the time: around noon it seems. the place: a deserted area under a bridge in hawaii. gangster eddie kim (byron lawson) and his band of thugs are carrying out a gruesome execution. too bad sean jones (nathan phillips) happened to be there crouching in nearby bushes watching the whole thing in disbelief. now kim wants him dead as well. sean now must fly to los angelos with fbi agent neville flynn (samuel l. jackson) and testify against kim in order to lock him up for good. since the first rub out failed, kim must now find another way to stop sean from arriving in los angeles. so, what does he do? he has his thugs smuggle a crate filled with tons of poisonous snakes that's set to burst open only once the plane is halfway to sean's destination. in order to make the snakes aggressive, the leis handed to passengers as they board the plane have been sprayed with pheromones. now the snakes are slithering their way around the plane attacking anything and everything in their sight. everyone on board's only chance for survival is to join together and fight for their lives. 'snakes on a plane' ('soap') is without a doubt the most talked about film of the year. it all started last year when many bloggers from myspace to youtube began chattering about it. yes, 'soap' was heard far and wide. i myself first found out about the movie whose title explains it all while coming across an article entitled, 'samuel and snakes'. i was oddly and instantly intrigued upon finishing it. (despite finding out samuel l. jackson opted to do the film without even reading the script.) months passed with more and more buzz generating. and by the looks of it, it didn't look as if it were going to stop anytime soon. 'soap' was given the title 'best worst movie of the year' by 'wired' magazine in their january issue. new line and tagworld held a contest that gave artists a chance for their music to be heard in the film. and various spoof trailers were created by fans including ones with the titles, 'teletubbies on a plane' and 'snakes on claire danes'. within the past year 'soap' has been seen everywhere imaginable. you're probably wondering why i'm telling you all this since it has nothing to do with what i thought about the film though. well i'll tell you why. 'soap' isn't like other films. it's something completely different. almost an entity if you will. the buzz and media are both a part of it's ingeniousness. it can't be judged simply by normal standards solely on things like acting and visuals. there's so much more to it. over the past two days i've read and heard people say how horrible and downright awful 'soap' is. its not either of those things. the fact is those people just don't get it. i even tried to break it down into the usual categories you'd normally judge a film on. but it conflicted with how well i actually liked the film. yes, there's some bad dialogue in a couple of the early scenes. yes, the snakes didn't always look real. and yes, at times the movie is far more comedic than horrifying. none of this matters though. i had so much fun watching 'soap' i didn't care. the bottom line is 'soap' has a greatness that's essentially inexplicable. but not everyone is going to see that. i think michael phillips, reviewer for the chicago tribune, proves to be a prime example of the ignorance being exhibited when he says in his review, "i liked 'anaconda' better". all i'll say to that is he needs a new job. possibly a janitor in some dank office building wasting his life mopping floors, mumbling inaudible things to himself. nevertheless, i'm not suggesting you see 'snakes on a plane'. i'm telling you to go see those motherfucking snakes on that motherfucking plane! - originally written on august 9, 2006