O
Omoleye Omoruyi
Guest
We’re exhausted. I’m exhausted. The world is exhausted. But here we are, trying to stomach yet another rehash of a story, “Hijack”, that promised intensity but only delivered a lukewarm take on a truly riveting historical event. As viewers, we have two choices: sit back and endure or brace ourselves for yet another film that hijacks two precious hours with mediocrity.
By Nollywood standards, “Hijack” was supposed to be a meaningful exploration of Nigeria’s 1993 hijacking incident—a moment where four young men took over a plane in a bold protest against the country’s interim government.
Instead, “Hijack” dabbles in faux nostalgia, only reminding us of Nollywood’s ongoing struggles to fictionalise historical events in ways that feel genuine.
This trend is one we’ve seen before—remember the slave trader biopic? With its heavily made-up, glamourised character on the poster, it aims to convey historical gravitas but just ends up turning an ancient figure into a caricature.
“Hijack”s premise is fascinating on paper: Four hijackers—Richard Ogunderu, Kabir Adenuga, Benneth Oluwadaisi, and Kenny Rasaq-Lawal—take a flight meant to go from Lagos to Abuja, carrying Nigerian officials and even Chinese Vice-President, Rong Yiren.
They attempt to divert it to Frankfurt, Germany, but stop in Niamey, Niger, to refuel. Announcing themselves as the “Movement for the Advancement of Democracy in Nigeria,” the hijackers demand that the military-backed Nigerian government step down in favour of Moshood Abiola.
They threaten to burn the plane in 72 hours if their demands aren’t met. Yet, four days later, after some of the most lacklustre negotiations ever depicted on screen, gendarmes storm the plane, capturing the hijackers in an anticlimactic sequence that, sadly, results in the loss of crew member, Ethel Igwe’s life.
Directed by Robert Peters, whose past films (“30 Days in Atlanta”, “A Trip to Jamaica”) often rely on broad storytelling and comedy, “Hijack” is an odd departure from his usual work—and maybe that’s part of the problem. There’s an awkward disclaimer right at the start: “This is a fictional retelling of events, and we reserve the right to tweak it.”
In other words, brace yourself for “historical” costumes with a distinctly contemporary twist. When the actual hijack happens, the film skips out on the build-up, failing to introduce us to key passengers or VIPs on board. Instead, we’re supposed to be convinced of high stakes based on a single picture of an official’s son and the casual reveal of a Federal Judge on the flight—details left for us to discover in passing.
Bafflingly, Peters tries to shoehorn in a “tribal war” subplot when a hostage suggests they “work together.” By adding divisive social commentary to a 1993 story, “Hijack” risks reinforcing the very divisions it claims to oppose, playing into harmful stereotypes and sparking unnecessary controversy, especially in today’s already polarised social media landscape.
The subplot treatment is quick and shallow, flitting from one scene to the next without much emotional weight or continuity. Rather than give us meaningful sub-stories about the passengers’ lives or the hijackers’ motivations, we’re given barely enough to scratch the surface.
If you’re going to introduce backstories or character development, at least make them compelling. The film misses a huge opportunity to humanise the hijackers or show how they managed to hold control for days over trained soldiers and 129 passengers. We don’t see their motivations or any revolutionary fire that would make them credible threats.
Imagine if we’d witnessed rigorous training sequences or even just snippets of the hijackers’ pasts that hinted at their resolve.
In case you missed it: Lisabi is a mixed bag of history and fantasy
And then there’s the military’s final raid, which is supposed to be the film’s climax but feels as rushed and implausible as a last-minute edit.
This lacklustre execution is a common pitfall in Nollywood: building tension around subplots only to wrap up the main story in a quick, unsatisfying way. It is just the same thing Niyi Akinmolayan did in “Lisabi: The Uprising” where you’d wait the whole film before the story enters into the build-up for the uprising.
Oh please.
Unsurprisingly, the dialogue in “Hijack” feels flat and uninspired.
Many Nollywood directors treat everyday language as though it’s cinematic poetry, as though a few casual words will suffice to bring audiences to the edge of their seats. But what we need is a dialogue that elevates the stakes, that connects with the emotional intensity of the story.
Not lines that sound like they belong in a living room conversation or an office break room. Truly captivating dialogue would allow the characters’ personalities and dilemmas to shine through, something this film sorely lacks.
When it comes to character portrayals, the hijackers fall short of embodying the essence of true revolutionaries. While they may get the basic moves right, they lack the intensity, conviction, and urgency that would make us believe they were driven by a real cause. They play their roles but never transcend them.
Ultimately, “Hijack” dangles the bait of historical intrigue but delivers a jumble of loosely connected scenes and uninspired storytelling. It draws attention to a fascinating event but fails to tell its story effectively, making it less of a movie and more of a rushed montage.
We came to experience history; instead, we were hijacked by cliché.
Rating: 2/10.
The post Hijack ’93 is a brilliant throwback—for anyone craving hollow emotions and bland dialogue first appeared on Technext.
By Nollywood standards, “Hijack” was supposed to be a meaningful exploration of Nigeria’s 1993 hijacking incident—a moment where four young men took over a plane in a bold protest against the country’s interim government.
Instead, “Hijack” dabbles in faux nostalgia, only reminding us of Nollywood’s ongoing struggles to fictionalise historical events in ways that feel genuine.
This trend is one we’ve seen before—remember the slave trader biopic? With its heavily made-up, glamourised character on the poster, it aims to convey historical gravitas but just ends up turning an ancient figure into a caricature.
“Hijack”s premise is fascinating on paper: Four hijackers—Richard Ogunderu, Kabir Adenuga, Benneth Oluwadaisi, and Kenny Rasaq-Lawal—take a flight meant to go from Lagos to Abuja, carrying Nigerian officials and even Chinese Vice-President, Rong Yiren.
They attempt to divert it to Frankfurt, Germany, but stop in Niamey, Niger, to refuel. Announcing themselves as the “Movement for the Advancement of Democracy in Nigeria,” the hijackers demand that the military-backed Nigerian government step down in favour of Moshood Abiola.
They threaten to burn the plane in 72 hours if their demands aren’t met. Yet, four days later, after some of the most lacklustre negotiations ever depicted on screen, gendarmes storm the plane, capturing the hijackers in an anticlimactic sequence that, sadly, results in the loss of crew member, Ethel Igwe’s life.
Directed by Robert Peters, whose past films (“30 Days in Atlanta”, “A Trip to Jamaica”) often rely on broad storytelling and comedy, “Hijack” is an odd departure from his usual work—and maybe that’s part of the problem. There’s an awkward disclaimer right at the start: “This is a fictional retelling of events, and we reserve the right to tweak it.”
In other words, brace yourself for “historical” costumes with a distinctly contemporary twist. When the actual hijack happens, the film skips out on the build-up, failing to introduce us to key passengers or VIPs on board. Instead, we’re supposed to be convinced of high stakes based on a single picture of an official’s son and the casual reveal of a Federal Judge on the flight—details left for us to discover in passing.
Bafflingly, Peters tries to shoehorn in a “tribal war” subplot when a hostage suggests they “work together.” By adding divisive social commentary to a 1993 story, “Hijack” risks reinforcing the very divisions it claims to oppose, playing into harmful stereotypes and sparking unnecessary controversy, especially in today’s already polarised social media landscape.
The subplot treatment is quick and shallow, flitting from one scene to the next without much emotional weight or continuity. Rather than give us meaningful sub-stories about the passengers’ lives or the hijackers’ motivations, we’re given barely enough to scratch the surface.
If you’re going to introduce backstories or character development, at least make them compelling. The film misses a huge opportunity to humanise the hijackers or show how they managed to hold control for days over trained soldiers and 129 passengers. We don’t see their motivations or any revolutionary fire that would make them credible threats.
Imagine if we’d witnessed rigorous training sequences or even just snippets of the hijackers’ pasts that hinted at their resolve.
In case you missed it: Lisabi is a mixed bag of history and fantasy
And then there’s the military’s final raid, which is supposed to be the film’s climax but feels as rushed and implausible as a last-minute edit.
This lacklustre execution is a common pitfall in Nollywood: building tension around subplots only to wrap up the main story in a quick, unsatisfying way. It is just the same thing Niyi Akinmolayan did in “Lisabi: The Uprising” where you’d wait the whole film before the story enters into the build-up for the uprising.
Oh please.
Unsurprisingly, the dialogue in “Hijack” feels flat and uninspired.
Many Nollywood directors treat everyday language as though it’s cinematic poetry, as though a few casual words will suffice to bring audiences to the edge of their seats. But what we need is a dialogue that elevates the stakes, that connects with the emotional intensity of the story.
Not lines that sound like they belong in a living room conversation or an office break room. Truly captivating dialogue would allow the characters’ personalities and dilemmas to shine through, something this film sorely lacks.
When it comes to character portrayals, the hijackers fall short of embodying the essence of true revolutionaries. While they may get the basic moves right, they lack the intensity, conviction, and urgency that would make us believe they were driven by a real cause. They play their roles but never transcend them.
Ultimately, “Hijack” dangles the bait of historical intrigue but delivers a jumble of loosely connected scenes and uninspired storytelling. It draws attention to a fascinating event but fails to tell its story effectively, making it less of a movie and more of a rushed montage.
We came to experience history; instead, we were hijacked by cliché.
Rating: 2/10.
The post Hijack ’93 is a brilliant throwback—for anyone craving hollow emotions and bland dialogue first appeared on Technext.