Director: Bernard L. Kowalski
Cast: Leif Erickson, Doug McClure, Roddy McDowall, Keenan Wynn

In recent years, the critical opinion from both critics and the general public concerning television has been very interesting to follow. The opinion is that television is now in some sort of golden age. This has probably come from streaming services and cable networks in these times contributing a number of high-quality programs. And at the same time, many of these same critics and members of the public think that the motion picture industry is at an all time low. This makes the situation more interesting, because decades ago, the opposite could be observed for both television and the motion picture industry. When television first started to get the attention of the public, there was quite a hostile reception to it in some quarters. Some critics said that the level of TV programming was feeble and simple-minded compared to what was being shown in movie theaters at the time. And there were many movie studios who at first wanted nothing to do with television, considering it to be a low brow kind of entertainment (and also as stiff competition.) I can understand this to a degree. When television was starting to take off, it was rough around the edges, and there were at times a struggle. For example, trying to tell a full compelling story in under an hour or under half an hour, a burden that was made worse by the fact that writers also had to end the stories each week in a way so that everything would turn back to "normal". There were also times when television network executives were embarrassed by the shows they were broadcasting despite them bringing in strong ratings. An example of this was with what's called the "rural purge" in the early 1970s, when networks (especially CBS) cancelled an incredible number of shows due to the fact they were not reaching the desired and respectable demographics.

As you can see, television programming in the past often seemed simple and lowbrow, and often didn't seem to have the allure of motion pictures. Television networks sometimes tried to offer something not found in motion pictures, such as variety shows. But there were also times when they directly competed with the motion picture industry. In other words, making their own movies. Starting in 1964 with the made for TV movie See How They Run, for the next few decades the television networks cranked out an incredible number of movies that were exclusive to television. They were certainly hampered by lower budgets and strict censorship, but the makers of these television films found different ways to make their productions stand out. Some of these movies focused on controversial topics such as AIDS or racism. Some of these movies managed to attract some very prominent stars such as Katherine Hepburn or the rock band KISS. But I think the best way that they managed to make their movies stand out was the fact that they covered a variety of genres. They tackled horror (Dark Night Of The Scarecrow), westerns (The Hanged Man), comedy (Evil Roy Slade), and science fiction (Running Delilah), among others. They got their ideas for made for TV movies in many ways, but one of the most interesting ways was with remaking movies that originally played in theaters decades earlier. In the 1970s, we were treated to such television remakes such as Miracle On 34th Street, Double Indemnity, The Glass Menagerie, and even It's A Wonderful Life (which was retitled It Happened One Christmas).

A quick and superficial look at the critical (and audience) reaction to these and other television remakes several decades later shows a clear lack of enthusiasm, which I can understand because I sat through It Happened One Christmas several years ago and I was utterly appalled by how bad it was, despite following the original movie's script to the letter almost entirely. (Maybe someday I should review it for this web site.) It just goes to show that whether you remake a theatrical movie for theaters or for television, it's almost a certainty that you will end up with a severely inferior movie. It's likely you already know that, so you may be wondering why I decided to take a look at the made for TV movie Terror In The Sky, which is a remake of the 1957 theatrical movie Zero Hour!, which was based on the writings of Arthur Hailey (Airport). Well, the main reason was that Zero Hour! was later remade again, this time into the comedy Airplane! With the memory of Airplane! engraved into my mind, it seemed my thoughts might make Terror In The Sky unintentionally campy. In this telling of the familiar tale, a passenger airplane from Minneapolis is set to fly to Seattle. The crew of the airplane include Captain Wilson (Kenneth Tobey, The Lost Empire) co-pilot Stewart (Sam Melville, The Rookies), and stewardess Janet (Lois Nettleton, In The Heat Of The Night). The passengers include football fan Emmett (Keenan Wynn, Hyper Sapien), a doctor named Ralph (Roddy McDowell, The Poseidon Adventure) and the somewhat mysterious and reluctant George (Doug McClure, The Land That Time Forgot). If you have seen Zero Hour! or Airplane!, you know what soon happens. If not, it's sufficient to say that after dinner is served on the airplane, passengers who ate one of the two choices for dinner start to get sick. Making matter worse is that Wilson and Stewart also get sick and soon are unable to fly the airplane. Someone will have to land the airplane, but who? Can you guess? Can you? Can you?

Of course you can. And on that note, it is a good a time as any to start talking about McClure's performance and the performances of the rest of Terror In The Sky's cast. Doug McClure does pretty well with a somewhat thinly written character Although he plays a Vietnam veteran with (of course) a troubled past, he doesn't overplay the trauma side of his character. In the first part of the movie, he seems a bit reluctant to get personal with anybody, and there are certainly plenty of reserved people who haven't been mentally scarred. When the direness of the situation and the burden put on him arrive, he does show believable fear and panic, but all the same shows he knows that there is no choice for him, so he goes forward all the same. However, as I said earlier, while McClure is fine, we don't get to know much about him other than some bad experiences in Vietnam. He doesn't even give much of an explanation as to why he's going to Seattle. Ted Striker in Airplane! had much more depth. For that matter, the other characters in the movie get even less of an examination, leaving the actors in their roles to try and compensate. Actually, the supporting cast give professional performances. Roddy McDowell is interesting in that while he starts off being a little nebbish, when the situation turns serious he reveals a big backbone, and this transformation actually comes across as very plausible. As the stewardess character, Lois Nettleton gives her character an air of professionalism and duty, though at the same time looking at her you get a sense that she is getting tired of this routine and would like time to deal with her two children back at home. Keenan Wynn only seems around to criticize what's happening around him, and eventually the movie pretty much gives up on giving his character any focus. But his scenes are enlightened by his trademark amusingly grumpy acting style.

There are a few other laughs coming from the Wynn character, though these are unintentional ones, such as a couple of moments when the airplane is out of control and the camera zooms in quickly on Wynn's mildly perturbed face. After mentioning that, now is an appropriate time to discuss any unintended laughs Terror In The Sky has. Well, there is no scene of a little boy talking to the pilot in the cockpit. But there a few chuckles here and there such as when McDowell's doctor character having his hands full with sick people suddenly exclaims, "We need drugs!", and that the cockpit door has no locking devices on it (yeah yeah, I know - it was a more innocent time.) But for the most part, the writing of the movie is generally competent and professional, treating the situation believably. It also gives many scenes some really believable dialogue, such as when McDowell argues with McClure for him to volunteer to land the airplane. Of course, the subsequent airplane jargon will go over the heads of most people, but that's probably a necessary evil. I also guess there's another kind of necessary evil with the script being that the writers were stuck fitting in the entire story in about seventy-four minutes to make room for commercials. This unfortunately leads to some parts of the movie going at an incredibly fast pace; the airplane starts to warm up after less than two minutes has gone by, the stewardess starts taking dinner orders shortly afterwards and after a heartbeat is abruptly shown giving the food to the passengers, and the first sign of food poisoning happens before the ten minute mark has passed! But at the same time, there are also some slow sections here and there. Once both pilots become sick, McDowell and Nettleton really take a considerable amount of time to deal with the fact that they need someone to land the plane.

Aside from those few rushed or slow moments, director Bernard L. Kowalski (Sssssss) gives most of the rest of Terror In The Sky a steady hand throughout. Probably the best touch he gives the movie is that he manages on an airplane set in a studio to give the feeling a real passenger flight has - a tight feeling with some rowdy passengers, with a little sloppiness thrown in as well. I've experienced that in real life. Also, the scenes with McClure struggling to keep the airplane under control do have some genuine tension, even though at times it's clear that the camera is whipping around to give the impression of the plane shaking. There are even some successful attempts to add a little grimness such as with regular reminders that passengers are extremely sick and will die soon without help. And while I did report in the previous paragraph that some scenes run by much slower than they should, every scene, even those slow ones, always has something interesting happening. However, Kowalski was hampered by the need for several commercial breaks, and sometimes the fading to black momentarily stops the tension or momentum that Kowalski was building. That was obviously not his fault, but one nitpick that he must confess to was the way that the climax is handled. The climax is not awful by any means, but instead it just feels... okay. Even if you haven't seen Zero Hour! or Airplane!, this whole section of the movie will feel very familiar, enough so that you'll be able to predict a lot (or everything) that will unfold in front of your eyes. But come to think about it, maybe that was intentional by Kowalski. This is a made for TV movie after all, and most made for TV movies of this period were designed to be some kind of comfort food for a quiet evening. You can just plop down in your easy chair and know that everything will be okay at the very end. This of course doesn't make Terror In The Sky a movie to be watched by everybody at any time. But when you are in a couch potato mood, I think you'll find it to be agreeable enough.

(Posted May 18, 2025)