Con Air: Similar Movies with the same sense of humor?

Hey guys, Con Air is one of my favorite movies and I absolutely love the sense of humor in it from Dave Chappelle to Guard Falzon to John Malkovich's "That's a rock." Are there any other movies similar to it out there?

Thanks!

 

Go here. You can even phrase the questions like each of your countless threads.

Here are some more alternatives if you ever decide to do anything for yourself:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10200031-2.html

 

ConAir is a rollicking good time. My only "gripe" is how they play havoc with the geography of Las Vegas. That plane had to be doing figure 8s over the city. If they were flying low enough to crash into the Planet Hollywood sign, they would also plow right into the second floor of the Hoffbrau Haus across the street. At the end, when Nicholas Cage and John Cusack are chatting, one is in front of the 4 Queens Casino, the other is on the Strip - miles apart.


imdb has some suggestions on other movies you may like. They suggest Gone in 60 Seconds, but it may not have the same kind of humor. Have you seen:

With John Cusack:
Runaway Jury
Grosse Pointe Blank
Being John Malkovich

With Nicholas Cage"
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Kick-Ass
Next

Jumper

I can't think of any others at the moment... Hope you find at least one you enjoy.

 

You know what the internet needs? Some sort of mechanism, an "engine" if you will in which you input terms. This "engine" will then "search" for answers for you. Something like that would be great. Maybe there could be on popular one that nearly everyone uses to the point of whatever this mechanism is called just simply gets called by the name of this dominating force.

But, such a thing is left to science fiction, I guess.

 

My gripe was at the ridiculously inaccurate portrayal of type 1 diabetes!

 

Did it say he has type-1?

 

^He had to have had type 1 as it is the only type where going without medication would cause immediate danger.

 

The Rock is similar, IMHO.

 

Haven't seen Con Air yet, but I recently caught this for the first time, and it's an absolute classic:

​

 

You, my friend, have won the interwebs this day (were such a thing to exist). I humbly request your permission to copy and paste this reply in various messages boards and FB pages in the future.

 

Go for it.

Well, to be fair this is a movie that got a *lot* of things wrong in science, aerodynamics, how prisoners are transported, and such. So it's possible they got his type of diabetes wrong too.

 

^They got the type right (again, type 2 doesn't require immediate medication except for in extremely rare circumstances, and even then the character's physique would have made him being a type 2 diabetic with DKA even more unlikely), they got the scenario wrong. The thing that irks me is that they could have easily gotten it right and still had the exact same dilemma: Type 1 diabetic needs medication within hours to prevent death. but they got it backwards -- in the movie they say he needs insulin. You need insulin when your blood sugar is high. It'd take at least a week for high blood sugar to kill him. Probably more like a few weeks. He would feel pretty crummy, but he'd actually be able to function pretty normally for several days at least. If his blood sugar was dropping, on the other hand, the risk of death would be imminent, just like they needed it to be in the movie. All they'd have to do is switch out what medication he needed: instead of insulin he would need glucagon. The movie Panic Room used this as the driving force of the plot.

And, after writing all that, believe me, I get that it's just a movie, and a ridiculous one at that. However, getting the medicine right wouldn't have had any effect on the drama at all, so there was no reason not to have done at least a tad of very easy research. Further, it's been demonstrated in multiple studies that people remember medical information from films and TV as fact; they remember the medical information but forget the source of that information. This means that when confronted with a medical emergency, people will recall bad information ("Oh no! Petra is having a seizure, I remember from somewhere that you're supposed to put something in her mouth to keep her from biting her tongue!"), but since they've forgotten the source, they won't filter it through the lens of ("Oh, but that was in a shit movie, so it's probably wrong!").

Does this mean that film and TV writers have an obligation to get medical information right? I don't know, but in a case like this, where getting it right would have been ridiculously easy and not effected the plot or level of drama, not doing so is just annoying!

 

Hell, people might even use it so frequently that it becomes its own verb.

 

I just love Cage's accent in this. It's so bad

 

It's been a long time since I've seen it but I recall the first half being really good, but then it got a bit silly. Don't they have some kind of armoured truck or car, or am I thinking of another film?

 

Hi all I wonder if anyone could help me as I was handed down, brand new never played 1967 & 1968 special collect editions cassette tape's of the whole series in both years and I was wondering what they would be worth or should I just keep them for myself . Thanks in advance for any responses.
Kind Regards.
Mattuse.

 

Good movie, poor Dave Chappelle (no spoilers so I'll leave that picture out).
What was up with Steve Buscemi ending? That was odd.

 

Alright, thanks.

Are there any good Dave Chappelle movies?

 

Cool, thanks I'll try and buy this one!

 

Robin Hood: Men In Tights. It's not really a Chappelle movie, but he is in it, even if it's a bit part.