I'm taking my dad and nephew this Sun. for his birthday. Anyone else going to check it out?

- Rotten tomatoes has been pretty unkind at 38/100

- MetaCritic as well at 45/100

We haven't had a "Hollywood" type production of a flight combat movie since "The Red Baron" and although weak in many ways I still really enjoyed it!

Looking forwards to Sun.

I'll be going to see this either tomorrow night or Sunday afternoon myself, and looking forward to it!

I have no intention of paying to see this movie. Ever. If/when it eventually shows up on TV I might give it a look if I've been drinking enough.

The impression the trailers have left me with is that the entire Army Air Corps was incompetent, that bombers were being shot down faster than they could be built, the white fighter pilots charged with protecting them were incompetent glory hounds that left the bombers to go off and chase kills and then the "Red Tails" came along and saved the day, winning the war single handed.

Bull$hit.

If the writers of this drivel can't get across to the audience what a truly inspiring story the Tuskegee Airmen represent without resorting to tearing down other equally impressive, heroic fighter pilots then maybe they should find work more suitable to their style, like writing for the next Star Trek fantasy film.

it seemed more like a fast action movie then a half-true history representation... I'll wait to rent it.

Those reviews don't look so hot but I'll still be seeing it on Saturday and forming my own damn opinion!

"The Red Baron" was a totally European production. It was definitely not a Hollywood film.

^That's how I do with most movies. Which is why I'll also be going to see the new Underworld movie this weekend too.

I meant a "Hollywood" type production with good effects and such.

I'l wait until its on T.V. for free.. and that could be as soon as July.

Did you know that JMS of Babylon 5 fame co-wrote the script?

It's George Lucas - one dimensional characters, wooden dialogue and acting but with spectacular visual scenes and backdrops. What we needed was Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks collaboration. Now that would be awesome to watch.

I agree but then it would have been on HBO and not a theatrical release.

I'm going tomorrow first thing after I drop my dog off at the vet. You guys are so incredibly jaded and critical. Aren't we all flight simmers who geek out on airplanes? Why would this movie not be on your must see list? This movie seems to have butt loads of combat scenes and the production quality looks to be very high with at least a modicum of historical accuracy. I bet this movie is a million times more interesting than 90% of the crap released in theatres. I'd like to see how well some of you guys can write a script and keep an audiences attention for 2 hours.

I'm sorry, but George Lucas pwns all of you.

Jason

I'd rather wait and read PanzerMeyer's review later.

This "Jaded attitude" is why he claims he is retiring. Some interesting tidbits in this article about his retirement and the film itself.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/george-lucas-star-wars-red-tails-282905

I read elsewhere that he wanted to make a heroesque inspired film with actual events about a remarkable group of pilots that he would loved to have seen when he was a young lad himself.

I became an "Aviation Enthusiast" after my Dad took me to see "The Great Waldo Pepper", I was 6, and became obsessed with planes. I even made my dad buy me a P-51 plastic model kit after that. I have seen almost every aviation themed movie ever made. Most of them "can't cut the mustard" but I loved watching every single one of them regardless.

If I can pass this love of Aviation onto my Nephew the movie will have succeeded for me.

I'm tempted because of the planes and the subject matter, but on the other hand I'm discouraged because of ... the planes and the subject matter.

Don't take the last part of my statement the wrong way. I've known about the Tuskegee fighter pilots since the mid-1980s, and I find their true life deeds to be inspiring and admirable. They are American heroes, in part because of the institutional racism they overcame just to earn the right to be Army aviators. And while it would be impossible to put their unique story into perspective without framing it with Jim Crow segregation of the time, I just don't know if I can stomach another story of white officers sabotaging black soldiers' careers while German POWs get to eat lunch at a local sandwich counter that is off limits to 'coloreds.'

Of course the Warbird Nerd in me would be trying read the instrument panels and flip switches in the cockpits while I was watching the movie. That would be reason enough to get excited for this kind of film, except the CGI in the clips I've seen looks too much like an XBox video game: I see waves upon waves of aircraft that are all painted exactly the same and that don't seem to have any unique coloration, markings or features. The air combat action in those clips doesn't look very convincing to me either.

I'll probably rent Red Tails as soon as it is available on DVD. I just don't think I'm willing to pay the cinema's admission price to see it on the big screen.

Oh it's a definite must see but going by reviews the film could have been so much better. It's got George Lucas stamped all over it - good combat scenes, visuals and cgi. Wooden dialogue/characters.
Imagine if we got the gritty realism of Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers or with the character depth of Schindler's List.

Yeah in a perfect world that would be the ideal I would hope for. If this were the case we would most likely have the first Aviation movie with an Oscar nod since the Aviator.

There are still many aviation stories to be told so I'll keep on wishing.

Here's an interesting list of Aviation Movies in case you haven't seen them:

http://www.rc-airplane-advisor.com/airplanes-movies.html

As it turns out I have a few left to see. Flying Tigers - With John Wayne is next on my list (after Red Tails of course).

What skycat said.

It reminds me of Pearl Harbour. I watched Pearl Harvour with an open mind, and tried to like it. Some of the visuals are beautiful, but the stupid sequences just ruin the entire movie, and promote an image of the war that is wrong.

Maybe that's why I won't spend money on this stuff, I jus hate seeing the things I love misrepresented.

+1

But in most of his movies there is no historical reality to hold up those "Spectacular visual scenes" to. For WWII there is, unfortunately for him...

Well, why do we love Rise of Flight and not so much Wings of Prey and those other simtertainment (dibs on that word, I just created it) titles? - Because Rise of Flight represents an effort towards an approximation of historical reality, whereas such other titles are just fluff. I fear it is the same with this movie...

Just wanted to put in my 2 cents here.

I think us SimHQ members should always be cognizant of the fact that we represent a small minority when it comes to movies. Quite frankly, the vast majority of movie theatre audiences simply won't notice or won't care about any historical inaccuracies that may be in the film. The reality is that entertainment sells more tickets than history lessons do.

However, it is a sad fact that making a movie based on the Tuskeegee Airmen which is completely based on historical fact and presents an objective viewpoint would be considered "boring" by most of the general public.

So when I watch the film this Saturday of course I will view it as a history and military aviation buff but I will also be aware of the things that were done to the film to make it more mainstream.

Thats pretty much how I feel. I wont be paying to see this movie at any point either.

I'll be seeing it. I'll also be listening for the tell tale HORRIDO yells from the audience.

It's "Saturday matinee movie fare" and I'm going just for the spectacle of it - flight models and inacuracies be damned. Where else are you going to see B 17s and P 51s fight it out with Me 109s on the big screen? I'm sure I'll groan and wriggle at some of the scenes, but.....

Agreed. If I can suspend my disbelief for aliens and ghosts, I can manage to struggle through a bad WW2 movie just to see some effects.

* I'm just waiting for Spielberg to contact me about doing a movie about how I single handedly fought back the North Koreans in Falcon 4 and saved the Korean Peninsula from TOTAL COMMUNIST INTEGRATION.

Spielberg. Hit me up.

Instead of Spielberg you should get the guy who directed the Iron Eagle movies. That way not only did you single-handedly save South Korea from Communism but you did it while standing inside your open canopy on your F16 and firing a Stinger shoulder launched missile at a North Korean MiG-29.

If the film in question is supposed to be based on a real event or person, I'd rather see a good/historically accurate movie with bad effects, than a bad/historically inaccurate movie with great effects. If it's just a generic period movie, something like Kelly's Heroes or that crappy WWII movie with Billy Zane & Michael Madsen, I don't care if uniforms, weapons, etc, are accurate.

I'm expecting a cross between Pearl Harbour and Fly Boys...

You now understand why the flightsim community loves to shoot itself in the foot. They can't seem to appreciate anything but unyielding realism and accuracy, damned if it's actually entertaining! I want to see this. It's got P-51's, B-17's, P-40's, Me 109's and Me 262's in it. What's not to love?!?!?!? Who gives a rat's ass if it's not 100% true-to-life. For the love of God can't some of you lot just enjoy the visuals and sounds? Oh I forgot, you'd all have a heart attack because some friggin rivet is out of place, or some wing marking isn't the correct size or color.

No, it's smaltzy war movies that I can't stand and that's what seems to come out of Hollywood, as I mentioned previously Fly Boys and pearl Harbour.

If anyone judges a film's historical accuracy or quality of writing by a trailer, you should be lobotomized. Trailers are created by marketing idiots in their little padded offices while reading statistics, studies, and tea leaves. I've lost count of the number of film makers I've heard complain about the trailers for their films. They may have had the control to make the film they wanted to make, but no control on how to properly market it. Instead you'll get trailers that show people what they THINK people want to see.

These are FACTS you can get from the trailers:
It's a WWII movie.
There's scenes of fighters and bombers fighting.
There's a lot of black actors in it.


One thing I saw Lucas mention specifically in an interview: "These guys weren't victims, they were heroes. I wanted people to see what they did." Is it going to be "rah-rah-USA"? Of course it is.




The Jedi Master

Keep in mind that the complaints haven't been focused exclusively on technical mistakes with the aircraft or tactics used during WW2 but have also centered on skewed historical perspectives and deliberate re-writing of history to present a specific world view that the makers of the film want. Dogsdb mentioned these aspects in his posts.

God bless the fickle PC flying community. A lot of the comments I read about this movie seem to mirror what was or is being said about Microsoft Flight. If it's not that there aren't enough flight-related movies/games coming out, it's that the movies/games coming out aren't realistic or historically accurate enough. Can't win 'em all.

Did you guys complained this much about saving private ryan ? Cos that movie was BS in many acounts.

Wow, and you've based this great analysis just on a 30 second (maybe 1 minute) movie trailer??

The problem I have is that when it comes to movies/shows depicting historical events, I have a pretty good idea of what actually happened (as much as one can do without actually being there) so my motivation for seeing movies like this is not so much to be entertained as it is to see a re-enactment of what plausibly took place.

For example, Band of Brothers. I watched that mini-series after reading the book and I came away from it feeling like they did an excellent job of capturing actual events. It was gripping and realistic. Das Boat is another great example. What we have with Red Tails is obviously a movie made for entertaining with a historical pretext. I say to each his own but based on the trailers I've seen it looks to me like "Pearl Harbor" on steroids. No thanks.

It's a George Lucas film. Which to me means one thing: avoid.

Absolutely agree but of course that dedication to realism and character development was made possible due to it being a mini-series and it being shown on HBO.

What? That wouldn't be any fun!

Let's rant and rave and make off the wall statements about counting rivets and lobotomies instead!!!!

Oh and i thoght you meant Red BAND:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R898wegx6Y

Yet WOP outsells ROF on US retail shelves. Hmmmm.... You forget I sell both.

What you love is not necessarily what the next guy loves. This is the arrogance of the hardcore sim crowd. More realistic means = more sales. Wrong.

Hollywood produces what sells just like any other industry. Fluff as you call it sells better than extreme accuracy.

ROF sells to a narrow swath of simmers, barely enough to keep it flying. WOP's developer has made a zillion dollars making "fluff" sims for console and PC and he drove up in a Corvette at E3 and me and my partner drove home in my Honda Fit.

Gotta love the simtertainment industry.

Jason

Do we want to start making opening weekend box office predictions?

My prediction: It will make between 10-15 million opening weekend.

I'm going with my father tonight, I'm honestly a bit biased since I'm a pilot that happens to also be black, these guys (the Tuskegee Airmen) were my heroes growing up. Am I expecting a completely historically accurate film? No, I'm expecting to see a movie that will be entertaining and get more people who have no clue what these guys really had to go through interested in their story. The movie itself has the praise of Lee Archer (RIP), Roscoe Brown, Charles McGee and several other Tuskegee Airmen who were actually there, I'll take their word over a movie critics anyday. Lastly, this movie features P-51s, P-40s, B-17s, Ju-87s, ME-109s and ME-26s...any person that claims to be an aviation enthusiast should be grinning like a fat kid in a candy store. George Lucas even made a companion documentary for "Red Tails" called "Double Victory" which aired last week on H2, it was amazing and I'd definitely recommend it to the guys complaining there wasn't enough historical information put into "Red Tails"

http://teamredtails.com/news/the-history-channel-presents/

Oh ok, for those complaining that it appears ahistorical or fudges history, do you complain about films based on ancient mythology ahistorical? Everything that came out from the original Clash of the Titans to the newer one to Troy don't even get the mythology correct. The film 300 is a stylized comic book put on screen.

They are telling a story. Now you may disagree with the broader social implications like the public being made ignorant if they believe this to be a historical documentary, but then, you should feel the same way about many of Mel Gibson's pictures. Ever see The Patriot or Braveheart? The King's Speech also kind of painted an idealized portrait and glossed over some things.

Personally, I wouldn' see this film because

1) I'm not an aviation fan
2) The dialogue and action sequences look very cheesey (based on the trailer, that is). It looks like a very dull, corny film. It looks very cliche.
3) I generally don't like PG-rated movies unless they were deliberately more for kids, kind of cute but still kind of clever. A war film rated PG designed for general audiences is like making a rated R version of Sesame Street.

"The Patriot" was a huge mess of a film but I admit that from a story-telling and acting perspective, I do like "Braveheart" quite a bit even though it had a lot of historical inaccuracies.

I think a difference with a WWII film compared to something about the Revolutionary War or further back is the fact that many of the people involved are still alive, and almost all of their direct descendants are still alive. Given that, I think misrepresenting things about them has more of a direct impact, especially if they're represented in an unfairly negative way.

So far, that's my only real concern with what I've seen in the trailer - that they seem to make any non-Red Tail pilot self-centered and not caring about the bombers. I don't know how much that will actually be part of the movie, though.

Some people just want to step out of their daily grind and be entertained. That's what Hollywood and Simertainment provides. Most Oscar winning movies hardly break even and many don't end up watching them until after they have won. Personally I love realistic unhappy movies as in real life happiness is hard to come buy... I really enjoyed Lars Von Trier's "Meloncholia" but man what a downer.

After a tiring day sometimes I just want to watch mindless drivel. Simming is also entertainment, I bought both RoF and WoP. Some weekends I have time and I want the more realistic experience RoF provides, other days I just want to hop into WoP and thrash the hell out of my AI opponents to let off some steam.

Personally my expectations for Red Tails is to be entertained and see some good CGI dogfighting as the wannabe fighter pilot, nerd in me yearns for.

Differnt strokes for different folks.

Awesome! I had no idea new film about the British 1st Airborne Division was being made.

I get it, but still- over the years, things related to people's experiences have been made into all kinds of mediums, from video games to cartoons to spoofs and comedies satires and scathing social criticism. Those who love the Twilight Zone know there were many episodes that used historical war settings as a backdrop, and many of these episodes contained some message. Players after all can jump into a game like Medal of Honor and mow down Nazis single handed, to some extent one can argue that cheapens what war is and the people who really experienced WW2.

Oliver Stone often got criticized for making The Doors by people still living today who said it wasn't an altogether accurate portrayal of Jim Morrison and the events going on, but still- I don't think that's what Oliver Stone was attempting. It's not a documentary. It's a psychological and artistic portrayal, it developed on some esoteric themes involving Nietzsche, isolation and lonliness, shamanism, drug use, nihilism, Dionysus and ancient tragedy, and so on...

hehehe... ooops....er "Red Tails"...

Men of the Flying Lady
Flying Leathernecks
The Hunters

and dozens of others were schmaltzy and innacurate. Can you remember when you might see them take off in one plane, fight in another and land in a third? How about when a 50s era F9 Panther crash landed on the deck 40 years later in Hunt for Red October?

One of my favorites was in the original Tuskegee Airman movie when they "finally got" P-51s when they were filmed flying P-51s all along.

They are movies and if it is anything like the movies I grew up on, it will be exciting and inspirational.

LOL! Yeah that was lame but it was probably picked up on by 5% of the audience at most. Obviously that was due to budgetary limitations.

But aside from being set in a general real settings, those things are obviously fictional situations and are not generally referring to real groups of people.


And I think it is wrong for him to do that. Just put yourself in the position of those being inaccurately portrayed in a negative light - would you be happy to be made to look like an ass in a movie if they just said it was a psychological and artistic portrayal?

Cuba Gooding Jr. was in that one too. Guess he got promoted this time round, he "Straightened Up and Flew Right".

That's good for him since I'm sure he could really use the work.

That's not necessarily any more true than this film. They are mediums based on historical events. That can be as wide ranging an interpretation as you want. I can play some ego shooter based on real events in Vietnam or WW2, there are references to historical places and battles, even if the characters are just kind of carbon copy cliches. Still, the point remains, it takes someone else's memories and for entertainment purposes changes things up a bit. Sometimes the Germans are portrayed as inept buffoons and comical, stupid villains. The reality was darker than that, and the first green Americans to go up against them in North Africa got a dose of reality.



I don't think it's wrong for him to do that. For one thing, people are free to criticize the film based on those same objections, and people are free to make up their minds if it's a good film or not or that should have been closer to a documentary. I don't see the film as only making Morrison an ass though, but that's my interpretation, someone else may differ here.

If you want documentaries, well, that's where you and I differ. There is a time and place for documentaries, however, that's not what all film is. The earliest films weren't documentaries, considered one of the greatest (I think it's not, but whatever), Battleship Potemkin takes a real event and makes a bit of a romanticized propaganda piece. Hollywood during the golden period was heavily censored or had strict guidelines about what film making is, consequently a lot of cinema prior to he 1960s was unrealistic, idealized, propagandized, cliched, unless you were into the new wave cinema or film noir stuff, it was not often at all realistic or even close. Your average Cowboys and Indians flick was way off the mark of the real Indian Wars and the Old West.

Not going to miss this one on the big screen mostly because of the aerial combat sequences...I love my WWII warbirds.

I don't want to get into a big debate, I just want to clarify my intent. I am not suggesting things have to be 100% historically accurate, or even close, for that matter. I'm just saying that if a group of people are portrayed in a negative way -- especially if it's not accurate -- and those people are still around, then I think they have a legitimate grip about how they were portrayed. And given that, I think filmmakers should take a little extra caution about how they handle those situations.

At theatre midday matinee. Packed. Quite a few older folks and college age kids. I think it may beat expectations.

Jason

Nice to hear that the theater was packed! and glad to hear it beat your expectations. I think movie execs have their collective heads up their rear-ends when it comes to understanding audiences. I hope this movie does well.

Seeing it on Sunday 16:20 PM. Getting excited!

Well, who is to say then? That's just subjective. You may not like a portrayal, but there may be a theatre chock full of an audience who do. There's no accounting for taste. People aren't going to be consistent about this sort of thing- they'll criticize one film, perhaps because it speaks more to their interest- say about aviation history, and then see nothing wrong with another film that should also raise objections, especially if it confirms their own prejudices.

People can gripe about portrayals, my point all along here is how they are pretty selective about it. If people grew up on the old Westerns and war flicks, they might have a nostalgic view for them, as shallow and incorrect as many of them were, but criticize this film because it's supposedly not accurate or doesn't speak to their childhoods or stories they grew up on or whatever. That's my point- to add some perspective to this discussion.

Have you ever seen The Last Temptation of Christ? In my view it was a good film, even though people had gripes about blasphemy and portraying Christ as human rather than an infallible, perfect being, people were complaining that it wasn't following the Bible. But that's not the point of it- it was to invoke controversies and ideas. For example, when Jesus goes to the synagogue and scolds them for changing money in the temple, and the pharisees were like, "Rabbi, the Roman coins have pagan gods on them, they won't let us change our money in public, what would you have us do?" And Jesus just kind of paused and was like, "Yeah, good point."

K5, I think you missed an important part of my post - it's when the people being portrayed are still around that I think it becomes an issue. It could have a direct impact on their lives.

And to be clear, I'm talking about situations where they're being portrayed inaccurately. If they are being shown negatively but there is clear evidence that they acted in the manner portrayed, then I think that's fine.

But as I said, I haven't seen the movie, I'm only basing it on one of the trailers, and I'm not going to debate the details of this movie. I'm simply saying that if a movie were to portray people in a negative fashion and not be accurate about it, it could be a problem. I think slander and/or libel laws would apply to that to some extent. I think that'a about as clear as I can spell out my views, so if you disagree, then I guess we'll just disagree.

I have not.

Again, there are people still around about alot of things and films being made about them, or video games, or comic books, or TV shows.

My point is to add perspective here- watch how people just take it up on a selective basis.

What's your statute of limitations? When the last one of them is dead? Then it's ok?

I'm not even saying you don't have a right to feel the way you do or criticize it. I'm just saying that it appears that this isn't a new phenomenon at all. All the way going back to the classic era of Hollywood, (then) portrayals might have been inaccurate or insensitive, often based on bigotted stereotypes. Hell, the old gangster pictures painted mobsters glamorously portrayed by actors like James Cagney in an admirable light, kids wanted to be like them as they outwitted and gave the G-Men the slip. The mobsters were the protagonists and good guys, the people who fought them were often cast in a negative light. Those early crime fighters were still around when these pictures were being made, because those films were contemporary to what was happening.

I think that any time someone or some group is portrayed in a negative way and there is direct evidence to show it wasn't true, it's a problem. And the more recent the events, the bigger the impact could be. So there's no one answer on a statute of limitations, it would depend on how many were impacted and in what way.

I guess it would be kind of a court thing, where if some damages could be proven, it probably shouldn't have been done. I think that's more likely to happen when the people are still around than after they've all gone, and less likely as time goes by, as the direct damage would be more difficult to prove and facts to contradict what was shown would be more difficult to find.

What would you think about comedies that perpetuate the image of Jews as stereotypically neurotic hypochondriacs? Or the Irish as drunken thugs? Shouldn't be allowed?

Take it to another thread Kontakt....let's get back on topic..geez.

I'm sorry, am I violating the forum rules?

I'm talking about how I don't particularly get the fuss if people complain about a movie's historical accuracy. That is related to this topic.

I would say that discussions around representing stereotypes is not the same as historical accuracy.

Ok, going back, someone else raised the point that it appears that this film has some kind of racial biases in it, so, that's kind of what I'm getting at.

I want to stress I'm not telling you that you should like it or go see it, I'm not, it doesn't even look like a good film to me. But I mean, film is a medium for telling a story. You're not always going to like it. This is what film has always done- explored ideas, changed the story, re-told the story. You can vote with your feet and express your views, fine. But I'm expressing mine. I've long ago stopped objecting to things on a strict basis- and yes, I used to do it too. The reason why is I realized how much there was nothing new under the sun here at all. Only I didn't pay attention to it.

What if tomorrow I made a film about Benjamin Franklin being an evil, self depraved inventor who tried to stop the Declaration of Independence from being signed because he was paid off by a British prostitute working undercover for King George? Now, that might actually be an interesting film or it may be a dud. But it's just a story.

OK, my last comment on it - if someone could sue you for it and have a reasonable chance of winning by providing contradictory facts and showing damages, you probably shouldn't do it.

Whatever question you want to ask, run it through that and you probably won't need a reply from me.

It's not always so simple as that. Someone might sue a filmmaker for defamation, but that's not a guarantee of anything, it's a difficult burden to prove. Freedom of speech, among other things.

In this film, who do you think should be suing for what injury? Does it identify and slander a specific, living person? Does it damage their reputation? Can actual damages be shown that aren't just prospective or speculative? Can they show how they derived that figure? If this film just went around saying or suggesting that whites were inferior to a black squadron, I'm afraid there's nothing there to win a lawsuit on. You would have to point out a specific person and show how they were somehow damaged specifically and subsequently. If someone were to make a film and advance the idea that I murdered JFK and for example I could show I couldn't get hired anywhere because of it, well then I might have a case.

Furthermore, that someone could win a lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean that a film shouldn't be made or that it didn't have merit.

Ummm, did anyone mention that they just buried one of the Red Tails today?

I anticipated a sour reception of this film from the critics. (But note the audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, vs. that of the literati) Like Star Wars before it, Lucas sought to make a fun, popcorn eating movie that would make every ten year old kid want to be a fighter pilot. The critics savaged Star Wars when it was released as a mindless space western. Some people just don't get it. I was lucky enough to watch this film in a sneak preview along with one of the original Tuskegee airmen. Before the show, he was introduced to the crowd and permitted to say a few words. He received a standing ovation that was long, long overdue. This film is indeed cliche...it is a forties-style, flag-waving spectacle full of action, romance and sacrifice. It is the film these brave men deserved seventy years ago and never received. And it was as much fun to watch now as those movies were then. Don't let the critics full you. Red Tails is everything it was intended to be, and good fun for the whole family. Go see it. You'll be glad you went.

Critics always score films lower than the audience. That's what they do- criticize films. They review them critically. Even the critics here at SimHQ are prone to this- they'll say this aircraft was inaccurate or that aircraft was wrong or it wasn't historical or something, pointing out how the audiences didn't catch it.

Ok saw it and here's my verdict. As I mentioned our medium sized theatre was crowded at 1:45pm PST.

Pretty entertaining on the whole in my opinion and I did enjoy it. It's not the best though either. The audience did clap at the end which is rare in my town so it has something going for it.

Pros:

- Plenty of combat with airplanes!
- Good CGI effects
- Funny moments
- Even though it deals with racial issues, that's not the whole theme of the movie. It is a patriotic movie.
- Motivates me to fly my favorite sims


Cons:

- Historical inaccuracies abound and the SimHQ crowd won't like. If that ruins it for you don't see it.
- Big epic story of a legendary unit condensed to two hours. Some material is glossed over and cram a lot in.
- There is a love story (albiet pretty small part of the movie)
- Lot's of cliches, the Germans are superficial villians and the dialogue is a bit corny.

My final reccomendation is to go see it. I can find a lot worse things to spend $8 and two hours doing.

Jason

Urgh...

This is always a turnoff for me. I understand studios have to tread lightly around this because they are afraid of making the Nazis look good, the problem however is that when villains are shallow, well, there's no tension then. To have great heroes in a story, you have to have great villains as a foil. If they are superficial then it takes away the obstacles that the hero has to overcome. The villains have to give you reason to think the protagonists are in over their heads, they have something difficult to achieve. Memorable villains are just as important to the story.

Anymore, it's getting to the point where I'd rather watch a good war documentary. Nevertheless, I'll probably have a gander at some point. After all the theatrics at the theater are finished..

The trailer for this did nothing for me. Looks like another pom pom waving black people are great movie.

I'd go if all the rest of you went with me. What fun that would be!

Prolly have to see it twice though, and some beer and pretzels... and Tootsie Rolls (it's lasting through the chase scene, it's lasting through the luv scene ewwwwe, ...)




WC

As long as humans are involved in war, so will love. It doesn't have to be the main theme in a war movie, but lots of men fighting had (Still have) a girl back home they were/are fighting for...

I want to see this film be a hit for one reason, and it has to do with the way things work in the movie industry.
When Lucas was trying to sell Star Wars, he was told , "Forget it! Nobody wants Science fiction, anymore!" Well, of course, it was a monster hit, and everybody wanted to make a Science Fiction space movie. They came out in droves. Even TV jumped on the bandwagon and we had Battlestar Gallactica.
So, maybe this will be a hit, and we'll see an avalanche of air war movies coming out. Who knows, some may even be good.

It would not be a George Lucas movie if it were any other way.


Saw the film and really enjoyed it.
Full of action, camaraderie, a bit of schmaltz,deeper than you would expect from Lucas, great special effects and the best aerial combat you are going to see for a long while.

Does not suck.
Check it out.

Just got back from the movie, I had to go to a later showing because the one I intended on going to was SOLD OUT I saw a couple youth groups exiting the theater talking about how good the movie was on their exit. I'm still processing it but my intial reaction is I LOVED it. Were there some cheesy line and a couple impossible flight maneuvers...yeah but not enough to ruin the movie. I'll be honest and say I think they could've handled the ending a bit different but overall, I'd see it again and I'd recommend it. There was a love side story in the movie but it wasnt overwhelming and I think I might have to start watching NCIS: LA...Daniella Ruah was smoking hot in the movie The aerial combat sequences were worth the ticket price alone, the trailer really does not do justice to the CGI, the CGI looks REALLY good, almost to the point where I was questioning what was real and what was CGI in alot of the scenes. My advice, screw what the professional critics are saying and go see this movie!

At the downtown Redlands theater? If so, nice area. The last (and only) time I've seen a movie there was one of the Lord of the Rings movies.

I am totally with you there. And Lucas is actually banking on this. I read an interview with him regarding the film, and his hope is that the film will recoup its costs well enough that it will justify a prequel and a sequel, in order for him (or another director) to tell the complete story of the Tuskegee experience.

On an unrelated note, isn't it amazing that a bunch of movie executives would be so shortsighted as to think sci-fi was dead? Look at modern blockbusters...they almost ALL contain elements of science fiction. The suits could not have been more completely wrong. How the heck do people that clueless make it to the top of their industry?

Well, if it makes more people get into aviation, aviation history and flight simming then I guess it serves a good purpose. I'll see the movie with my wife and with expectations really turned down, that way it should work...

Jason, I hear what you say about sales and of course I realise that simtertainment sells better than PROPER sims, but I personally reserve my right to prefer the latter, which should be good for someone like you. I am also glad you have some good-selling title that can sponsor development of a good title!

Maybe a bigger focus on arcade mode in RoF would fuel sales? - Or maybe beefing up a dedicated arcade mode with more frequent explosions and flamers and lovely stuff like that...

- I'm thinking a big red button in the main screen taking you straight to instant dogfight against pitiful opponents with relaxed physics and lots of things that go BOOM.

Call it Simtertainment mode... Or maybe FUN MODE. - Just as long as it isn't derogatory...

In such a mode you could fix all the settings at full HDR, bloom, easy physics, unlimited ammo, reduced rez for super-smooth play, etc, etc... Make it look as much as WoP as possible, and basically just let the players choose cockpit-on or cockpit-off with a big on/off button in the top corner.

I mean, RoF certainly has gorgeous graphics, effects and sounds to rival those of simtertainment titles, so a fun mode would look spectacular in the way the general simming light, sugar-fuelled adolescent crowd would love...

Here's the thing: All the old stories are told and re-told over and over because people love them.

And we all love the underdog. Who is more of an underdog than a historically disenfanchised population, fighting in the largest war of the last century, who overcome impossible odds, inferior equipment, and in whom no one believe, who come together and become one of the most storied teams in relatively recent history? Made for Hollywood.

You have to look at something like Red Tails for what it is: It's entertainment. Not meant to be historically accurate or faithful to things like...physics.... It's a historical drama. It's Star Wars with more black people than just Lando Calrissian, set in the 1940s. And they have built-in evil bad guys because everyone hates Nazis and no one but history buffs like us care that not all Germans, including the German military, WERE either evil OR Nazis. It's more fun to generalize. At least they didn't have to travel back through time to get to the Nazis.

Take it with a barrel of salt, suspend your disbelief for two hours, and enjoy the story. Like Avatar, one of the most overblown, ridiculous, overhyped, and oversensationalized "going native" movies I've EVER seen, but it was worth seeing once just to root for the good guys. Speaking of Avatar, it sounds like Red Tails is a lot like Avatar set during World War II. I do want to see it just because it'll be chewing gum for the brain, but I will probably wait til it hits pay-per-view next year, because Beloved Hubby HATES war movies with a burning purple passion and it's no fun to go to a movie all by myself.

Miao, Cat

Of course the Germans are superficial villians.

The soldier's perspective of the enemy is always that way. The enemy can be tough, can be skilled, can be dogged, but to the Soldier the depth of his soul and motivations is as important as his penmanship.

You kill the enemy soldier/airman/sailor and then move onto the next one, which you also kill.

The only thing you care to know that passes through an enemy soldier's mind is your bullet.

It's only much, much later that one reflects on the deeper meaning of doing deadly harm to another.

OT.... 'Reach for the Sky' will be on TCM today at 1:30 I will be watching that!!!! Redtails...I'd like to see that too!

If by "is a lot like Avatar" you mean both movies are shown in a movie theater, then yes, I guess they have that in common...

I heard it was awesome, I was going to go tonight but heard it's sold out.

I will see it, not much avaiation films around, and to be honest it just interests me.

My personal opinion is that "A band of brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan" are complete B$, and nothing could possibly beat those.

I wonder when we got so discerning when it came to war movies?

My guess is that is was " The Green Berets" with John Wayne. I thoroughly loved that movie as a kid (still enjoy watching it now) but I know it got and still does get $hi!# canned. "Not accurate, simplistic, BS etc." I bet John Wayne was shocked because "Green Berets" was more accurate, complex and dare I say deeper, than 95% of the movies he made before then.

George Lucas has always been about making movies in the "classic" Hollywood entertainment tradition. "Red Tails" is "more accurate, complex and deeper" than 95% of the movies he has made over his career too. But it is entertaining and it is respectful of the combatants and the times. It is very much like the war movies of the 1960s with cutting edge special effects -- aka a George Lucas movie.

Get extra popcorn and bring the kids.

So the consensus from those who've SEEN the movie is that it is a fun movie and worth seeing? I.e. consensus is OVERALL opinions

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread yet (I will, I promise), but after seeing one of the trailers on TV, I'll pass until it's free to view, someplace.

What turned me off? A take where a Mustang and a German fighter meet head-on, and the Mustang makes what looks like a 20 G 180 to get on the German's tail. Sorry to be such a grump, but...

I saw the film last night in Annapolis MD to a packed house. Demographics were pretty mixed among white and blacks. There was also a ton of Navy students in attendance. I also brought my entire family plus my 16 year old daughter's boy friend (long story there).

Anyway, when the movie was done, folks stood up, cheered and then everybody sprinted to the food court for a Chic-Filet hand spun milkshake. I'm not saying any of us in attendance are experts in combat aviation but folks wanted to be entertained and that's what was delivered. The other thing I had to leave at the door of theater for the sake of my wife's sanity was my flight sim snobbery. For example, in one scene, the P51s take off to form up before their rendezvous with the heavies. They all had drop tanks on each wing. As the camera panned back to shot the formation of breaking clouds, not a single P51 had a drop tank. I was like - 'honey you see that - no drop tanks!'. Wife was like STFU and watch the film - nobody gives a rats ass She was right. I shrunk back in my chair, grabbed some pop corn and just enjoyed the ride.

I won't dissect all aspects of the film but I do believe Lucas paid homage to the air war and time period much like he did when he paid homage to the 50s when made 'American Grafitti'. Everything seemed pretty dialed in when it came to look, vibe and general feel of the movie. The planes were incredibly rendered and it did appear that all the pilot garbs were grabbed on loan from the National Air Museum in D.C.

yarbles

Here's a take from another thread...

Well, THAT'S a movie I would go see!!

Pah - not even a release date for us yet!

He died October 15 th !!!! and he gets buried January 20th ?? wierd.

Are they going to make the Abraham Lincoln as a vampire killer movie?


Nothing Hollywood does to history would surprise me.

Initial weekend domestic box office estimates indicate that "Red Tails" made about 19 million. Not bad for a WWII aviation movie.


http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Panzer did you see the movie this weekend? Every review (from sources I trust) seem to universally say the movie sucks. To be honest the first 10secs of trailer gave me that impression!

Total crap - very little if any historical accuracy. From physics, to formations, to radio chatter, to the silly cliche "evil" German pilot,
to general historical matters.
Gee, I didn't realize the Red Tails shot down so many 262's!


It was exactly what I expected. I only went because a well meaning friend offered to treat.
George Lucas himself called it a "silly movie" on the Daily Show, which made me feel a tiny bit better, but no
matter what I still lament the opportunity that was missed. Some things in the movie there was just no excuse for,
even giving the director some benefit of the doubt that he was trying to make pulpy, over the top movie.

Actually he got in pretty quickly. My cousin Henry passed away at the end of May and his service at Arlington wasn't until the beginning of November. Still, everyone there was great and honored my cousin well. For example the grounds around where his remains are to rest was rather muddy, walking there was a challenge. When it came time though to present the flag to his niece and express the thanks of his country the sailor doing it, with no hesitation or change in facial expression, went down on one knee, straight into the ooze.

Elf

As the movie says it was "based on real events" its not a documentary and its not a Steven Speilberg film. Its a pulp fiction, heroic action film al la George Lucas.

However the "RedTails" did down 3 Me 262s on March 24 1945:

24 Mar 1945
2 Lt Charles V. Brantley 100 FS 1 ME-262 2293 XV AF 12 Apr 45
1 Lt Roscoe C. Brown 100 FS 1 ME-262 2293 XV AF 12 Apr 45
1 Lt Earl R. Lane 100 FS 1 ME-262 2293 XV AF 12 Apr 45

Airforce Report on Air Victories of Tuskegee Airmen

Not turning down any of the Red Tails's achievement - they did a great job on freeing the world from fascism.

And yes, look up the debate here on SimHQ. You just won't get a true picture like 72% of active members like it for 28% who don't.
You got users who like entertainment and a long due focus on that matter up to watch it and another bunch of guys who are never going to see it. Not once on TV. So no, don't expect an idea of "how" good this movie actually is.

However too many of those people getting to learn a tiny bit of history are badly informed developing a wrong picture of former people and times. Just skip any distress and unconsolable 4years old daughters losing their father for a cool aerial victory?

Ok, war is terrible wherever it's happening. Still some producer suggests a legend of a director to add a little bit more of this and spare this bit...all down to that working Hollywood formula of entertainment.

Just forget about that 5% rivet counters crowded herein it's that other 95% that probably once in their life have a chance to learn something and gain respect for how our ancestors and Grandpas had to suffer. That's why some of us posters feel sick.

That good old "underdog" story is dead like nothing else and millions paying are gladly getting their tragic spoof. Why do movie makers have to waste this -quite unique- aspect of WWII for that movie????

And entertaining as it is: Tell me about how cool an "underdog" story is portraying a 17 year old boy hardly knowing how to fly straight getting clobbered by 16 well trained Mustang pilots? Answer: quite cool, as long as the good ones get to fly on.


***

Just imagine history had f+cked this up then: You'd be presented great entertainment depicting Jewish people as notoriously malicious and greedy child molestors beating unarmed Aryan girls whenever the good ones aren't keeping them down. Funny, right? Where's the popcorn?

Jewish people are as bad/good as Germans. And yes, scarred and dangerous LW-Veterans for sure were not the bulk of opponents the Red Tails had to cope with. There are films about war who get things right.

But who tells them 95% after missing their chance of a fair historical and humane picture? It's like in the newspaper: who reads these tiny clarifcations and counterstatements?

Mr. Lucas stay with your SciFi decoration though you will mess it up with your "what a Nazi crew could look like if it were 5122 AD" and don't f*cking touch a matter shattering millions of people then for a well spent evening today!

Right it's community hall forum - i'm clarly not into certain rivets. The CGI part is spot on, just move along... [b][/b]

Ten myths about the TA.

http://weblogs.dailypress.com/news/local/military/blog/Ten_Myths_About_the_Tuskegee_Airmen.pdf

"Myth" 3 - So unless the author of that paper is ready to call Lee Archer (RIP) and pretty much every other Tuskegee Airman that backs his account a liar, this one doesn't hold water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ZlBEjG-Aw
"Myth" 4 - I've heard several Tuskegee Airmen state they they shot down ME-262s which were the first jet fighters of the war, I've never heard one say they were the first...
"Myth" 5 - They didn't send it to the bottom but it was so badly damaged after the attack that it was never used again after that date and was later scuttled. I think it's pretty fair to say, that it was put out of commission that day, I don't see the point of the author trying to split hairs on this one...
"Myth" 7 - what Tuskegee Airmen has ever claimed they were superior to the other fighter units in the 15th AF? I do find it a bit odd that the author spent all this time digging up records for how many bombers that 332nd lost under their charge but didn't bother including how many were lost by the other fighter groups in the 15th AF
"Myth" 8 - The author leaves out the important fact that when the white officers were in charge the units were stateside all four squadrons deployed overseas as all black units, including the 99th which was attached to the 33rd FG
"Myth" 9 - Who ever claimed this!?!

Liars to the core.

That is a tall statement to make sitting in front of a computer screen.

Could have been done on a smartphone while walking down the street.

Shredder.. that's a pretty good analogy to my sentiments regarding any kind of film on previous war topics. Nevertheless, I can draw a line between fact and entertainment fancy and put them into different categories without feeling too guilty. I've mentioned the desire to watch a good war documentary previously, however, if I can coax my 20 year old son into going to the theater with me to watch the flick, I might do so. It might be good for the soul.

I realize that, as indicated in my post.
Even still, there were things that were unnecessarily bad.

I never got a chance to catch this in the theater; will rent it though.


Here's one for the soundtrack...

It was a good movie.

To be perfectly honest I decided against watching it in the movie theatre and instead will just wait to watch it on dvd from Netflix. The deluge of negative reviews could not be ignored.

And while my sentiments are exactly the same as Shredder's, I would estimate that less than 10% of movie audience members care about seeing a re-enactment of what plausibly took place and instead just want to be entertained.

Case in point, even with all of the "Hollywoodization" and "Lucasification" of the film, it still only managed to make about 49 million at the box office which is pretty low considering the budget of the film and its wide release.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=redtails.htm