Very Entertaining. I will recommend it. Attention to detail was very factual, such as filing the bullets so they wouldn't jam and the Spandaus having to be hand cocked. Drideckers, the three winged Fokkers; did not enter the war until the very end. There were also two lions; Whisky and Soda, who were later banned to the stables because they kept peeing all over the château. The characters were very well done and told a good story. I hope it makes people look up the fliers and read about them. There were quite a few men that made up the Esquidrille and all were very interesting. When fact becomes legend print the legend.
268 Reviews
The aerial combat was exciting, tense, and realistic
the-movie-guy19 September 2006
(Synopsis) World War I began in Europe in 1914, but by 1917, the United States had still not entered the war. However, many brave young American men went to France to fly and fight for the Allied powers. They joined the Lafayette Escadrille fighter squadron. The Germans had better planes, weapons, and pilots. The average life expectancy for a fighter-pilot was three to six weeks. Why did these Americans volunteer to fight in France with certain death when their own country was not at war? This was a time when men were idealistic, but naive to embark on a great adventure. Blaine Rawlings (James Franco) was forced to leave his home in Arizona after the family ranch was foreclosed by the bank. Blaine sees a newsreel of fighter-pilots in France and decides that he has nothing to lose. Briggs Lowry (Tyler Labine) can't do anything right and is shamed into joining by his rich father. African-American boxer Eugene Skinner (Abdul Salis) had been living in France, a racially tolerant country, for many years, wanted to give something back to his new country. These Americans were under the command of French Captain Georges Thenault (Jean Reno) and American Squadron Leader Reed Cassidy (Martin Henderson). They were the world's first combat pilots.
(My Comment) The film was inspired by a true story. What that means is that the writers could write anything they wanted to about the pilots' personal lives. There were actually 38 American volunteers with an average age of 26 that joined the Lafayette Escadrille. Thirty were college educated and eleven were sons of millionaires. These men had a sense of adventure and romance of war, and they believed in "dying with honor." The movie uses a composite of these qualities of the actual pilots, and yes, there really was a black pilot in the squadron. The movie does not shy away from the real aspects of war or the sordid aspects of life on the ground. After every mission there are some pilots who do not return, and we get to see their replacements, and how the pilots deal with the loss of their friends. The aerial combat was exciting, tense, and realistic with the attack on the zeppelin being the best scene of the movie. There is a love story that slows the pace of the movie, and it was a little too long. You will love the scenes with Whiskey, their mascot lion. I think the writers could have used the real pilots' stories and names, and it would have been a better movie by giving credit to those young men. If you like war pictures this is a movie to see. (MGM Pictures, Run time 2:19, Rated PG-13)(8/10)
(My Comment) The film was inspired by a true story. What that means is that the writers could write anything they wanted to about the pilots' personal lives. There were actually 38 American volunteers with an average age of 26 that joined the Lafayette Escadrille. Thirty were college educated and eleven were sons of millionaires. These men had a sense of adventure and romance of war, and they believed in "dying with honor." The movie uses a composite of these qualities of the actual pilots, and yes, there really was a black pilot in the squadron. The movie does not shy away from the real aspects of war or the sordid aspects of life on the ground. After every mission there are some pilots who do not return, and we get to see their replacements, and how the pilots deal with the loss of their friends. The aerial combat was exciting, tense, and realistic with the attack on the zeppelin being the best scene of the movie. There is a love story that slows the pace of the movie, and it was a little too long. You will love the scenes with Whiskey, their mascot lion. I think the writers could have used the real pilots' stories and names, and it would have been a better movie by giving credit to those young men. If you like war pictures this is a movie to see. (MGM Pictures, Run time 2:19, Rated PG-13)(8/10)
A fun adventure that plays loose with history
Wailwulf22 September 2006
When I first saw the previews and read the synopsis, I was expecting a horrible film like Pearl Harbor. Fighter pilots in love with a girl. Happily the love story is not sappy or sickening and actually helps create character development. And how the love story ends is a very nice non-Hollywood ending.
The Planes look magnificent, but could have been done better. The use of German Dr1's (the Fokker Triplanes) as the only German fighter is understandable as distinguishing friend from foe. However, making all of the Dr1's (except for the main villains ) solid red is extremely annoying. While it is up to some discussion if the Red Baron's Dr1 was all red or mostly red, it does not mean that all Dr1's were red, especially all red. The Dr1's came from the Fokker factory usually in an olive drab paint scheme with a light blue underside. The film makers could have added a red scheme to the planes but left a portion olive drab and blue underside, it still would have made the Germans distinctive without being clones of Manfred von Rictoffen.
The dogfights are fun to watch and are fairly exciting, however the planes fly highly unrealistically at times. Overall the CGI is excellent but at times it is noticeable as CGI. The planes that explode (Explosions are such a Hollywood staple :) ) are unrealistic. The planes are traveling 70 t0 100 miles per hour in reality, but the explosions react as if the plane is standing still, going up in a ball instead of being spread along the doomed plane's path.
Over all it was fun to watch and covers a historical period that has long been neglected in film.
The Planes look magnificent, but could have been done better. The use of German Dr1's (the Fokker Triplanes) as the only German fighter is understandable as distinguishing friend from foe. However, making all of the Dr1's (except for the main villains ) solid red is extremely annoying. While it is up to some discussion if the Red Baron's Dr1 was all red or mostly red, it does not mean that all Dr1's were red, especially all red. The Dr1's came from the Fokker factory usually in an olive drab paint scheme with a light blue underside. The film makers could have added a red scheme to the planes but left a portion olive drab and blue underside, it still would have made the Germans distinctive without being clones of Manfred von Rictoffen.
The dogfights are fun to watch and are fairly exciting, however the planes fly highly unrealistically at times. Overall the CGI is excellent but at times it is noticeable as CGI. The planes that explode (Explosions are such a Hollywood staple :) ) are unrealistic. The planes are traveling 70 t0 100 miles per hour in reality, but the explosions react as if the plane is standing still, going up in a ball instead of being spread along the doomed plane's path.
Over all it was fun to watch and covers a historical period that has long been neglected in film.
A bunch of Ariel Tactics pushed by a romantic storyline.
rljediknight20 September 2006
I really enjoyed the movie. You didn't have to think much about it, it was what it was. Apparently there are some close ties to the true story but it never seemed an issue of trying to portray something too realistic. I am not a huge Franco fan, in fact his poutiness wears on you in most films but he seems to do a really good job of mixing it up, meaning he smiles in this one. I saw a pre-release screening and everyone that I spoke to agreed that it was a good movie. The special effects were really good, the airplanes seemed very realistic for the most part. The close ups seemed a little fake but the tactics seemed really good. I found a bit of cheesiness in the dialog at times but managed to not pay too much attention too it. It wasn't deep but kept you interested the whole time. Don't get me wrong, it was no Saving Private Ryan but it had enough action and drama to keep you interested. They even threw a bit of humor in to keep you loose in your seat. I would recommend it to anyone, just don't expect to walk away a changed person for having seen it. It was a fun movie with some good historical point.
Just attended the Premier
glider_pilot28 July 2006
I just attended the premier of Flyboys at the Oshkosh Airshow. Enjoyed it thoroughly. The flight scene special effects were difficult to impossible to distinguish from the actual flying. Director Tony Bill discussed the background and making of the film to an audience composed largely of aviators including some of the best such as Bob Hoover, Sean Tucker and others. A difficult audience to impress and impressed they were.
The film does not shy away from the ugly aspects of combat nor does it ignore the seamier aspects of the non-flying life although that is nowhere near becoming graphic. The history has been treated accurately - and yes there was really a black pilot as portrayed in the film. I have read a number of histories and autobiographical accounts of the American volunteers - they were idealistic and naive. Thats just the age they lived in - don't judge the characterizations by todays standards.
Anyway, a wonderful film.
The film does not shy away from the ugly aspects of combat nor does it ignore the seamier aspects of the non-flying life although that is nowhere near becoming graphic. The history has been treated accurately - and yes there was really a black pilot as portrayed in the film. I have read a number of histories and autobiographical accounts of the American volunteers - they were idealistic and naive. Thats just the age they lived in - don't judge the characterizations by todays standards.
Anyway, a wonderful film.
Cinematic Clichés fly as often as the planes
mgenovese-123 September 2006
Do not expect much from the plot as you need not scratch the surface too deeply to experience de'ja vu. (I've seen these plot elements before in just about every war/buddy/love story flick I have ever seen).
The acting is decent and the special effects are superb. Do not see this movie with high expectations regarding the plot and you will not be disappointed.
The effects wizards took a page from Howard Hughes as there are plenty of clouds in the air combat scenes to lend a feeling of depth and speed. The dog fights are pretty exciting and worth the price of admission to see on the big screen.
The acting is decent and the special effects are superb. Do not see this movie with high expectations regarding the plot and you will not be disappointed.
The effects wizards took a page from Howard Hughes as there are plenty of clouds in the air combat scenes to lend a feeling of depth and speed. The dog fights are pretty exciting and worth the price of admission to see on the big screen.
Lafayette Escadrille
SonOfMoog22 September 2006
This is the story of American volunteers who fought for the French during World War I before America entered the war. It is based on a true story, and largely faithful to that story. The first world war was the first "ugly" war. It is the first war where, as one of the characters observes, "Neither side will win. It will just end." And, this movie does not shrink away from showing the horror, the ugliness, and the overwhelming grimness of war.
Because the special effects made it possible, more than any movie in recent memory, it graphically shows the excitement and the adrenaline rush of combat flying. The combat sequences are nothing short of dazzling; they were so good I could experience vicariously the rush of bullets tearing through cloth fuselages, the spins and turns, and dips and climbs, and barrel rolls, and dives, and with all that, I could look inside myself and know I did not have the courage to do what they did. In the end, that's what this story is about, and the love story, the individual pilot lives fade into the background.
Still, it's worth noting, one of the movie's best moments is the denouement where we learn what happened to the Americans of the Lafayette Escadrille, those who survived. I won't spoil it for you, just know that truth is stranger than fiction, and often a good deal sadder. I enjoyed Flyboys for what it was: the chance to vicariously experience the adrenaline rush of aerial combat. Performances were good, and Jean Reno was great as the captain of the Lafayette Escadrille. Nice popcorn flick.
Because the special effects made it possible, more than any movie in recent memory, it graphically shows the excitement and the adrenaline rush of combat flying. The combat sequences are nothing short of dazzling; they were so good I could experience vicariously the rush of bullets tearing through cloth fuselages, the spins and turns, and dips and climbs, and barrel rolls, and dives, and with all that, I could look inside myself and know I did not have the courage to do what they did. In the end, that's what this story is about, and the love story, the individual pilot lives fade into the background.
Still, it's worth noting, one of the movie's best moments is the denouement where we learn what happened to the Americans of the Lafayette Escadrille, those who survived. I won't spoil it for you, just know that truth is stranger than fiction, and often a good deal sadder. I enjoyed Flyboys for what it was: the chance to vicariously experience the adrenaline rush of aerial combat. Performances were good, and Jean Reno was great as the captain of the Lafayette Escadrille. Nice popcorn flick.
Twenty minutes worth
btillman6324 September 2006
There are five combat sequences that make this flick worth your ticket--maybe 20 minutes worth seeing in the entire film. The CGI is excellent, especially the Gotha bomber. Wow. And the Zeppelin ain't bad.
Having said that: It's riddled with factual and historical errors, ALL of which were avoidable had the writers/director cared to pay attention. (It probably would have cost nothing to do it right.)
A short list would include: Nonexistent aircraft in 1916 such as the Fokker Triplanes (all of them red except the black one!), Sopwith Camel, SE-5, and Bristol Fighter.
The concept of training pilots to fly in a combat squadron is of course absurd but the director apparently thought it necessary as a plot device.
French airmen learning to fly in a British airplane (Sopwith Strutter) is equally absurd.
For the real hair splitters, the Gotha and some triplanes have the straight-edged Balkan crosses that appeared two years later. Other fingernails on the blackboard include "9mm Spandau" machine guns (they were 7.92 Mauser) and "canvas" covering on the wings when cotton or linen were used because canvas was much too heavy.
But beyond that, the script takes a pedestrian approach to what could have been a more evocative, even inspiring, film. There are no standout performances, and the syrupy, chaste romance goes nowhere. The only reason for including it probably was to draw in more of an audience as a date flick (not quite a chick flick.) For those of us who truly enjoy aviation films, this one proved a major disappointment but hey, within limits, almost any WW I flying flick is better than no WW I flying flick.
Having said that: It's riddled with factual and historical errors, ALL of which were avoidable had the writers/director cared to pay attention. (It probably would have cost nothing to do it right.)
A short list would include: Nonexistent aircraft in 1916 such as the Fokker Triplanes (all of them red except the black one!), Sopwith Camel, SE-5, and Bristol Fighter.
The concept of training pilots to fly in a combat squadron is of course absurd but the director apparently thought it necessary as a plot device.
French airmen learning to fly in a British airplane (Sopwith Strutter) is equally absurd.
For the real hair splitters, the Gotha and some triplanes have the straight-edged Balkan crosses that appeared two years later. Other fingernails on the blackboard include "9mm Spandau" machine guns (they were 7.92 Mauser) and "canvas" covering on the wings when cotton or linen were used because canvas was much too heavy.
But beyond that, the script takes a pedestrian approach to what could have been a more evocative, even inspiring, film. There are no standout performances, and the syrupy, chaste romance goes nowhere. The only reason for including it probably was to draw in more of an audience as a date flick (not quite a chick flick.) For those of us who truly enjoy aviation films, this one proved a major disappointment but hey, within limits, almost any WW I flying flick is better than no WW I flying flick.
Wasn't my first choice...but a nice surprise...
wilkinsd-124 September 2006
I was expecting a WWI version of Pearl Harbor. What I got was and edge-of-your-seat, cheer-out-loud, cinematic adventure (little Dane Cook for you) I didn't have a huge interest in seeing the film initially but after some insistence by family members I caved and watched in absolute delight.
This film is not heavy on the dialog, but the dogfight sequences are breath-taking at the very least. The love story is believable and doesn't overdo-it on the Kissie-face...
Finally Note....It never ceases to amaze me that decent films like this and many other continue to get dozens of votes in the '1' bracket. I seriously doubt that whoever did so, didn't see the film. Get a life.
This film is not heavy on the dialog, but the dogfight sequences are breath-taking at the very least. The love story is believable and doesn't overdo-it on the Kissie-face...
Finally Note....It never ceases to amaze me that decent films like this and many other continue to get dozens of votes in the '1' bracket. I seriously doubt that whoever did so, didn't see the film. Get a life.
Trite, dumb and pointless.
rulerattray-222 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to see a movie in which the CGI flying sequences are cluttered and unconvincing, where the hero takes no evasive action at all as the nasty guy in the black Fokker sits on his tail taking careful aim, where airplanes continuously fly through the camera, where bullets make holes as big as pie plates when they hit fabric instead of punching though it, where our hero cannot lift the fabric-covered wing off his friend's hand, where a girl learns English in two easy lessons, where the Squadron CO gives the hero a medal for disobeying a direct order, where the hero is out of uniform half the time, and where nobody at all says a damned thing worth listening to, then by all means go see "Flyboys".
But if you'd like to see a movie about the same subject in which the action sequences are actually exciting, something is said about war that is worth thinking about and the characters are well-played, go rent "The Dawn Patrol", made in 1938.
Twenty times better than this.
No, on second thought, fifty times better than this.
But if you'd like to see a movie about the same subject in which the action sequences are actually exciting, something is said about war that is worth thinking about and the characters are well-played, go rent "The Dawn Patrol", made in 1938.
Twenty times better than this.
No, on second thought, fifty times better than this.
Spectacular and colorful WWI airplane movie with an enjoyable cast and breathtaking aerial battles
ma-cortes9 April 2013
This film's opening prologue states:"By the start of 1916, World War I had wreaked havoc across Europe. Over nine million people would eventually die. Although the airplane had only recently been invented, it was quickly adapted into a war machine. The young men who flew them became the first fighter pilots and a new kind of hero was born." The adventures of the Lafayette Escadrille, young Americans who volunteered for the French military before the U.S. entered World War I, and became the country's first fighter pilots. Among them , Blaine Rawlings (James Franco) , Eugene Skinner (Abdul Salis) , William Jensen (Philip Winchester), Beagle (David Ellison) and Reed Cassidy (Martin Henderson , Reed was mainly inspired by Raoul Lufbery whose personal insignia is an eagle's head surrounded by the words "Je Vois Tout" meaning "I see all") , the leading flying ace of the Escadrille Squadron (similarly to film , the real Lafayette Escadrille actually had a pair of lion cubs as mascots).
Spectacular dogfighting , colorful scenario , all-star cast and memorable acting . Big-budget extended adventures produced by Dean Devlin about a maverick pilot and his partners undergoing risked feats on air and bombing on earth . Based on a story by Blake Evans and being well adapted by Phil Sears and David S Ward . Very good aerial actioner plenty action , steamy romance , drama , fantastic cloudy scenes and spectacular dogfighting . James Franco shows professionalism as a crack fighter pilot , he plays an ambitious youth assigned to dangerous missions , Franco even earned his pilot's license in preparation for this film . Top-notch support cast gives excellent performances as Jean Reno as a stiff officer , Philip Winchester , Tim Pigott Smith , David Ellison and a gorgeous Jennifer Decker . Special mention to Abdul Salis whose character of Skinner is based on the Escadrille-pilot Eugene Bullard, an American who has gone to France and worked as a boxer there, he was also a son of a slave, just like Skinner .
Rousing aerial scenes spectacularly staged , though in excessive use of digital effects , being the first movie to motion capture planes. Filmmakers attempted to use lightweight reproductions of WWI aircraft, but grounded them after an accident. Wonderfully photographed by Henry Braham and marvelous musical score by Trevor Ravin are the chief assets of this spectacular film . As no studios would back the film, a group of filmmakers and investors including producer 'Dean Devlin ' and according to press-releases "ace pilot" David Ellison, son of Oracle Corp. founder Larry Ellison, spent more than $60 million of their own money to make and market this film. This lavish airplane movie was professionally directed by Tony Bill . 'Flyboys' is a rehash of the former airplane movie clichés in which the splendid casting stands out . Rating : Good and entertaining , it's a fairly watchable and breathtaking film and results to be a good treatment of WWI flying aces .
Spectacular dogfighting , colorful scenario , all-star cast and memorable acting . Big-budget extended adventures produced by Dean Devlin about a maverick pilot and his partners undergoing risked feats on air and bombing on earth . Based on a story by Blake Evans and being well adapted by Phil Sears and David S Ward . Very good aerial actioner plenty action , steamy romance , drama , fantastic cloudy scenes and spectacular dogfighting . James Franco shows professionalism as a crack fighter pilot , he plays an ambitious youth assigned to dangerous missions , Franco even earned his pilot's license in preparation for this film . Top-notch support cast gives excellent performances as Jean Reno as a stiff officer , Philip Winchester , Tim Pigott Smith , David Ellison and a gorgeous Jennifer Decker . Special mention to Abdul Salis whose character of Skinner is based on the Escadrille-pilot Eugene Bullard, an American who has gone to France and worked as a boxer there, he was also a son of a slave, just like Skinner .
Rousing aerial scenes spectacularly staged , though in excessive use of digital effects , being the first movie to motion capture planes. Filmmakers attempted to use lightweight reproductions of WWI aircraft, but grounded them after an accident. Wonderfully photographed by Henry Braham and marvelous musical score by Trevor Ravin are the chief assets of this spectacular film . As no studios would back the film, a group of filmmakers and investors including producer 'Dean Devlin ' and according to press-releases "ace pilot" David Ellison, son of Oracle Corp. founder Larry Ellison, spent more than $60 million of their own money to make and market this film. This lavish airplane movie was professionally directed by Tony Bill . 'Flyboys' is a rehash of the former airplane movie clichés in which the splendid casting stands out . Rating : Good and entertaining , it's a fairly watchable and breathtaking film and results to be a good treatment of WWI flying aces .
Everyone associated with this production deserves to be shot.
dl4318 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Talk about ineptitude (among other things), this supposed homage to an actual WWI squadron perpetuates just about every conceivable cliché imaginable, furthermore effectively stealing elements from nearly every aviation flick ever devised, including Blue Max, the Dawn Patrol, Dark Blue World, the Tuskegee Airmen, and even that age-old silent flick from 1927, WINGS. Furtherome, the battle scenes themselves reflect the most cheesy elements of propaganda war flicks, culminating in the endless ranks of snarling villains, the cheering crowds on the ground below as our heroes intercept the strafing Huns to save the day, and even a veritable race against the proverbial clock to destroy a German airship before it supposedly "obliviates" the entirety of Paris.
And as of the various manners in which this film blatantly exhibits its readily apparent lack of prowess for historical and technical accuracies, let me count the ways.
For starters, let's consider the countless manners in which the on-screen aircraft repeatedly defy the laws physics. Admittedly, some reviewers have pointed out Tony Bill's part-time profession as an aerobatic pilot, which in essence appears to compromised his interpretations of World War I combat, as he seems to have derived his perception of first world war fighters from having logged too many hours in Pitts Special as opposed to having derived genuine insight into the performance capabilities and limitations of such elaborate contusions of fabric and wood. For one thing, the aircraft exhibit speeds twice in excess of the actual performance capabilities of World War I fighters, culminating in a host of physical implausibilities as overly efficient climbing characteristics as if instigated in the absence of a stall barrier, low-level maneuvers that would have invariably either stalled the aircraft or resulted in considerable wing shear, not to mention that these biplanes and Triplanes exhibit phenomenal roll-rates which no multi-winged aircraft on the planet could possibly emulate. Evidently, Tony Bill exhibits an accurate conception of three dimensional space, but not of the actual performance characteristics of World War One aircraft.
Furthermore, the movie's glaring affinity for historical inaccuracy reflects the presence of numerous aircraft that never existed during the Escardrille's 1916 escapades, including the SE.5, Handley Page 400, Gotha IV, and of course the Fokker Dr. 1 Triplane, which brings me to another issue that drives me out of my mind, culminating in one of the most trivial misconceptions about World War I aviation. Bottom line, the above depiction stems from a childish conception that by default associates World War One German aviation with countless formations of red-coated Triplanes, as if the Germans had somehow managed to perpetuate endless clones of Von Richtofen, to say nothing about the fact that the Fokker Dr. 1 was ultimately produced in insignificant numbers, culminating in an actual production run of only 160 examples.
In fact, the Lafayette Escabdrille fought the majority of its pitched-battles against outmoded Fokker E.III Eindeckers and two-seat Albatross and Aviatik observation scouts, the superior equipment of the Amercans frequently offset by their readily apparent lack of experience.
And another thing, the average life expectancy of a World War I pilot is actually confined to the space of a single week, unlike the film's more optimistic projection of 3 to 6. Furthermore, somebody should remind the screenwriters never to emphasizes the virtues of German aircraft by citing the presence of all powerful engines, as the rates of horsepower which the Germans managed to conceive lagged considerably behind that of their allied counterparts.
Furthermore, pilots were indeed NOT permitted to instill their own personal insignias, considering that, unlike World War II, pilots were rarely assigned individual aircraft, often dispersing their ranks among the types available and typically sharing planes out amongst each other. Furthermore, as depicted within the closing scene, there is simply no such thing as rejoining one's formation in the event of finalizing an aerial skirmish, as aircraft frequently fought pitched battles at length, scattering miles away from each other, thus relaying each pilot with the burden of utilizing landmarks and navigations skills as the sole means for finding their way home on an individual basis.
Reverting to the film's one and only redeeming feature, the various aspects in which the Flyboys attempts to model battle damage in conjunction with the various behaviors of shedding wings and burning engines bear a more accurate depiction than the remainder of the film. However, given the all too elaborate staging of such sequences through an over use of Green Screen techninques in conjunction with an overabundance of CGI effectively renders the overall appearance as reminiscent of, as one reviewer stated, "playing a really cool video game" as opposed to providing a genuine "in the cockpit" sensation for piloting such frail machinations.
Most offensive, however, is the gratuitous manner in which the movie concocts the entire spectacle within a fanciful dressing of glamour, all the while pedaling it's pretensions for historical and physical accuracy.
In all fairness, perhaps I should lend Tony Bill an additional bone by citing the best moment of the entire movie, in which the guts of that blabbering Christian fanatic splatters the entirety of his instrument panel.
Ultimately, the photograph at the end of the actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille seems like a cruel joke, as if the preceding spectacle of cartoonish escapism somehow culminates in an authentic tribute to the squadron in question.
Considering the shear sparsity of world war one related aviation flicks, it doesn't take a genius to brand this endeavor as by far the worst ever conceived.
For more informative and productive viewing, I can suggest virtually every other aviation flick on the market, from the veritable classics like "Blue Max" and "Aces High" , to some of the more lukewarm efforts of "Ace of Aces" and "Von Richtofen and Brown".
And as of the various manners in which this film blatantly exhibits its readily apparent lack of prowess for historical and technical accuracies, let me count the ways.
For starters, let's consider the countless manners in which the on-screen aircraft repeatedly defy the laws physics. Admittedly, some reviewers have pointed out Tony Bill's part-time profession as an aerobatic pilot, which in essence appears to compromised his interpretations of World War I combat, as he seems to have derived his perception of first world war fighters from having logged too many hours in Pitts Special as opposed to having derived genuine insight into the performance capabilities and limitations of such elaborate contusions of fabric and wood. For one thing, the aircraft exhibit speeds twice in excess of the actual performance capabilities of World War I fighters, culminating in a host of physical implausibilities as overly efficient climbing characteristics as if instigated in the absence of a stall barrier, low-level maneuvers that would have invariably either stalled the aircraft or resulted in considerable wing shear, not to mention that these biplanes and Triplanes exhibit phenomenal roll-rates which no multi-winged aircraft on the planet could possibly emulate. Evidently, Tony Bill exhibits an accurate conception of three dimensional space, but not of the actual performance characteristics of World War One aircraft.
Furthermore, the movie's glaring affinity for historical inaccuracy reflects the presence of numerous aircraft that never existed during the Escardrille's 1916 escapades, including the SE.5, Handley Page 400, Gotha IV, and of course the Fokker Dr. 1 Triplane, which brings me to another issue that drives me out of my mind, culminating in one of the most trivial misconceptions about World War I aviation. Bottom line, the above depiction stems from a childish conception that by default associates World War One German aviation with countless formations of red-coated Triplanes, as if the Germans had somehow managed to perpetuate endless clones of Von Richtofen, to say nothing about the fact that the Fokker Dr. 1 was ultimately produced in insignificant numbers, culminating in an actual production run of only 160 examples.
In fact, the Lafayette Escabdrille fought the majority of its pitched-battles against outmoded Fokker E.III Eindeckers and two-seat Albatross and Aviatik observation scouts, the superior equipment of the Amercans frequently offset by their readily apparent lack of experience.
And another thing, the average life expectancy of a World War I pilot is actually confined to the space of a single week, unlike the film's more optimistic projection of 3 to 6. Furthermore, somebody should remind the screenwriters never to emphasizes the virtues of German aircraft by citing the presence of all powerful engines, as the rates of horsepower which the Germans managed to conceive lagged considerably behind that of their allied counterparts.
Furthermore, pilots were indeed NOT permitted to instill their own personal insignias, considering that, unlike World War II, pilots were rarely assigned individual aircraft, often dispersing their ranks among the types available and typically sharing planes out amongst each other. Furthermore, as depicted within the closing scene, there is simply no such thing as rejoining one's formation in the event of finalizing an aerial skirmish, as aircraft frequently fought pitched battles at length, scattering miles away from each other, thus relaying each pilot with the burden of utilizing landmarks and navigations skills as the sole means for finding their way home on an individual basis.
Reverting to the film's one and only redeeming feature, the various aspects in which the Flyboys attempts to model battle damage in conjunction with the various behaviors of shedding wings and burning engines bear a more accurate depiction than the remainder of the film. However, given the all too elaborate staging of such sequences through an over use of Green Screen techninques in conjunction with an overabundance of CGI effectively renders the overall appearance as reminiscent of, as one reviewer stated, "playing a really cool video game" as opposed to providing a genuine "in the cockpit" sensation for piloting such frail machinations.
Most offensive, however, is the gratuitous manner in which the movie concocts the entire spectacle within a fanciful dressing of glamour, all the while pedaling it's pretensions for historical and physical accuracy.
In all fairness, perhaps I should lend Tony Bill an additional bone by citing the best moment of the entire movie, in which the guts of that blabbering Christian fanatic splatters the entirety of his instrument panel.
Ultimately, the photograph at the end of the actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille seems like a cruel joke, as if the preceding spectacle of cartoonish escapism somehow culminates in an authentic tribute to the squadron in question.
Considering the shear sparsity of world war one related aviation flicks, it doesn't take a genius to brand this endeavor as by far the worst ever conceived.
For more informative and productive viewing, I can suggest virtually every other aviation flick on the market, from the veritable classics like "Blue Max" and "Aces High" , to some of the more lukewarm efforts of "Ace of Aces" and "Von Richtofen and Brown".
Star Wars meets the French Foreign Air Force in WW1
Big Al-1223 July 2006
When this movie hits theaters this fall it will be setting a new standard for digital FX photography action scenes. I had a hard time telling the difference between the real stunt flying and the CGI. It almost makes George Lucas's dogfights in space look crude. (OK, maybe with the exception of that fantastic first shot in Episode 3.) But imagine that level of technological knowhow applied to a WW1 dogfight. And like the original "Star Wars" there is a scene here involving the German equivalent of the Death Star threatening Paris that is nothing short of spectacular. A shame, then, that the rest of the story is less than inspiring. Whatever the actual history, I didn't quite believe the subplot of the black American pilot. He seemed a cliché and just one of several stock characters. The love story ultimately goes nowhere, either, though James Franco and Jennifer Decker both turn in moving performances. As innocent and naive as Franco and his friends seem, they never get past the cardboard stage. It would've been more interesting to me if they were a neurotic, drunken, whoring bunch of elitists, most of whom would then never get over the experience. Rather than tell that tale of a decadent, sophisticated flyboy of the Lafayette Escadrille, however, they settle here for the Disney version, appealing to the lowest common denominator and an audience of teenagers, with Franco doing a good job playing Luke Skywalker, or maybe Gary Cooper. Jean Reno seemed largely wasted. I kept hoping he'd have more to do. But lest you think I had a bad time, think again. This is a movie about "aeroplanes," and they are all terrific, be they replicas or virtual. And the overall production design is superb.
Entertaining War Adventure and Romance
claudio_carvalho6 November 2016
In 1916, a group of young American volunteers join the French Air Force under the command of Captain Georges Thenault (Jean Reno) to fight the Germans in World War I. They are trained by the veteran pilot Reed Cassidy (Martin Henderson), who lost all his pals, and after a couple of missions, the survivors become the respected Lafayette Escadrille. Meanwhile the Texan fighter pilot Blaine Rawlings (James Franco) meets the gorgeous French Lucienne (Jennifer Decker) and despite the difference of languages and culture, they fall in love with each other. Who will survive the war?
"Flyboys" is an entertaining war adventure with a pleasant romance, in the same style of William A. Wellman's masterpiece "Wings" (1927). The characters are well developed in the concise subplots and the performances are great. The battle scenes are well made as well the special effects. And the beautiful Jennifer Decker is an adorable woman and steals the show. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Flyboys"
"Flyboys" is an entertaining war adventure with a pleasant romance, in the same style of William A. Wellman's masterpiece "Wings" (1927). The characters are well developed in the concise subplots and the performances are great. The battle scenes are well made as well the special effects. And the beautiful Jennifer Decker is an adorable woman and steals the show. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Flyboys"
Visually Stunning ... Historically Accurate
SeanHaff28 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
On Saturday, August 26th, I saw the first public screening of "FLYBOYS" at the Warner Theatre in Torrington, CT.
For those of you who don't know the story of the Lafayette Escadrilles, they were a squadron of Americans who, during World War I, went to France before the US joined in the fight. The Escadrilles were trained there and flew missions against the Germans. They are credited with helping to stop the German advance into France in the early stages of the war.
James Franco plays Rawlings...a cowboy whose ranch has been foreclosed. As he's watching a newsreel about the Lafayette Escadrilles, the local sheriff tells him that he has an arrest warrant for him and tells him to leave town. Then we see the other pilots-to-be as they leave for France: the all-American guy with the pretty fiancée, the rich guy who's been a disappointment to his dad, the black American who is already in France making a living as a boxer, etc...
At the Escadrilles' airfield, they meet up with the Escadrilles leader, Captain Thenault (Jean Reno, who is really under-used in the movie) and Squadron Leader Cassidy. Cassidy is known for flying extra missions after their main missions, so that he can try to exact revenge for any pilots that they lost during the main missions (I actually found him to be more interesting than Rawlings).
They are dropped off at the American barracks, which is a mansion that's been taken over by the military. As soon as they get into the mansion/barracks, Rawlings is jumped by a young lion the Escadrilles' tame mascot "Whiskey" (which is a true part of the Escadrilles' history). Then we are shown the pilots' flight training in a fairly short montage which ends with each of them taking off on their first solo flights.
After that, their real missions begin. Their first mission is a bust when they are ambushed by the Germans, but with each following mission, the pilots improve. After awhile, they begin to earn the respect of the more seasoned pilots. As their missions continue, some of the pilots are killed and replaced by newbies with their own unique personalities, including a Bible-carrying Christian who sings "Onward Christian Soldiers" as he shoots down German planes (I liked this guy). There is also the cliché pilot who loses his nerve early on in the film, only to come back strong later (but this is still handled well).
We are introduced to the German ace Wolfert, who has the sense of honor and chivalry that other movies about World War I pilots always overplayed a bit too much for my liking. Thank God, Flyboys doesn't make the same mistake...they make it clear that Wolfert will kill the allied pilots when he has the chance. We are also introduced to the "Black Falcon", who is Wolfert's counterpart in the German squadron. He is sadistic and has no qualms about shooting a pilot who has crash-landed, walked away from his plane, and is no longer a threat. Although all of the Germans are the Escadrilles' enemies, the Black Falcon is the real "bad guy" in the movie. He is used sparingly in the film, but to good effect.
There is also a love story...and, just like most movies based on history...this love story is unnecessary for the telling of the Escadrilles' story. Rawlings meets a pretty French girl after he crashes during a training mission. Rawlings is taken with her, and tries to build a relationship with her. She is afraid of getting too attached to him, afraid that he's going to be killed in combat, but eventually she gives in to his advances (as if she wouldn't ...come on). The love story could have been worse, could have been more sappy, could have been Pearl Harbor, but it wasn't (at least I give the filmmakers credit for that).
Now, if you've seen the trailer for Flyboys, you've already seen glimpses of the high quality of the visual effects. I was reading that the movie cost somewhere around $60 million and these days, that amount of money doesn't usually lend itself to a visual effects-heavy movie. But this movie is LOADED with long visual effects sequences of the highest quality. Except for some shots of the pilots in the cockpits that you just KNOW were shot on a sound stage, everything else looks fantastic. The big scene with the zeppelin that is in the movie's trailer is great. The flight scenes in general are exciting and tense. The flight characteristics of the planes are very realistic, and they don't do anything that the real planes couldn't have done. Also, the sound effects and editing are fantastic. I'll say right now that this movie should easily be nominated for Oscars in the visual and sound effects/editing categories.
I know enough about the Escadrilles to know that the filmmakers didn't stray too far from historical reality (Tony Bill even mentioned that the black character wasn't in the film as the "token black guy"...the first black American fighter pilot WAS a part of the Escadrilles and except for in the beginning of the movie, they don't make a big deal out of it). Again, putting aside the love story part of the movie, the story is very well-told and the acting is solid. Even James Franco, who I have always found to be wooden in past films, seems relaxed and comfortable in his role as Rawlings, and he gets the job done (although I might have gone with someone less well-known who was just a better actor in general). The actor who played Cassidy (Martin Henderson) and Jean Reno are excellent (although Reno's role is a bit too small).
DON'T WAIT FOR THE DVD!! See this movie in a THEATER, to get the full effect of the amazing work done by the filmmakers.
For those of you who don't know the story of the Lafayette Escadrilles, they were a squadron of Americans who, during World War I, went to France before the US joined in the fight. The Escadrilles were trained there and flew missions against the Germans. They are credited with helping to stop the German advance into France in the early stages of the war.
James Franco plays Rawlings...a cowboy whose ranch has been foreclosed. As he's watching a newsreel about the Lafayette Escadrilles, the local sheriff tells him that he has an arrest warrant for him and tells him to leave town. Then we see the other pilots-to-be as they leave for France: the all-American guy with the pretty fiancée, the rich guy who's been a disappointment to his dad, the black American who is already in France making a living as a boxer, etc...
At the Escadrilles' airfield, they meet up with the Escadrilles leader, Captain Thenault (Jean Reno, who is really under-used in the movie) and Squadron Leader Cassidy. Cassidy is known for flying extra missions after their main missions, so that he can try to exact revenge for any pilots that they lost during the main missions (I actually found him to be more interesting than Rawlings).
They are dropped off at the American barracks, which is a mansion that's been taken over by the military. As soon as they get into the mansion/barracks, Rawlings is jumped by a young lion the Escadrilles' tame mascot "Whiskey" (which is a true part of the Escadrilles' history). Then we are shown the pilots' flight training in a fairly short montage which ends with each of them taking off on their first solo flights.
After that, their real missions begin. Their first mission is a bust when they are ambushed by the Germans, but with each following mission, the pilots improve. After awhile, they begin to earn the respect of the more seasoned pilots. As their missions continue, some of the pilots are killed and replaced by newbies with their own unique personalities, including a Bible-carrying Christian who sings "Onward Christian Soldiers" as he shoots down German planes (I liked this guy). There is also the cliché pilot who loses his nerve early on in the film, only to come back strong later (but this is still handled well).
We are introduced to the German ace Wolfert, who has the sense of honor and chivalry that other movies about World War I pilots always overplayed a bit too much for my liking. Thank God, Flyboys doesn't make the same mistake...they make it clear that Wolfert will kill the allied pilots when he has the chance. We are also introduced to the "Black Falcon", who is Wolfert's counterpart in the German squadron. He is sadistic and has no qualms about shooting a pilot who has crash-landed, walked away from his plane, and is no longer a threat. Although all of the Germans are the Escadrilles' enemies, the Black Falcon is the real "bad guy" in the movie. He is used sparingly in the film, but to good effect.
There is also a love story...and, just like most movies based on history...this love story is unnecessary for the telling of the Escadrilles' story. Rawlings meets a pretty French girl after he crashes during a training mission. Rawlings is taken with her, and tries to build a relationship with her. She is afraid of getting too attached to him, afraid that he's going to be killed in combat, but eventually she gives in to his advances (as if she wouldn't ...come on). The love story could have been worse, could have been more sappy, could have been Pearl Harbor, but it wasn't (at least I give the filmmakers credit for that).
Now, if you've seen the trailer for Flyboys, you've already seen glimpses of the high quality of the visual effects. I was reading that the movie cost somewhere around $60 million and these days, that amount of money doesn't usually lend itself to a visual effects-heavy movie. But this movie is LOADED with long visual effects sequences of the highest quality. Except for some shots of the pilots in the cockpits that you just KNOW were shot on a sound stage, everything else looks fantastic. The big scene with the zeppelin that is in the movie's trailer is great. The flight scenes in general are exciting and tense. The flight characteristics of the planes are very realistic, and they don't do anything that the real planes couldn't have done. Also, the sound effects and editing are fantastic. I'll say right now that this movie should easily be nominated for Oscars in the visual and sound effects/editing categories.
I know enough about the Escadrilles to know that the filmmakers didn't stray too far from historical reality (Tony Bill even mentioned that the black character wasn't in the film as the "token black guy"...the first black American fighter pilot WAS a part of the Escadrilles and except for in the beginning of the movie, they don't make a big deal out of it). Again, putting aside the love story part of the movie, the story is very well-told and the acting is solid. Even James Franco, who I have always found to be wooden in past films, seems relaxed and comfortable in his role as Rawlings, and he gets the job done (although I might have gone with someone less well-known who was just a better actor in general). The actor who played Cassidy (Martin Henderson) and Jean Reno are excellent (although Reno's role is a bit too small).
DON'T WAIT FOR THE DVD!! See this movie in a THEATER, to get the full effect of the amazing work done by the filmmakers.
Spad Boys
qormi19 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
All in all,I liked it for what it is - entertainment. It wasn't exactly gritty and it wasn't exactly a chick flick. It was WWI lite, I suppose. The most glaring inaccuracy would be the fact that James Franco's character was the only soldier in 1917 with highlights in his hair. Sure, clichés abounded, but not so much as to ruin the film. The aerial sequences were quite good. The part where he guy got strafed after landing in a field was dumb. If an airplane's strafing you with a machine gun, would you run in a straight line instead of diving behind your plane? Also, why couldn't Rawlings lift a paper and wood wing one inch to free his pal's hand? Why didn't he hack the wing tip off instead of the guy's hand? Gritty realism it was not. Almost a chick flick, but, thank goodness, not. The WWI trench warfare sequences were very realistic.
Painful to watch.
Sargonarhes3 August 2007
OK I love history and war stories, good war stories. This isn't one of them.
Don't know why I'm posting this as it coming this late no one will be reading this, but I've got to get this off my chest because I've heard so many people say great things about this movie and I'm not just a little disappointed. The heavy use of the Folker DR1 Tri-planes was just too much. Those came in later in the war and not used in such large numbers, and why so many were made to look like the most infamous one of all was just bad taste. I'm glad I didn't go see this at the theaters, but I'm still disappointed I paid to rent this movie.
Don't know why I'm posting this as it coming this late no one will be reading this, but I've got to get this off my chest because I've heard so many people say great things about this movie and I'm not just a little disappointed. The heavy use of the Folker DR1 Tri-planes was just too much. Those came in later in the war and not used in such large numbers, and why so many were made to look like the most infamous one of all was just bad taste. I'm glad I didn't go see this at the theaters, but I'm still disappointed I paid to rent this movie.
A very disappointing film
neil-73923 December 2007
The first problem I have with this film is in it's opening titles claiming to be based on a true story. This sets you up with anticipation that the filmmakers have developed this film aiming for authenticity, recreating what it was like to be the first fighter pilots in the first modern war. For the first time films makers have the tools with CGI to truly accurately portray the visceral effects of WWI dog fighting to put the audience right back into the thick shell smoked 1916 western front.
However they fall VERY short of the mark because through their obsession with their aerial money shots, they seem to have forgotten the human story of the true horrors of combat and what it does to the human soul. In the fact it's the human story that the director makes the biggest hash of. It's Horrors of war painted by numbers, lets have the veteran seen it all, lets have the fearless guy and then just so people know war can be nasty lets have a shell shock guy. But this is done so distastefully it truly mocks people who have actually been traumatized by war.
This films claims to have the most authentic aerial combat footage ever put to film. The CGI shots are also no where near as good as the film makers think they are. In many cases they come across as in game movie footage from an Xbox360, cartoon like and unreal. The filmmakers have also made no effort to research their period, without creating any spoilers there is some truly ludicrous almost James Bond like action set pieces that take away all sense that you are watching a realistic war film. The bi-planes might as well have afterburners and laser beams and fly into space, the film wouldn't be any less believable and probably a lot more interesting.
This is nothing more than a boys own story; where the first casualty is truth or realism. It has a TV movie feel and the acting is so bad you couldn't care less who lives or dies by the end of it. This film could have offered so much but it seems the director and the produces bottled out and aimed for an arcade computer style shoot em up with shallow acting and a big helping of cartoon CGI.
However they fall VERY short of the mark because through their obsession with their aerial money shots, they seem to have forgotten the human story of the true horrors of combat and what it does to the human soul. In the fact it's the human story that the director makes the biggest hash of. It's Horrors of war painted by numbers, lets have the veteran seen it all, lets have the fearless guy and then just so people know war can be nasty lets have a shell shock guy. But this is done so distastefully it truly mocks people who have actually been traumatized by war.
This films claims to have the most authentic aerial combat footage ever put to film. The CGI shots are also no where near as good as the film makers think they are. In many cases they come across as in game movie footage from an Xbox360, cartoon like and unreal. The filmmakers have also made no effort to research their period, without creating any spoilers there is some truly ludicrous almost James Bond like action set pieces that take away all sense that you are watching a realistic war film. The bi-planes might as well have afterburners and laser beams and fly into space, the film wouldn't be any less believable and probably a lot more interesting.
This is nothing more than a boys own story; where the first casualty is truth or realism. It has a TV movie feel and the acting is so bad you couldn't care less who lives or dies by the end of it. This film could have offered so much but it seems the director and the produces bottled out and aimed for an arcade computer style shoot em up with shallow acting and a big helping of cartoon CGI.
awful
misterkit9 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I almost cried when I saw this movie it was so bad. This has got to be one of the worst written movies I have ever watched. Talk about a predictable plot that just didn't make sense.
There were several scenes that I thought really did it for me: 1) The scene where his buddy is shot down and has to land the plane in the middle of a shootout (both armies dug in). Magically the main character lands his plane and saves the pilot, all without getting shot by the Germans.
2) The scene in the end where he is fighting the black falcon. He gets all shot up and pretends that he is done for, but then shoots him with his pistol?? LOL, and all this time his three buddies are just flying around with nothing else to do.
3) Almost in the end where he finds the black falcon but does not strafe him or his plane? OK so the main character has more honor than that but he strafes all of the other planes on the runway?
Don't waste your time with this movie.
There were several scenes that I thought really did it for me: 1) The scene where his buddy is shot down and has to land the plane in the middle of a shootout (both armies dug in). Magically the main character lands his plane and saves the pilot, all without getting shot by the Germans.
2) The scene in the end where he is fighting the black falcon. He gets all shot up and pretends that he is done for, but then shoots him with his pistol?? LOL, and all this time his three buddies are just flying around with nothing else to do.
3) Almost in the end where he finds the black falcon but does not strafe him or his plane? OK so the main character has more honor than that but he strafes all of the other planes on the runway?
Don't waste your time with this movie.
Oh boy
bpeacock-218 August 2008
I can't believe how many people appeared to have liked this nonsense. All the flying and fight scenes were as if taken straight from a poor playstation game with no attempt at realism at all. Why a smoke trail from bullets? Some of those 'aerobatics' would have ripped the wings of the planes - flying round a tree as if on a wire???? Mid-way through a fight various pilots, friend and foe, would fly alongside each other and salute/wink etc etc; what a complete joke. The script - my God, how crass and clichéd. Everything was so obvious and written at a level 10 year old might like.
Up there with Pearl Harbour in terms of complete rubbish - war for the game consul generation. It's not like that, fighting is noisy, dirty, smelly, dirty and definitely not fought in a chivalrous manner
Up there with Pearl Harbour in terms of complete rubbish - war for the game consul generation. It's not like that, fighting is noisy, dirty, smelly, dirty and definitely not fought in a chivalrous manner
So bad it practically dishonors the pilot's memories
danrogy8 February 2007
I just bought this film for my dad, a big history and war film buff. I thought it'd right up his alley with some historical facts and right up my alley with some exciting air battles. Boy was I wrong! The story was a complete drag! This clumsy, plodding script unfolds slowly and predictably. James Franco and Martin Henderson were horrible. Really it took all my strength to not shuttle forward to get to the battle scenes. The battle scenes were horrible as well! According to this film there are never more than 12 people on the frontlines of WWI and almost nobody bleeds. Granted I didn't see the film in the theater but the air battles were totally phony looking. My 72 year old dad with his bad eyes turned to me and said "this looks like a video game". There was no point where this film was able to grab my interest. Sure the design on the planes were cool but that had nothing to do with this film. So are you gonna see this film for the hokey unexciting battle scenes or the plodding script? There were two pros for the film: Lucienne the love interest is beautiful and it was nice to get a glimpse of what happened with the Lafayette Escadrille.
Eye Knots
tedg22 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I suppose the first step in self-realization is understanding what your personal porn profile is. For me it is spatial, and I am a sucker for just the sort of thing this highlights. It has some dumb character-oriented stuff, and the necessary structure to let us know about the war. But it is packed with air combat scenes. The computer generated character of these scenes was noticeable, I am sure, had I been looking for it, but I wasn't. I was flying.
There are three kinds of shots here. The first are the static shots of the guys in their cockpits, so that we can see that it is not planes at war, but these guys we are supposed to care about. Boring.
But then we have the shots where we see the maneuvers of the planes, spliced in with the POV shots. The composition of these is not particularly inventive. The maneuvers are not historically accurate or aerodynamically possible. But they fit the spatial vocabulary we have built incrementally starting with "Hell's Angels," punctuated by "Star Wars" and elaborated in the last few years by Pixar. The way this crew carries the viewer through these motions is really quite competent and that is saying a lot. It has to do with continuity and rhythm of shifts in space of the planes and the eye.
There is a girl, natch. Pretty. The hero does not get the girl, and the black guy does not get killed. So the story is intelligent from that perspective.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
There are three kinds of shots here. The first are the static shots of the guys in their cockpits, so that we can see that it is not planes at war, but these guys we are supposed to care about. Boring.
But then we have the shots where we see the maneuvers of the planes, spliced in with the POV shots. The composition of these is not particularly inventive. The maneuvers are not historically accurate or aerodynamically possible. But they fit the spatial vocabulary we have built incrementally starting with "Hell's Angels," punctuated by "Star Wars" and elaborated in the last few years by Pixar. The way this crew carries the viewer through these motions is really quite competent and that is saying a lot. It has to do with continuity and rhythm of shifts in space of the planes and the eye.
There is a girl, natch. Pretty. The hero does not get the girl, and the black guy does not get killed. So the story is intelligent from that perspective.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Flyboys not worth money to spend on!
tom_19691825 September 2006
Flyboys is set in the area of the Great War 1914 - 1918 and the hope of getting historical information presented in a nice movie with detailed characters was very high on my side. Unfortunately this hope was in vain since the movie is full of stereotypes and predictable from the beginning on. Hero looses family farm - hero gets over to to France to join the air force - hero meets a pretty french girl - hero saves her from the bad Germans and takes revenge for his friend who was killed by an ruthless evil, off course you guessed it, German pilot. Besides all that the historical facts have been completely ignored, not every single Fokker DR. 1 was red. There was this guy called Freiherr von Richthofen also known as the Red Baron who flew one of those airplanes and painted it red, but this movie was filled with his clones. The only highlights in this movie is the acting of Jean Reno and the flight scenes else-wise I would not recommend to go and see this movie. It is just not worth the money and time.
The worst aviation film ever made?
spuyten28 April 2008
It grieves me deeply to express myself in such negative terms regarding any World War I flick, but this dog's dinner of muddled ideas, abysmal 'storytelling', emetic characterisations and feeble moralising left me feeling quite ill.
Contrary to some of the other observations posted here, I thought the CGI sequences were obvious and poorly-realised, having that not-quite-feasibility of a contemporary computer game or a slightly off-key session of 'Flight Simulator'. This was apparent from the very first puffs of 'smoke' from the crippled aircraft at the start of the film. The occasional manouevre depicted was impossible and I am surprised such poor stuff has been produced so recently.
I need hardly reiterate the historical/ technical/ procedural inaccuracies, legion and blatant as they are.
The 'national stereotypes' and 'characters' are such pastiches that they make the deliberately-humorous parodies of 'Those Magnificent Men' appear sophisticated in comparison. The toes of both myself and my fellow-sufferer (aviators both) curled in embarrassment and we groaned in despair as we fought to repress the nausea that the 'farm boy', the 'fatty', the 'harsh yet emotionally wounded officer', et al, caused us by their syrupy, cack-handed performances and dialogue. Blegh!
Overall, a disaster which should see all participants forcibly ejected from the industry on grounds of abysmal taste. One correspondent here compares the film to the work of Howard Hughes, presumably thinking of the almost equally-dire (in its non-aviation material) 'Hell's Angels', which payed similar lack of attention to the social milieu in which it was set. The two films do have a generic disregard for history and lack of attention to that increasingly rare commodity, 'writing', two aspects which jointly typify the vast body of output of North American 'historical' film-makers. Why they can't do some research, train their actors in both accent and delivery, and scrape together a storyline is beyond me. If one wishes to make an historical piece, at least make a modicum of effort; otherwise, promote it as the ludicrous fictionalising that it so obviously (to the educated amongst us) is.
Mind you, I thought the lion was brilliant.
Contrary to some of the other observations posted here, I thought the CGI sequences were obvious and poorly-realised, having that not-quite-feasibility of a contemporary computer game or a slightly off-key session of 'Flight Simulator'. This was apparent from the very first puffs of 'smoke' from the crippled aircraft at the start of the film. The occasional manouevre depicted was impossible and I am surprised such poor stuff has been produced so recently.
I need hardly reiterate the historical/ technical/ procedural inaccuracies, legion and blatant as they are.
The 'national stereotypes' and 'characters' are such pastiches that they make the deliberately-humorous parodies of 'Those Magnificent Men' appear sophisticated in comparison. The toes of both myself and my fellow-sufferer (aviators both) curled in embarrassment and we groaned in despair as we fought to repress the nausea that the 'farm boy', the 'fatty', the 'harsh yet emotionally wounded officer', et al, caused us by their syrupy, cack-handed performances and dialogue. Blegh!
Overall, a disaster which should see all participants forcibly ejected from the industry on grounds of abysmal taste. One correspondent here compares the film to the work of Howard Hughes, presumably thinking of the almost equally-dire (in its non-aviation material) 'Hell's Angels', which payed similar lack of attention to the social milieu in which it was set. The two films do have a generic disregard for history and lack of attention to that increasingly rare commodity, 'writing', two aspects which jointly typify the vast body of output of North American 'historical' film-makers. Why they can't do some research, train their actors in both accent and delivery, and scrape together a storyline is beyond me. If one wishes to make an historical piece, at least make a modicum of effort; otherwise, promote it as the ludicrous fictionalising that it so obviously (to the educated amongst us) is.
Mind you, I thought the lion was brilliant.
Good idea, good scene battles, lousy movie
movienutsy19 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is based on a good idea. Unfortunately either the script or the director view of the script turned it into something so awful and stupid that I can't understand how any money would be spent on this project. The only thing that saves it from a score of 1 is that the aerial fight scenes are inaccurate but entertaining. The rest is laughable.
*** This contain spoilers ***
There's a stupid romance plot complete with french dialogs by a pilot that doesn't speak french with a french peasant girl that doesn't speak English but does. Jean Reno acts like a complete idiot commander and it's one of its worst ever representations. There are so many things happening that border the impossible that turn this movie into a lousy comedy. The hero goes to save his girl by landing in the night by its house which was full of German soldiers. Amazingly she is the only one that hears the plane arriving (perhaps it was a stealth plane) and miraculously the single seat plane morphs into a two seater so that he can take her. In another scene he lands in a hill that appears from nowhere in the no man zone between the french and German trenches where a plane of another pilot has crashed (at least we see the plane landed and they spared us of seeing another miracle) and while dodging the bullets of all German soldiers that are a few meters from him and that kill the other 2 french soldiers that go help him he manages to save the other pilot. Tom Cruise should have used this scene for Impossible Mission. But he did have his lucky bear charm to help him...
*** end of spoilers ***
There's always a line that should never be crossed when making movies based on events that really happened, specially when so many people died and suffered on them, and that's turning it into a moronic sequence of perfectly impossible things that could never happen. It's just plain stupid. In the same day I saw Rushmore and this movie and I laughed a lot more on this one. Perhaps the producer tried to make a Independence Day sequel but he chose the wrong subject.
*** This contain spoilers ***
There's a stupid romance plot complete with french dialogs by a pilot that doesn't speak french with a french peasant girl that doesn't speak English but does. Jean Reno acts like a complete idiot commander and it's one of its worst ever representations. There are so many things happening that border the impossible that turn this movie into a lousy comedy. The hero goes to save his girl by landing in the night by its house which was full of German soldiers. Amazingly she is the only one that hears the plane arriving (perhaps it was a stealth plane) and miraculously the single seat plane morphs into a two seater so that he can take her. In another scene he lands in a hill that appears from nowhere in the no man zone between the french and German trenches where a plane of another pilot has crashed (at least we see the plane landed and they spared us of seeing another miracle) and while dodging the bullets of all German soldiers that are a few meters from him and that kill the other 2 french soldiers that go help him he manages to save the other pilot. Tom Cruise should have used this scene for Impossible Mission. But he did have his lucky bear charm to help him...
*** end of spoilers ***
There's always a line that should never be crossed when making movies based on events that really happened, specially when so many people died and suffered on them, and that's turning it into a moronic sequence of perfectly impossible things that could never happen. It's just plain stupid. In the same day I saw Rushmore and this movie and I laughed a lot more on this one. Perhaps the producer tried to make a Independence Day sequel but he chose the wrong subject.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews