User Reviews

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.

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.

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".

"Flyboys" (2006), a film by producer Dean Devlin (of "Independence Day" fame) and director Tony Bill, is a wonderful look into the first war planes (fighting during World War I - in this film, 1916-1917 - with planes only invented 10-some years ago). Using present-day visual effects (which reminds me of "Star Wars" fights including a black colored "villain" plane), we see very impressive and welcome air fights (and there are plenty of them in this film). The weaker points of this film include the somewhat predictable script and some miscasting (including James Franco as the lead character - whom I cannot fully buy in the role of Blaine Rawlings). Regardless though, an impressive film - a high-flying 7 out of 10.

A one-word summary is "entertaining" – a bit too long (over 2 hours), but entertaining. While you have seen this many times before – a group of people put under intensive training then thrown into real action – this one has some unique features. The protagonists in "Dirty Dozen", for example, are criminals beyond redemption. Here, we have young Americans serving in the French air force (the movie is 99.9 percent in English). And these are not the Flying Aces in the Battle of Britain, but, winding back 3 decades, fighter pilots at a time when human beings flying in the air was a novelty, let along flying in the air and shooting machine guns at the same time.

After the establishing opening half hour, this becomes a very familiar guessing game (which you see in every horror movie like "Scream" or every disaster movie like "Poseidon"), of who is going to die and in what order. There are of course the usual ingredients – a sweet romance (with a very attractive French girl), some laughs, heroism, sacrifices, and all the rest of them you get in an "entertaining" movie. The action sequences are exciting.

In the lead is James Franco, whom you probably remember best as Harry Osborn in the "Spider-man" sequence. But for an even more impressive perfromance of Franco, watch Sonny (2002), in which he plays a gigolo. Jean Reno plays a familiar fatherly figure, the captain of the Lafayette Escadrille.

One more point (additional spoiler warning) – the final climax (a sort of duel in the air) turns out to be something hilarious, quite unintentionally. I don't know if it's just me with my weird sense of humour.

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.