Flyboys (2006) User Reviews

A bunch of Ariel Tactics pushed by a romantic storyline.

[rljediknight · 7/10 · 20 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.

Lafayette Escadrille

[SonOfMoog · 7/10 · 22 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.

Spad Boys

[qormi · 7/10 · 19 November 2009]

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.

Cinematic Clichés fly as often as the planes

[mgenovese-1 · 7/10 · 23 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.

Spectacular and colorful WWI airplane movie with an enjoyable cast and breathtaking aerial battles

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 9 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 .

Star Wars meets the French Foreign Air Force in WW1

[Big Al-12 · 7/10 · 23 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_carvalho · 7/10 · 6 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"

The aerial combat was exciting, tense, and realistic

[the-movie-guy · 8/10 · 19 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)

Wonderful movie,, but the German airplanes were inaccurately portrayed

[dougpalmer-1 · 7/10 · 9 October 2006]

It seems to me that in my past readings of world war one German aircraft that the Fokker triplane was a plane that was given only to the better aces ( or those pilots who were very wealthy ) because they were difficult to fly ( but could out turn allied planes). Wasn't there only ONE red baron who flew a red Fokker triplane? Wasn't the main aircraft of the German air force a Fokker dr7? ( a biplane )

I really liked the flying circus effects and the zeppelin.

A truly exciting movie from the standpoint of action and special effects.

An older film called The Blue Max starring George Peppard was very authentic to the aircraft used in World War One.

Twenty minutes worth

[btillman63 · 4/10 · 24 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.

Entertaining

[coldevinc · 8/10 · 22 September 2006]

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.

An interesting look into the first war planes.

[russem31 · 7/10 · 5 October 2006]

"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.

Trite, dumb and pointless.

[rulerattray-2 · 1/10 · 22 September 2006]

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.

A thought for Hollywood about World War 1 and 2 movies MAKE MORE OF THEM

[iseasygoing · 7/10 · 19 September 2006]

I think overall the PUBLIC knows more and is more sophisticated than producers and some directors. I think is is an OK movie. What we lack is people willing to make and finance a great war movie. I am sure given a bigger budget the director could have done better, but all in all this is not a bad movie. If there is any criticism it is not for the movie, however it would have been better to cut the wing and not the arm in the story, but that's drama. My only real criticism is for people who made movies like Pearl Harbor, and Alexander who have an agenda of putting their lifestyle into the characters so we end up with a effeminate Alexander eying what looks like Howard Stern in drag or a couple of Jet setters out of the bar circuit in Hollywood acting like they are 1955 teenagers in a 1943 war movie as in Pearl Harbor with a leading lady who is right off the real TV date shows, juggling 2 Bo's. Films like those make it difficult to make films like FLYBOYS and I think the film and people who made it should be congratulated, they did it without big producers, most of whom think that NORMAL people are like the people in SIDEWAYS, and while they see fault in the audience, they see none in themselves. We NEED MORE MOVIES LIKE THIS, AND THEY WILL MAKE A TON OF MONEY. Just like the Longest Day, Apocoplyse Now, Mash, Saving Private Ryan. So it is a good movie and hats off to the parents of the Greatest Generation and to the Flyboys of WW1. Thanks.

Decent film with great Dogfighting scenes

[aperez999 · 7/10 · 30 September 2006]

I liked the film overall. The movie was entertaining, but a little longer than I would have preferred. My 13 year old son thought it was terrific, but my 8 year old daughter kept asking me when it would be over.

It did a nice job of portraying WWI and had excellent dogfighting scenes and definitely made you feel like you were in the thick of it. The character background was interesting and the war scenes were impressive. You could see the bullets ripping through the air and felt the explosions like in "Saving Private Ryan".

There aren't many WWI films, so it was nice to see a good action film from this era.

German aircraft

[jim_arentz · 24 September 2006]

I enjoyed the film. There is however, a glaring historical inaccuracy in the depiction of the German aircraft. The Fokker DR.I triplane although it was certainly one of the most iconic aircraft of the war, did not enter service until late 1917. The film is set in 1916, the Lafayette Escadrille was in action from April 1916- February 1918 when it was then reorganized into the American Army Air Service. It is therefore unlikely that the unit saw much action against the Dr.I Furthermore all German aircraft were not the DR.I nor were they all painted red, that distinctive color was only attributed to Germany's famous ace Manfred von Richthofen, a.k.a. the "Red Baron".

Terrific in the air, formula on the ground

[deptfordkit · 6/10 · 23 September 2006]

I really want this movie to be a success. I have written a series of scripts about an air race in 1919, so I want people to be all fired up about WWI Aviation. The terrific aerial sequences are even better than I hoped - though I wonder about the accuracy of the Zeppelin scene. On the ground, the story is languid and predictable. I think I knew everything that was going to be said before it was said. AS soon as the French girl, Lucienne, appeared I knew almost everything that was going to happen to her. The only small surprise was that she was raising her niece and nephews. I knew the French commander was going to let the Texan off after disobeying orders to rescue Lucienne. Etc. Etc.

I was very glad, however, to have someone remind me that the French are our natural allies. Perhaps, if everyone saw this movie they might be inoculated from Bill O'Reilly's absurd Francophobia.

Flyboys soars on modesty and spectacle

[omouallem · 6/10 · 16 September 2006]

Flyboys is a WWI action/drama inspired by the Lafayette Escadrille, a French Air Service squadron comprised largely of American Soldiers. The soldiers were aspiring pilots volunteering long before the United States entered the war, making them the nation's first fighter pilots. Now I say inspired because if it were based upon the facts, it would be neglecting them, as well as the laws of gravity.

Although there were many French soldiers in the squadron, the film ignores them, instead focusing on a roster of starry-eyed, all American boys. It's most prevalent face is James Franco's, who plays Blaine Rawlings, the heroic GQ hunk and, if he were real, inventor of the frosted tips hairstyle a century before their fashion. Our only French militant is Captain Thenault acted by – surprise, surprise – Jean Reno. He is a respectable buffoon and delivers some of the film's best moments

The boys are not daunted by the three-week life expectancy, nor by Cassidy, an American who just won't go home. After two dozen kills, he is still waiting to take down Germany's Black Falcon, a vicious MaCguffin (an ambiguous plot device that gives motivation but little relevance.)

Following a brief montage of grassroots training, the boys are ready to go airborne and blast countless bullets in countless rounds of combat. The action is chaotically choreographed with hair-raising spectacle. Each battle interspersed with Blaine trying to romance a homely French woman.

Although it is not the type of movie I would pursue on my own wallet, Flyboys understands it's audience and caters to their amusement. It has a self-conscious coyness, coming off as completely unpretentious. Unlike Pearl Harbor, it does not bombard us with botched patriotism and the harshness of war. Flyboys offers about as much insight into war as PS2's Socom.

It gives us what we expect in unexpected ways. When the pilots crash land, they are healed by savory French ladies. But instead of your typical nurses, they are prostitutes from the local brothel.

While the pilots may be charming, their characters are so vague and easily transformed that once they strap on their goggles, there is nothing left to advance their journey. When they do exhibit change, it is barely internal. Beagle learns how to hit a target; Briggs learns to work with a black man; Lyle learns that no matter how strong his faith in Jesus, the Lord cannot save him from ammo to the face.

To regress to my Socom comparison, Flyboys starts to become a video game. Gradually distancing itself from reality until, in one scene, a German sprints atop an exploding Zeppelin. Each fight becomes less and less significant, lingering on, making me wish for a cheat code that will wrap the game.

But it's a fun game, and if I didn't have better things to do with my life, I would continue with it until Flyboys 2: Operation Hitler-Takedown replenishes my amusement.

A fun adventure that plays loose with history

[Wailwulf · 8/10 · 22 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.

Fine action movie for an afternoon

[justmutts · 6/10 · 5 February 2007]

I love to read reviews by these guys who whine about the color of the airplane being off, or this or that historical misfire. Here's a surprise- it's a movie, not the history section of your local library. And there's a reason for that- because the history section of your local library doesn't sell tickets.

Since Arnold freakin Toynbee didn't write the script, and no one would go to see it if he did, they decided to go with what most people know about WWI- the Red Baron, ya know, with the red airplane. That's what 99% of (todays government schooled) Americans know about WWI. Maybe 1% would tell you Germany, France, England and America were involved- and a good percentage would say 'there was a WW I !?'. But for sure about 1000th of 1% would know what damned color the German planes were and what size bullet was used in the machine gun.

And what looks better against the big screen sky- olive drab planes vs olive drab planes- or multicolored planes with spiffy decals vs scary red (or black)3 winged killer "hun" planes? "OOOOHHH but his scarf should have been white, not off white." Who cares.

A good, well told story, based on history with dramatic liberties and enough attention to detail to make it passable. The characters were well, not overly drawn and likable- you cared when one got shot down. The love angle was nicely written and only a bit schmaltzy- and the girl was cute. Decent acting from everyone. Flying/dogfight scenes pulled you in. It was great (if not unexpected) how the lead character handled the black plane.

Over all very entertaining.

Everyone associated with this production deserves to be shot.

[dl43 · 1/10 · 18 October 2006]

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".

Just attended the Premier

[glider_pilot · 10/10 · 28 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.

Clichéd but often spectacular tale of pilots during the First World War

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 15 October 2006]

A good but unremarkable story of the Lafayette Escadrille in World War One. This is the story of a bunch of men who volunteered to fly for the French prior to the American entry into the war. Its the usual cross section of guys, most on the run from something who learn to come together in the skies of France.

What can I say I liked it. Its not anything remotely like brain surgery, just the story of some guys living and dying during war time. The performances are fine and the action is exciting, though I'm really getting tired of everything being done by computers. I know its cheaper but I never really accepted that anyone was really flying because I knew that it was all make believe, spectacular make believe, but make believe none the less. If the film has any real flaw is that its a bit too long for what it is. Running close to two and a half hours this movie could easily be trimmed down.

Length or no, this is a good movie for a slow Sunday afternoon. It probably won't win any awards but it will keep you entertained.

(There have been some complaints that the film lifts sequences from Howard Hughes Hell's Angels. I think it probably does, but I don't think that its fair to complain about it since George Lucas did the exact same thing in his Star Wars films and no one said a word)

Painful to watch.

[Sargonarhes · 1/10 · 3 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.

Entertaining

[harry_tk_yung · 18 November 2006]

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.