This image was lost some time after publication.

As with any self-respecting bad movie, there were no advance press screenings of Snakes on a Plane, so we've had to wait until today to read the reviews. Rotten Tomatoes currently gives it a respectable Tomatometer score of 65%—you wouldn't want any B-horror flick clocking any higher—with a predictable lack of consensus over whether it's so [pick one from column A: good/bad/overhyped] it's [bad/good/overrated]. Here's a round-up of what some of them are saying—and because we are dealing in the always confusing "qualities of badness," we'll also clearly denote whether the reviewer was trying to be positive or negative with their put-downs in each instance:

· POSITIVE: "Naughty by nature or perhaps more by design, these snakes don't just dart out of toilets; they also slide up bare legs and under dresses, moving in and out of more bodily orifices than the adult-film star Ron Jeremy did in his prime." [NY Times]
· NEGATIVE: "Snakes on a Plane sounds like a title that Don Simpson, at 4 in the morning, scrawled in white powder on a glass table, or perhaps a pitch by Entourage's Ari Gold to his favorite client (''snakes on a plane — BOOM!'')." [EW]

· POSITIVE: "'Snakes' is a Bad Movie all right. It has '70s-style plot holes you could drive a Dodge Rambler through, plus can o' corn music..." [NY Post]
· POSITIVE: "The director, David R. Ellis, is not exactly Alfred Hitchcock — he's often messy in his stagings — but as his picture rattles along its thrill a minute flight plan he does manage to induce a certain amnesia about its preposterous premise." [Time]
· NEGATIVE: "Less campy than expected, a visual drag yet undeniably snake-filled, "Snakes on a Plane" comes with its own set of talking points on the subject of where its disposable and semi-anonymous characters get bitten. All anyone was talking about after the 10 p.m. Thursday screening I saw related to bite locations." [Chicago Tribune]
· POSITIVE: "This is one cheesy movie, bereft of logic and scornful of everything from the law of gravity to physiological fundamentals regarding how long a person can survive with a lethal dose of toxin running through their veins." [Toronto Star]