It was the Greek philosopher, Aristotle who said that “the beginning seems to be more than half of the whole.” A reference to the fact that how something begins can set the stage for everything that follows. This statement holds true where filmmaking is concerned as a strong opening can set the tone for the entire narrative. Unfortunately, the opposite also holds true. In the case of the Robert O. Peters-directed Hijack 93, the opening scene sets an ominous tone, hinting at the missteps to come.
To set things moving, Mallam Jerry or Teacher (Sam Dede) gives a motivational speech to his students, before telling them that he has a mission requiring four “volunteers” but then picks the four by himself. This makes you wonder, has the meaning of the word volunteer changed?
Written by Musa Jeffrey David, the film which is set in 1993 is a retelling of the infamous hijack of a Nigeria Airways flight by four young men. In this film, four disillusioned young men – Kayode (Adam Garba), Omar (Nnamdi Agbo), Dayo (Akinsola Oluwaseyi), and Ben (Allison Emmanuel) – hijack a Nigeria Airways flight en route Abuja from Lagos, driven by their frustration and discontent with the annulled presidential election of that year, which had promised a return to full democratic civilian rule in Nigeria.
One thing that makes the thriller genre, particularly hijack/hostage-themed ones like Money Heist, exciting to watch is the emotional response it evokes. The tension is palpable, the stakes are high and there’s an emotional connection to the characters (at some point you start rooting for the Professor and his team).
However, you don’t feel that tension in Hijack 93, despite the fact that it sets out to tell a story based on a high-stakes real life incident. Part of the reason why this happens is down to the writing. The story doesn’t really establish why the boys had to hijack the plane at any cost and what was at stake. Of all things to do to get the attention of the government, why hijack a plane? The film’s failure to provide clear motivations for the characters’ actions leaves the audience with more questions than answers, and the plot’s lack of coherence makes it difficult to be invested in the story.
The haphazard storytelling further limits the acting performances as the actors have little to work with. While the cast make an earnest attempt to bring depth to their roles, the character development feels shallow with characters’ motivations and backstories barely scratched. For instance, there is nothing about Mallam Jerry’s character, or how he is able to wield such influence to make four boys hijack a plane. And what is his interest in the hijack?
A still shot from the movieThe dialogue is also stilted, such that key emotional moments, like when the hijackers ask their hostages to stand with them, lack the emotional resonance and impact they should have. Instead it feels forced and contrived, leaving a sense of disconnect from the characters and story.
One would expect that a big budget production as this would at least be technically sound but Hijack 93 flatters to deceive. For one, the sound design falters in many parts with audio sounding like voice-overs sometimes. In one particular scene, it sounded like two different people were reading the lines of Capt. Kenneth Dokubo (Bob-Manuel Udokwu), the Nigerian Army Special Forces commander sent to rescue the hostages.
A still shot from the movieThe film also raises questions of verisimilitude: the appearance of being true or believable. An aircraft with over a 100 passengers was hijacked by four boys and we find them talking with each other more than watching the hostages. Even the hostages themselves do not come off as people under threat of their lives: some were sleeping or listening to music on their headphones. How does a doctor diagnose a high fever by placing a stethoscope on a patient’s chest? How did Justice Abdulazeez Yari go from peeing his pants at gun point to being bold enough to reprimand four of them all at once?
Despite the fact that Hijack 93 is based on a simple but interesting story (one that the filmmakers took time to disclaim), the execution leaves us with a film that doesn’t do enough to maintain interest. As such, you get an average thriller that doesn’t deliver on its premise.
In fact, the film makes a joke of itself despite being about a significant and serious event.
**Joseph Jonathan is a culture journalist. Catch him on X @JosieJp3
