A New Orleans to Seattle flight begins to show signs of an unnerving mystery unfolding mid‑air in Steven Quale’s Black Box: Flight 298.

Horrors set on airplanes are common because they tap into a very specific kind of vulnerability. A flight removes control, places people in an engineered environment they can’t leave, and turns routine travel into a situation where every sound or movement carries a hint of unease. The fear isn’t just the possibility of crashing, but the awareness that once the doors close, passengers are sealed inside a space suspended between destinations with no agency over what happens next. This sense of confinement shapes the film’s approach, and Black Box: Flight 298 builds on it by treating the flight as a liminal space that can’t be escaped and drawing its tension from the isolation built into that setting.

The film opens with excerpts of videos taken on phones, tablets or cameras held by gloved hands, spliced with flight telemetry that hints at a disaster already sealed into the record. The shift in tone is immediate. It creates a cold, forensic atmosphere that makes the audience aware they are watching material recovered after the fact. The tension comes from tracing the path toward that outcome and understanding why the passengers’ devices became evidence in the first place.

Early on, Black Box: Flight 298 focuses on building atmosphere. The flight takes place at night in stormy weather, which is already enough to trigger familiar anxieties about flying. None of the characters are especially deep, but they fit recognisable roles that make them easy to latch onto. Jeremy (Tom Brittney) is a bereaved solo traveller, Lauren (Boadicea Ricketts) is an Air Marshal, Chloe (Molly Belle Wright) is an innocent child, Emma (Holly White) is a level‑headed flight attendant, and Danny Mac plays an obnoxious first‑class passenger. The actors do enough to make each figure distinct, and the script gives them clear traits that make them memorable. As an ensemble, they function well, with each character contributing something to the unfolding narrative and reacting in ways that feel grounded in the situation. The film uses the tension of strangers confined together in a stressful environment to good effect, and the strongest moments come when the story shifts from surface traits to small, revealing interactions that show who these people are beneath the roles they occupy.

This makes the horror more effective because it creates the illusion of fleshed‑out characters even though none of them has more than a handful of scenes or much dialogue to establish who they are. They are easy to invest in because the situation itself is distressing and the film shows how each passenger processes it in their own way. When Jeremy starts seeing coloured flashes in the clouds, his love of comic books introduces the possibility of an overactive imagination, but it also reflects how people reach for familiar frames of reference when confronted with something they can’t explain. By that point, there’s already evidence of something strange happening, so each new experience pushes the situation further out of the passengers’ control and deepens the unfolding mystery. The characters react realistically to what they encounter, such as asking to move seats when signs of sickness appear or assuming First Class will be exempt from whatever is affecting those who didn’t pay for the privilege. It’s a small moment, but it shows how quickly the usual social structures begin to erode when the environment stops behaving as expected.

The horror is strengthened by the film’s cinematography. The plane is made to feel claustrophobic and uncomfortable through dim lighting and frequent shots that keep both sides of the cabin in view. Moving the camera through the aisle creates an unsettling sense of being watched and hunted, while external shots of the plane surrounded by mountainous clouds with no clear sky reinforce how isolated the passengers are. These choices don’t just depict the environment; they shape the film’s mood by turning the cabin into a space where every movement feels intrusive and every angle suggests a lack of escape.

Things begin to unravel once the film starts providing answers. The latter part is far less effective than the buildup, and explaining exactly why would give away major spoilers. What can be said is that the escalation shifts the film into a different register once it becomes clear what’s behind everything the passengers experienced. The reveal is competently staged and a few moments land well, but it sits at odds with the foreboding setup and doesn’t feel like a natural extension of what the film had been building toward, especially given how confidently the earlier sections establish mood and tension.

Black Box: Flight 298 never fully resolves the tension it builds, but its early focus on atmosphere, confinement and character reactions gives the film a clarity that carries it through its weaker final act. It’s an uneven experience, yet the strength of the setup makes it worth engaging with even when the destination doesn’t match the journey.

---

Verdict

An atmospheric film that builds tension with confidence even if its final answers don’t fully match the strength of the setup.

We’d love to know your thoughts on this and anything else you want to discuss. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter, BlueSky and Discord or just leave a comment in the comment section below. You’ll need an account for Disqus but it’s easy to set up. Don’t forget to share your rating in the “User Review” box.