film’s greatest strength is its ability to keep you in suspense as to whom the villain is. The direction really shines here: There are plentiful, not-so-subtle focusing shots on certain characters, played by the bigger actors, that imply suspicion. You’ll constantly think to yourself, “This movie isn’t that dumb to point that guy out, is it?” That is, until the character you most suspect is shown to have an alibi – but only until he does something else to incriminate himself, all over again. I was left guessing, all the way.

However, the quality starts to dwindle as the end approaches. All logic, intrigue, originality and quality get thrown out the window (so to speak). Until this point, the film mostly dodges gaping plot holes. I won’t go into spoiler territory with the red herrings, but let’s just say it: A thing that should have killed every last person on that plane, doesn’t. Rather, the movie just thriller-baits you into thinking certain people are in danger, when they’re totally not.

I was surprised by just who the real villain is, but that character’s whole pseudo-political rambling explaining their motives was really stupid, nonsensical and added very little credence to the situation. I get that lunatics don’t have much reason behind what they do, but good villains are the ones who make sense and don’t spell everything out to us.

Worse, the climax is followed by one of those cheesy, feel-good endings where everybody talks in one-liners and pat-on-the-back phrases. It made my stomach churn.

The movie’s music is pretty generic thriller fare – booming sound cues and an unassuming tension-fueled beat that grows in intensity – but it gets the job done.

The acting performances are hit or miss, with Neeson unfortunately on the “miss” side. His lackluster acting hurts our relationship with Bill. Neeson looks, sounds and acts exactly the same as the last few generic action protagonists he’s played, with the identical ultra-grave tone and overly stern facial expression. It’s hard to care for Bill in “Non-Stop”, because we already saw him as Bryan in “Taken” and as Martin in “Unknown.”

Come on Liam, you were Oscar Schindler, for crying out loud – step it up!

Julianne Moore gives the best performance and her character, Jen Summers, is the most likable. Jen is a quirky frequent flyer who befriends Bill and is the most fleshed-out character.

The remaining passengers aren’t memorable or noteworthy. We learn things about these people, but they are never truly developed or given much life. Ergo, there is no one else I am terribly fretting over potentially dying. “Airplane!” had better characters, in fact, and it was a goofball spoof of movies like this.

The action scenes (all three of them) suck, too, because they are directed so poorly. Everything is zoomed in too closely, there are far too many cuts and the camera work is needlessly shaky. This turns every action sequence into a rumble-y, choppy and incoherent mess. They also feel shoehorned by contrived plot threads.

The film is at its best when it takes advantage of the twisting narrative and claustrophobic environment, not when it panders to thriller conventions.

If you prefer not to look at movies too closely, many of the faults described here might zoom right by, and you’ll have a great time. But if you analyze everything a little more than the passive moviegoer, many of the flaws, particularly near the end, will stand out and damper your experience.

It’s a dumb good time, regardless of your shrewdness towards film.