And please, I'm sorry , but The Red Baron was friggin' awful.

You are right, there have been some great films, but they are few and far between. As far as realism goes, Hollywood is about selling dreams and a bit of "enhancement", is often part of that. But how far it goes is up to the director and the producers.

That said, I can enjoy a movie based on nothing more than real planes flying through the air. One of my favorites "Strategic Air Command" is nothing more than a paper thin plot and glory shots of SAC bombers flying through the clouds, and I've watched that twice in a row on occasion.

Basically, the only aviation movies that disappoint me are the ones where the planes hardly leave the ground. In those cases, the plot and acting have to be first rate.

"Basically, the only aviation movies that disappoint me are the ones where the planes hardly leave the ground. In those cases, the plot and acting have to be first rate."

Like "Twelve O'clock High."

That is exactly the film I was thinking about!

Why do you say that?

When it comes to WW1 aviation films, nothing comes anywhere near "The Blue Max".

"Pretty Boy's" plane had the yellow nose that they recognized as the flight leader. Even his ME-262 later had a yellow nose.

It wasn't a horrible movie, but I definately liked HBO's "Tuskeegee Airmen" better.

I'll have to watch again, but when they escorted the bombers to Berlin didn't they say they needed external fuel tanks to make the trip? I'm not sure if I saw any fuel tanks.

So it's a bad move. I am wondering how bad is it better or worse then Perl harbor (that had one or two redeeming features) ?

I've given up waiting for a good WW2 movie that doesn't make me cringe when I watch it.

What's happened to The Dambusters,is that still a going concern?

It's a different kind of movie, really: Pearl Harbor was primarily a romantic drama set during the war. Comparing Red Tails to Fly Boys is much closer to the mark, both in style and substance.

Red Tails was like a kids film, it wouldn't look out of place with a Disney logo at the beginning.

Red Tails or the TV version of the same story ? I felt the TV film to be better. It dealt with the Racial tensions of the time, not in any great Depth, and bespoke of a Segregated Armed Force.

I'm pretty sure Mace is referring to the recent film.

I think Mace hit it on the nogen. A Disney Logo would at least catagorize the movie as something other than historically accurate. My nephew was up for the weekend and I watched it with him on Saturday. If it pretended to be historically acurate, then I could see the hub bub regarding the disdain for Red Tails. I don't think that was what Lucas was striving for so I'll give him a pass on that, though he could have found a better script writer. I wasn't overly enthralled with it, but I did find it mildly entertaining.

What I regret about the movie is I don't feel that I know anything more about the Red Tails and the men of Tuskeegee than I did before watching the film. The story deserves better, and so do the men who served.

This is exactly why I liked the HBO movie "Tuskeegee Airmen". It went a lot more indepth into the training, characters, and the hardships of segregation in the 40s. Plus there was no silly love story involved...lol.

Cuba Gooding was in the original. I wonder how he compares the two movies? I personally liked the HBO movie more. I thought Lithgow was a bit stereotypical, but on the whole it handled important parts of the story much better. I saw a fluff piece with Gooding touting the release of Red Tails. He may have been tired, but to me he looked unenthused about the production.


EDIT: A story as compelling and as important as the Tuskegee airmen could conceivably be done as well done as Glory was.

You're absolutely right. Maybe Edward Zwick should have done it instead of George Lucas?

This is the ONLY MOVIE where you will see them Crash Land a B-17 for the film!
In the opening 10 minutes, a crippled B-17 comes in, gear up, and belly-lands in the field. Take THAT, CGI!

Of course, considering that "12 O'Clock High" came out in 1949, it was much easier to get a hold of a surplus B-17 to do a stunt like that.

Halfway through watching this and it is awful, just awful. Basically one big "yippie kay yay!" and treats war like a lark. That might have worked 30 years ago as a movie, but today I think most halfway intelligent viewers expect something a little less childish. Overall, it's so dumb that it makes the last three star wars movies look like high art. WTF is up with George Lucas movies (either those he produces, writes, and/or directs)- does he have the sensibility of a 12 year old boy?


Might not make it any further. Heck, even the CGI isn't that good- very smooth looking, and not at all gritty like beat up warplanes would likely look. I really can't think of how they could have made this any worse.

Historical question- were white fighter pilots really that cavalier about bomber protection as depicted at the start of the film, flying off to chase bandits and leaving the bombers unprotected? That lack of discipline seems surprising, if so. It would have just taken clear orders to stay with the bombers at all costs to rectify that, no?


Edit-

Actually I think it's more a matter of Lucas and co. being intent on making movies with an overdone and heavyhanded 1930's sensibility, all swashbuckling and "gee whiz"
I don't think that plays well almost 100 years later. It comes across as childish in a way that I find distracting. Grow up, George, and join the rest of us in 2012!