Despite the potential of its story, Hijack ‘93 is a disappointing and lacklustre thriller that never quite takes off.
By Joseph Jonathan
Films can serve as repositories of history, capturing the essence of pivotal moments and preserving them for future generations. By portraying real events, they offer a unique window into the past, allowing audiences to connect emotionally with historical narratives.
When done well, such films can humanise the experiences of those who lived through turbulent times, providing a deeper understanding of the complexities and nuances that shaped the era. This is what the Robert O. Peters-directed thriller, Hijack ‘93, sets out to achieve, but it falls short of this standard.
Written by Musa Jeffrey David, Hijack ‘93 brings to life the shocking true events of the 1993 Nigeria Airways hijacking, reimagining the story through the characters of Kayode (Adam Garba), Omar (Nnamdi Agbo), Dayo (Akinsola Oluwaseyi), and Ben (Allison Emmanuel), who risk everything to challenge the military government’s authoritarian regime.
When the hot-headed Ben pulls a gun on an air hostess and drags her out to the cabin, the passengers’ panicked screams initially suggest imminent danger. However, as the film progresses, the tension and sense of urgency that should accompany such a dramatic act of hijacking remarkably fail to materialise.
Despite the hijackers’ “best” efforts to assert control and instil fear, the hostage situation unfolds with a puzzling lack of intensity, leaving the audience without a genuine sense of danger or consequence.
While the actions of these young men are weighty, Hijack ‘93 fails to convey the full gravity of their decisions. Why would four young men, at the peak of their lives, risk everything to hijack a plane in defiance of the military government?
Hijack ‘93 doesn’t sufficiently convey the suffocating climate of fear, repression, and brutal realities that characterised life under military dictatorship. This is especially challenging for younger audiences who didn’t experience a military regime and may struggle to grasp the desperation and frustration that drove these young men to such drastic actions.
Despite its potential, the script falls short of elevating the narrative, opting for superficiality rather than exploring the complexity the story demands. The film’s narrative shortcomings are multifaceted: the lack of clear character motivations leaves the audience questioning their actions, while the incoherent plot fails to foster any emotional investment in the characters.
As a result of the incoherent plot, the acting performances suffer, with the cast struggling to add depth to their underdeveloped roles. Through a flashback, we see that Ben’s father abuses him until Mallam Jerry (Sam Dede) takes him under his wing—but how does that lead to him being at the centre of a hijacking?
What would motivate an air hostess to conspire with the hijackers? These are just a few of the many questions raised by the underdeveloped plot.
When a film is inspired by true events, there is always a certain level of expectation, especially from those familiar with the actual story. However, Hijack ‘93 attempts to temper such expectations with an early disclaimer that “this film is a fictionalised interpretation of actual events,” though it seems as if the filmmaker took this as an opportunity to rewrite history.
For one, there is a lack of attention to props and costumes, as many do not match what was typical in 1993 Nigeria. For instance, the Nigerian Army didn’t use Toyota Hilux vehicles at the time but trucks. They wore steel helmets, not ballistic helmets, and pouch collars rather than flak/frag jackets.
Given Play Network Studios’ reputation for delivering high-end, visually stunning films, it’s alarming that Hijack ‘93 suffers from noticeable technical shortcomings. One would assume that, at the very least, the production would be free from glaring technical issues.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. The sound mixing—a crucial aspect of any film—is surprisingly poor. Jarring audio transitions disrupt the viewing experience, while poorly balanced sound levels render dialogue unclear, forcing viewers to strain to understand conversations.
One of the few silver linings in this lacklustre production is the opportunity given to talented newcomers to shine in the main cast. Their debut performances spark a sense of excitement, hinting at a brighter future in the industry. Despite being hampered by the film’s overall flaws, these emerging actors display remarkable potential.
Despite the potential of its story, Hijack ‘93 is a disappointing and lacklustre thriller that never quite takes off. What could have been an opportunity to explore a forgotten piece of Nigerian history instead becomes one of Nollywood’s obscure films. It offers no thrill, excitement, or enlightenment, providing only cheap entertainment that could just as easily be found in a random YouTube video.
Rating: 1.5/5
Joseph Jonathan is a historian who seeks to understand how film shapes our cultural identity as a people. He believes that history is more about the future than the past. When he’s not writing about film, you can catch him listening to music or discussing politics. He tweets @JosieJp3.