Flyboys - Review

Comment on “Flyboys”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. Mike Kreffel Says:
   September 14th, 2006 at 16:28

   Josh: Even aviation buffs such as myself gag at the preposterous trailer to this laughable exercise in wasted money. First, the term "Flyboys" is a WWII term. During WWI fliers were called airmen, pilots or aviators, but never flyboys. Second, they have the plane types in the wrong year. Yes, Nieuport 17s were common to 1916, but the classic Fokker Dr1 triplane did not appear until mid 1917. And no, they were not all painted blood red ala Manfred von Richthofen as in Flyboys. All of that handy CGI to apply dozens of real WWI German paints schemes, and every Fokker is red?! Ugh. A close example would be to have WWII British Spitfires in the 1940 Battl of Britain flying against 1944-era German Me 262 jets. Then there's the exciting trailer scene of our hero running atop an exploding Zeppelin. C'mon, for cryin' out loud. Another lowest common denominator effort from Hollywood. This history and aviation buff gives it two flaps down!

1. Gregory Sharp Says:
   September 16th, 2006 at 20:18

   OH NO
   
   That was not the hero Franco running on top of the Zeppelin, it was a German gunner stationed there to protect it. Obviously it didn't help. Franco was flying above! You should see the movie first before tearing it up.
   
   My wife and I loved the movie. We got an early showing of it here in California. The audience was very excited and moved by it too.
   
   As a movie it worked. And as far as Franco's performance, I was very empressed! Very fun and exciting movie. Very worth the ticket price. Thank you for allowing a second opinion, Cinemablend : )
   
   One wouldn't see Jurassic park for Dinosaur education either, you see Jurassic Park to feel the emotional impact they can give, and in the end, Emotional impact is what Flyboys gives you, not a nitty gritty history lesson.
   
   Very awesome movie.
   

1. Josh Says:
   September 16th, 2006 at 20:20

   Gregory, I think Mike made it abundantly clear that his comments were based on what he'd seen from the trailer. No need for the lame "you should see the movie first" comment.
   
   Mike, thanks for sharing a little expert information. Greg is right that it wasn't Franco running on the top of th Zeppelin, but a German gunner.
   
   Also, not ALL of the German planes are red. In fact, the big bad German pilot's plane is black. Though a vast majority are indeed red.

1. Burl Burlingame Says:
   September 16th, 2006 at 22:44

   It's actually standard practice for airplanes to be loaded with "tracer" rounds interspersed in machine-gun ammunition. These indeed leave a smoke trail -- the idea to is give the pilot a visual reference of when the rounds are going. These smoke trails are visible in most other aviation movies and in documentary films. It's not "bizarre," it's reality.

1. Don Moore Says:
   September 20th, 2006 at 15:12

   The smoke trails are tracers..used for aiming...
   this is from...The Death of Manfred von Richthofen:
   Who fired the fatal shot?
   
   by Dr M. Geoffrey Miller
   
   I was in a perfect position above and behind. ... neither plane, (Richthofen or May) was aware of me ... I had dived until the red snout of my Camel pointed fair at his tail. My thumbs pressed the triggers. Bullets ripped into his elevator and tail planes. The flaming tracers showed me where they hit. A little short! Gently I pulled back on the stick. The nose of the Camel rose ever so slightly. Easy now, easy. The stream of bullets tore along the body of the all-red tripe. Its occupant turned and looked back. I had a flash of his eyes behind the goggles. Then he crumpled - sagged In the cockpit ... Richthofen was dead. The triplane staggered, wobbled, stalled, flung over on its nose and went down. The reserve trenches of the Australian infantry was (sic) not more than 200 feet below. It was a quick descent. May saw it. I saw it as I swung over. And Mellersh saw it."
   
   Ive played many flight simulators. and fly a plane.
   I think the trailer was great.
   it looks like a fun movie.. i will go see it
   
   we need more of this kind of movie
   
   hip hip

1. Josh Says:
   September 20th, 2006 at 15:23

   For you self-professed aviation experts, see the movie and then come back here and let us know if they got the tracer rounds right then.
   
   To me it looked kind of ridiculous, but I'm not an aviation expert.

1. jason deCelle Says:
   September 20th, 2006 at 16:59

   I just wish to state that my grandfather was an American first with the French and then with the Americans. I have only seen the trailer and now have no plans to see the movie. For Good air combat I’ll watch Dark Blue World again. P.S there were no tracers in W W 1 air combat

1. CP Parlatore Says:
   September 22nd, 2006 at 11:17

   I haven't seen the film yet but I have viewed the trailers. As a former AF fighter pilot (F-4s and F-16s) I found the flying sequences quite good with the dog-fighting maneuvers real (high speed yo-yo to prevent an overshoot). No movie trying to capture air-to-air combat is perfect (Original Memphis Belle documentary was the best as it was the real deal) and there are technical nuisances that can be criticized (all red Fokker DR.I Dreideckers - aircraft were customized to the preferences of their pilots) but on the whole I can live with that. As a student of air-to-air combat (WW I, II, Korea, and Nam - in which I was a participant) I can only suggest you checkout the following web page http://fp.miranda.f9.co.uk/ww1/technology.html) to find out if tracers were used in WW I (they were).
   
   I CAN'T wait to see this flick - Check Six!
   

1. Stuka Says:
   September 23rd, 2006 at 00:06

   Josh, the tracer effects were pretty good. Actually, there were other inaccuracies, such as the abundance of red DRIs, but even with the cliches, a ripping good film. I'm glad I choose to see if first on the big screen, I wish there were more movies like this (with better screenplay).

1. JetJockJim Says:
   September 23rd, 2006 at 00:37

   I just saw the movie. Former Navy pilot, (FA-18's). To the former Viper driver: Trust me, when you watch it you'll see how unreal it is. Rolling Sissors, over the top maneuvers, vertical climbs in a 125hp machine. Angle off shots were all wrong - pipper on during high cross track rate shots - totally unrealistic. Smoke tracers just looked wrong. Formation flight was also way wrong.....gaggle of planes flying in random close proximity, each guy looking straight ahead and no-one having the lead. Relative motion in formation was like zero. For the non-pilots out there: This is not what real dogfights feel like. I think those comments from "non-aviation" guys were right on. Your instincts that it didn't look right was dead on.
   
   The aerial stuff could be forgiven if this was a good high drama movie. Unfortunatley it was completley hollywood formulatic and utterly predicatable. You know exactly who is going to die, and what's going to happen. Example....when they are handed a pistol before their first combat flight one new guy inquires why...he is told that if the airplane catches on fire, he can shoot himself rather than burn to death in the airplane. Well you know that scene is going to happen later on. And the black guy. First of all there were no black fighter pilots in WW1 at all, on either side. Its just a fact. But in this multi-cultural ethno-perfect hollywood, we have to have a token black guy in there. Ever notice this? The black guy never dies unless he is martyred. The military aspect of the was totally Hogans Heroes too. Just a joke of a movie!

1. Glenn Francis Says:
   September 23rd, 2006 at 12:31

   Josh, Mike,
   
   I've only seen the trailers - and that was all I could stand. I agree with your statements. This movie just reeks of sappy, highly inaccurate re-write of history made to appease Kiddieland audiences. This movie is obviously a f*cking joke. It reminds me of that other disaster - Pearl Harbor - which holds the title of "Worst war movie ever made." I guess "Flyboys" is trying for either that title or "Second worst war movie ever made." There should be an amendment to the constitution outlawing movies of this ilk being made.
   
   Josh - *Only* Baron Manfred von Richtofen's planes were red and only a few of them. Having every Fokker Dr1 in the movie painted red is outright criminal.
   
   Jet Jock Jim: I agree entirely regarding your "token black" statements. It's pathetic. However, there actually was *one* Black pilot from the UK who served in the 93rd Aero Squadron which is what this movie is about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Bullard But he was never allowed into the American forces and he certainly did not speak present day jive Ebonics. To take one of the most important events in the history of mankind and make into a sappy story about a black man is inexcusable.
   
   All: Regarding tracer rounds - Yep! They definitely had 'em - Different colored even. In addition to adding tracers to see where your gunfire was going - they were primarily used to destroy zeppelins and observation balloons. The tracers would ignite the flammable gas inside. Regular bullets didn't do anything. So if the target was a zeppelin or balloon, the planes machine guns were loaded with tracers. There were different types of tracers, some for aiming, and some for igniting.
   
   Now, THIS presented a dilemma if a balloon busting patrol was attacked by the enemy. The balloon hunting patrol was loaded with igniting tracers. It was illegal to shoot at enemy planes with these tracers. The reason was that being shot with a tracer was extremely painful to the pilot who was shot. The tracer would burn inside him. This was considered too cruel for WW1, (where mustard gas was common). The penalty for shooting and enemy with a tracer was death. Then again, the average life of a WW1 pilot was 17 hours.
   
   But the tracers in the movie were absurd. Tracers are the same size as a bullet and the y GLOW.... they DO NOT produce massive plumes of smoke as they travel.
   
   -Glenn

1. spindaddydad Says:
   September 23rd, 2006 at 13:49

   "Having every Fokker Dr1 in the movie painted red is outright criminal."
   The filmmakers commented on this in the production notes. There is a need in every war movie to distinguish the two sides in a combat for the viewers. The easiest way to do this was to make most of the German fighters red (not necessarily innacurate as much as misrepresentational)
   
   "Bullard he was never allowed into the American forces and he certainly did not speak present day jive Ebonics. To take one of the most important events in the history of mankind and make into a sappy story about a black man is inexcusable."
   The movie never said he flew with the American forces. He flew with the Lafayette Escadrille which was French led. In fact, the closing credits stated that when America entered the war, he was not allowed to fly. Regarding jive ebonics - he never spoke that way. History books do show us that he had a unique way of speaking with quippy one-liners. Accurately portrayed in the movie.
   
   "There were different types of tracers, some for aiming, and some for igniting. "
   Yes, this is accurate. The movie mentioned that when they went on the zeppelin hunting mission, they loaded up with incendiary rounds to do damage to the balloon.
   
   "they DO NOT produce massive plumes of smoke as they travel"
   Actually, they do. Many diaries described the sky during daylight dogfights as "a spider web of tracer fire."

1. Jochen Says:
   September 23rd, 2006 at 20:10

   Josh, by reading some of the other responses, I think you've been ripped enough about the tracers. Just remember, before you open you mouth, know what the heck you are talking about. If you want verification, go to "Youtube," search "Luftwaffe" and scroll down to some Luftwaffe gun camera film. You will indeed see smoke coming from the bullets and canon shells as they are fired and heading toward the enemy aircraft. Sheesh!!
   
   As for JetJock. Get your facts right as well. There was indeed one black fighter pilot. Fact. Period. Dot. You too should do your research before you open your pie hole (Ex-Air Force pilot too). Was his character important to the story(such as it was)?? That is a different issue.

1. nate Says:
   September 23rd, 2006 at 20:51

   if you were to give it stars out of five, (five being the best) how many would you give the movie?

1. Glenn Francis Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 10:50

   So whats your point spindaddydad?
   
   That because the filmmakers commented on some of their intentional misrepresenttions in the production notes that it means this is a good movie?
   
   -Glenn

1. Kelly Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 10:51

   I give it a 3.
   
   I agree with the pilots here. As a pilot myself I wondered quite a few times why the pilots in close formation were looking all over the place. Plus, while in combat, they seemed to glance around as if taking a walk in the park. I also doubt that our hero would zero in on the jammed gun and let the German out maneuver him. Job #1: fly the plane. Of course, doing that wouldn't make for the added tension. whatever.
   
   There are also the explosions. Even with tracers, the zepplins wouldn't boom, boom, boom, BOOM explode. Ditto for the handful of Fokkers that were exploded out of the air.
   
   

1. Jochen Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 12:34

   Pretty good points Kelly. As for the explosions, there are accounts (a lot of them) where these planes did explode. Perhaps not as violently as portrayed, but. . . Guess what you get with a tracer hitting a non-self-sealing gas tank? Think about this, estimates are that 1 in 3 B-17s that were shot down during the war (II) exploded before they ever hit the ground. You will find similar numbers from RAF Bomber Command with their aircraft.
   
   I give it a 2.5: Not nearly as good a movie as the Blue Max done back in 1965 or 1966. Too bad. Jochen

1. Josh Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 12:37

   Jochen, if you read up on some of the posts, you'll see there's been no consensus from those claiming to be "experts" who've posted here on whether they got the tracer fire right.
   
   Certainly no reason for such a haughty response on your part.
   
   Ultimately, doesn't sound like you liked it all that much more than I did anyway eh?

1. Jochen Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 19:02

   Hey Josh, like yourself, I didn't really like it that much either. Historically, it was an abomination. Triplane colors, Triplane presence, etc. As for my response, it was "haughty" because your initial comment was that you had seen enough movies to know that bullets don't leave smoke behind them. As if Hollywood ever got that right. Like I said in the first post, go to Youtube, search "Luftwaffe" and review some of the gun camera film. You will definitely see that bullets DO sometimes leave smoke trails behind them. As for "experts" which I do not claim to be, let the video of actual gun camera film be your teacher. Just don't use Hollywood accuracy as a yardstick for historical correctness. That's like watching the Messerschmitts in "Memphis Belle" with bullets coming from the wings. (No 109F/G/ or Ks had guns IN the wings).
   
   Josh, sorry if I sounded a bit "peeved" but you would be surprised how many times I have people telling me things could not possibly be a certain way simply because they have never seen it. "Well, I've never read/seen that," is never a good excuse.
   
   Either way, Josh, please keep up the good work. You have a good site here and it is interesting to read the comments.
   
   As for my comment to JetJock, it is apparent that he was approaching his comments about the black pilot (and blacks in movies being Martyred) from a position of stupidity and arrogance. For him, my comments remain.
   
   Keep it up, Josh. Good work. Jochen

1. Spindaddydad Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 19:58

   "So whats your point spindaddydad?
   That because the filmmakers commented on some of their intentional misrepresenttions in the production notes that it means this is a good movie?"
   
   No. My point was to counter your statement that it was comical to have all of the Fokkers red. It was not comical. Plain and simple

1. GW Wiels Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 21:35

   Just another comment -- there was an old 50s movie called Lafayette Escadrille with Tab Hunter. Compare that one to this one.

1. GW Wiels Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 21:35

   I thought it was an entertaining movie. I don't know about all the historical facts - unfortunately, WWI is one of those things that didn't get a lot of coverage in high school history class. I don't care really as I go to a movie to be entertained. But the movie was good enough that it made me want to learn more about the "true story" upon which this was based.
   
   Sure, most of the movie was fiction -- but it made for a good story. Sure, there were stereotypes but that gave it a retro feel. As for the flying sequences, I'm a pilot but I have no clue what it would be like to fly one of those planes so I don't feel the need to get critical about the believability of it all.
   
   And what's with the comments about the guy looking "James Dean" good? My wife said the guy wasn't that great. And even if he was, are you implying that only ugly people should be in the movies?

1. Steve Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 23:28

   As a movie, I didn't like this one much. The action scenes were worth watching, and I think a lot of people give this movie a handicap just because we're all excited to see WWI aircraft on the big screen. Acknowledging that, and feeling genuinely excited about seeing this material covered, I do think there's weight to the technical criticism. But ignoring the red planes for every German aircraft except those with named characters, the luxurious amount of idle time to stare at something in the midst of a dogfight, and the rest of the technical problems, I still didn't think the move was a very solid one.
   
   First, the consistency with which the characters were portrayed seemed to be a fault in the directing. For instance, Skinner, the black man, seemed to have a foreign accent while in America, but then seemed to get a deep south accent once he arrived in France. This issue with character inconsistencies was brought up in the initial review, and I think it has weight simply because I find such things a BIG distraction. It breaks the illusion, which sucks when you want to spend a couple hours absorbed in that illusion.
   
   Second, many of the dialogue scenes weren't tight. I hate to say it, but when John Reno's character begin questioning one of the Americans, accusing him of being a German spy, it almost seemed to be a parody. It brought to mind the scene in Seinfeld where Newman is questioning Jerry about mail fraud. I just think there should have been some redos of many of these scenes. Whether it was time, money, or limitations in directorial skill that kept these from happening, I'll never know, but the movie suffers because of it. As a weather guage, or yardstick, I'd offer up the dialogue in "Enemy at the Gates" as an example of where the bar should be for the acting. I don't want to spawn a whole thread on that movie, I'm just pointing out an example where the dialogue was substantially tighter, to convey my point of a problem in this movie.
   
   Those were the two big things that left me leaving the theatre disappointed. To put icing on it, I'd just point out that the story could have been well improved if it examined some of the Brits and Germans a little more. I guess that's my veiled way of saying that I didn't enjoy the story as it was assembled. I recognize the story was about the Americans, so that's important, but to see the collage in characters assembled for this story made me feel like I was being led by the nose to the point that many different people from many different backgrounds were involved. I think these side-messages take away from the real story. It betrays a lack of focus, I think, and the move suffers from it.
   
   This leads me to a more general complaint about most movies with a 'special interest' focus. It makes sense that most movies cast a character to play the part of the audience - they ask all the dumb questions, make all the mistakes, and generally provide the opportunity for the dialogue to explain the nuances. It makes the movie more accessible to people who don't follow that subculture or special interest, but I don't think many movies are remembered in the long term for providing accessiblity to material. If they are remembered, it's for their authenticity, which often takes the shape of small things happening on the screen that get no lip service or focus, but add volumes to realism. Examples I would cite include the grimmace greeting in The Seven Samurai - no explanation, just a point of cultural realism. Also, the point in the Last of the Mohicans, where the main character adjusts his weapon before entering the side-door of the fort. Most people don't notice this subtlety, but to members of the muzzle-loader community, they know exactly what he's doing, and why he's doing it. No explanation needed, and let's face it, we all love it when we see this stuff in movies - the subtlties we know about and are ours to appreciate.
   
   Anyway, to get back to the point, I think this movie is not in the category of authenticity, but in the category of accessiblity, and potential viewers should recognize this going in to set expectations appropriately, lest they leave disappointed. It's a fun movie, and with a little eye-rolling, most people will enjoy the adventure. However, it's not what it could have been, I categorize it as a missed opportunity, and is irritating in its presentation of history. I'm of the camp that believes more faith should be put in the intelligence of the audience, and this movie is one I feel abused our intelligence. Did I spell that right? ;)

1. MickeyJoe Says:
   September 25th, 2006 at 11:20

   "Having every Fokker Dr1 in the movie painted red is outright criminal."
   The filmmakers commented on this in the production notes. There is a need in every war movie to distinguish the two sides in a combat for the viewers. The easiest way to do this was to make most of the German fighters red (not necessarily innacurate as much as misrepresentational)
   
   "Having every Fokker Dr1 in the movie painted red is outright criminal."
   The filmmakers commented on this in the production notes. There is a need in every war movie to distinguish the two sides in a combat for the viewers. The easiest way to do this was to make most of the German fighters red (not necessarily innacurate as much as misrepresentational)
   
   This is an insulting statement on behalf of the filmmakers. They apparently feel that the film viewing public is too stupid to distinguish between triplanes with crosses on the wings and biplanes with roundels. Not to mention any respect for von Richthofen and Jasta 11 would prevent one from making suck a decision. (von Richthofen flew the only all red crate, while the other members of Jasta 11 all had some red in their overall paint scheme)
   
   Other German flight groups (Jasta) had entirely different paint schemes from Jasta 11 and typically from each other.
   
   
   I think someone already touched on the fact that the germans would have been flying Albatros or Pfalz at the time this movie was supposidly based.
   
   
   Eddie Beagle notes that the germans have just developed a triplane, however the Fokker Dreidecker was developed in large part based on The Red Baron's (von Richthofen's) experience with the already developed english sopwith triplane.
   I believe he also overstates the horespower of the Fokker which was actually an underpowered 110 HP (why include details in the movie if they are wrong?)
   
   This was a missed opportunity, the same level of effort could have been directed to produce an equally satisfying movie to the uninitiated and a historocally satisfying move to those WWI buffs like me.
   
   Unfortunately we now have a generation of would be history buffs that think all german warplanes are red!!!!!!!
   
   

1. Spindaddydad Says:
   September 25th, 2006 at 14:30

   "They apparently feel that the film viewing public is too stupid to distinguish between triplanes with crosses on the wings and biplanes with roundels."
   The general film viewing public IS stupid. That's why Jackass rules the box office this weekend. Providing a means for the avg. Joe and his wife to EASILY follow the enemy is not disrespecful nor does it take away from the movie.
   
   "This was a missed opportunity, the same level of effort could have been directed to produce an equally satisfying movie to the uninitiated and a historocally satisfying move to those WWI buffs like me."
   I saw one critic put it like this: They didn't set out to make The History Channel meets Citizen Kane! If you want complete historical accuracy, watch a special on The History Channel. If you want Citizen Kane...rent Citizen Kane.
   
   Unfortunately we now have a generation of would be history buffs that think all german warplanes are red!!!!!!!
   No. Because would-be history buffs know better than to get their information from a Hollywood movie. But we may indeed have a generation of avg. Joe'sand his wife who think that all German planes were red.
   So what.

1. MickeyJoe Says:
   September 25th, 2006 at 15:48

   So, it's a missed opportunity to be entertaining AND educational, that's all.
   
   I liked the movie, but would have liked it more if it at least made an effort to present things historically accurate.
   
   Just sharing info and opinions, didn't mean to offend.
   
   My grand dad was a canadian pilot in WWI, there is such little exposure to WWI in the mass media, I just hoped for this to be a little more accurate, that's all.
   
   Oh yeah, you didn't get to paint your own plane until you were an ace too.
   
   

1. MickeyJoe Says:
   September 25th, 2006 at 15:48

   " Providing a means for the avg. Joe and his wife to EASILY follow the enemy is not disrespecful nor does it take away from the movie."
   
   opinion
   
   "Not to mention any respect for von Richthofen and Jasta 11 would prevent one from making such a decision"
   
   opinion
   
   calm down
   
   BTW : do you have stock in the film?
   
   
   
   
   

1. Ryan Says:
   September 25th, 2006 at 23:48

   Real life is better than fiction. I heard of a true pilot in WWI that landed his plane on a zepplin and then took off again right as rain.
   
   
   I admit the Red Bi-planes kinda get on my nerves. It kind of takes away from the awe of the one and only Red Fokker I, flown by the greatest ace in WWI.
   
   
   [url]http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Rayner/CP/index.html[/url]
   I read up that another pilot called Roden Oeffag Albatri met Richtofen on the Western Front. He was inspired by the Baron's choice of color, and Roden started painting his own planes all red with a skull motiff on the side. I guess all the german pilots in "Flyboys" were inspired by the Red Baron also!
   
   I understand about how they wanted the audience to be able to tell apart the two sides, but they could have made the Fokkers all painted black and that would have made them differant than the silver Nieuports flown by the heroes. It would be more historically acurate since there were even groups of german planes in WWI painted black.
   
   It also makes the arch villian Black Falcon memorable while if the Red Baron made a cameo appearance the audience wouldn't even be able to recgonize him.
   
   Anyway, I'm still delighted that a WWI film has come out in 2006. A WWI computer game started my interest in aviation in general so now It's become one of my favorite subjects to read about, model, and enjoy.
   
   The cute little French girl and American Boy romance was ok.

1. Sean Says:
   October 1st, 2006 at 20:45

   I find it annoying that the filmmakers considered the viewing public to be stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between silver biplanes and green triplanes, even leaving aside the large national markings and the German pilots' ability to customize the appearance of their planes to a much greater extent than Allied pilots were. The temporal mismatch is also disturbing; by October/November of 1917, the Nieuport 17 was outclassed by virtually all the German fighters; unlike the American 94th and 95th Squadrons, which received outdated planes from the British and French due to the US lacking a combat-worthy fighter of its own, the Lafayette Escadrille received the newest French aircraft, and had converted to Spads by the time that the Dr.I entered service with Germany. In an interview with iF Magazine, the production designer, Charles Wood, stated that they'd had problems researching the background of the Lafayette Escadrille, but received references from around the world once word of the movie got out. Given that, it's difficult to see how, with their acknowledgement that "it was vital to the film to be as authentic as possible", they could have made such a significant mistake as using the wrong aircraft for the Escadrille; it was not due to having to use the aircraft that were available to film, since they built all the planes themselves from copies of authentic construction plans. Perhaps no plans for the Spads were available, although that seems equally suspect.

1. Dan Says:
   October 4th, 2006 at 15:36

   My main problems with the film:
   1 - predictability. pilot strafed on ground, pistol shot killing the Black Baron, Franco strafing and "calling out" the Baron.
   2- comic book unbelievables. Landing plane in no man's land and sprinting across and rescuing friend amidst hundreds of shots, German tanks and infantry rolling across the countryside undetected (look its the Blitzkrieg). Frankly, I expected our hero to show up and rescue Lucianne while the Jerries were molesting her.
   
   Good points
   1-portraying how fragile the planes were
   2-no parachutes, training sequences, uniforms, etc.
   3-yes, I was bothered by the Red Fokkers everywhere but who cares.
   4-Zeppelins, bombers, and numerous other small details.
   
   Overall, a 5 out of 10 but for military history buffs like me, well worth out and outing with my buds.

1. Suzy Fredrick Says:
   January 17th, 2007 at 15:02

   Oh wow you guys are all ridiculous! It really wont make any difference cause no matter what you say someone will disagree with you and the world will keep spinning!

1. Andrey Kolobov Says:
   January 21st, 2007 at 16:29

   Would it give it 2.5/10.
   
   This a 100%-politically-correct compilation of all conceivable Hollywood movie cliches. Absolutely predictable plot, aimlessly deviating storylines, horrendous inconsistencies in details... The depiction of the conflict is tremendously black-and-white, unusually so even for Hollywood. The "worst" villain flying an all-black plane -- come on, how much more primitive can it get? Worse than Enemy at the Gates and Pearl Harbor taken together!
   
   As a WW1 and 2 aviation buff, I can't help commenting on some additional historical aspects:
   
   1) On the in-flight formations. Modern pilots who flew in Iraq, Vietnam, or even Korea may not believe this but the planes did fly in gaggles, the way you see them in the movie. Formation tactics weren't well-developed in WW1 yet. This is about the only thing the movie got right...
   
   2) The planes Lafayette pilots fly in the movie aren't Neuport XVII's. Neither are they SE.5. Check out the schemes of these planes on the internet if you don't believe me. This would be forgivable if the movie creators were forced to use the existing WW 1 aricraft (of which there are very few left) and weren't building the mockups themselves.
   
   3) The pilots in the movie never get killed unless bullets hit them in the part of the body visible from the cockpit. In the meantime, some planes have their tails completely bullet-ridden but the pilot unscathed, the main character's bird in the last scene being the most noteable example. These planes were made of fabric and wood, with no armored plates to protect the pilot. A few bullet holes right behind the pilot's cockpit usually meant an equal number of holes in the pilot's body!
   
   Many people here are urging to ignore the historical flaws. I would if this movie wasn't pretending to be based on real historical events.
   
   

1. Jared Says:
   February 1st, 2007 at 13:32

   What ever happened to watching a movie for the sheer enjoyment of it all. I swear it seems like the vast majority of people in this world aren't happy unless they are bitching about something. You feel like this movie was a flop? Get off your ass and do a better job. If you can't do it better, then shut up. Movies are movies. Here for our enjoyment. I thought it was good. I am no expert in WW1 aircraft, nor do I think I would like it less if I were.
   
   Oh, and another thing. Were you there? How in the hell can you tell it like it really was if you werent there? Just curious.
   
   Maybe your Psychic looked into here crystal ball and showed you the facts.
   
   
   GET A LIFE PEOPLE....

1. Greg Says:
   February 4th, 2007 at 08:36

   Just saw the DVD.
   Errors:
   1) SE5a at the beginning was way too early. It was developed specifically to get to an altitude to get at the Zeppelins.
   2) I thought the french did pilots training in Bleriot Penquins before moving up to valuable fighters.
   3) Planes the heros flew in looked to be Neiuport 28s. 17s had smaller lower wings staggered slightly back from te uppers. Of couse, 28's weren't available until later in the war.
   4) Engines on Nieuports and Fokkers are supposed to rotate with the prop. For real mockups, these types of engines are almost impossible to find in working condition and repro aircraft often use more conventional engines.
   5) As stated many times above, Fokker DR-1s weren't available until mid-1917 and werer in short supply and generally went to the squardon leaders. DR-1 had 110 hp engines.
   6) Should have been a mix of aircraft types on the German side. Not going to say more on the colors.
   
   Positives
   1) Pilots having frequent gun jams and resorting to checking out their own amunition, although I thought the cause of jams was swelled casings, not bent bullets.
   2) Love story played OK. Too bad they didn't meet up after the war.
   3) The sense of loss and the comradrie they had.
   4) The pilots were put up in nice places and generally treated well.
   
   Overall, If you can suspend disbelief it was fun. However, it was not anywhere near accurate. I give it a 2.5/5.

1. DanMark Says:
   February 8th, 2007 at 00:37

   Ok I am both a film student and I enjoy learning many things about history...i wont say "im a pilot, so i know exactly what WW1 in a early 20th century plane was like" - sarcasm...and I also wont say "im a history BUF...everyone stop saying that, nobody cares...
   
   Bads
   a) yes, this film had predictable points
   b) yes, the planes were all the same colour (why dont we just make them all different so nobody can tell whos who?)
   
   Goods
   a) the relationship scenes were actually very good...many previous movies have not pulled off the language barrier situation as well as this film...it was actually very consistent
   b) dogfight scenes are dogfight scenes - who cares if you fly a F-18 or a friggin Airbus! Raise your hand if you have shot down a plane while flying an aircraft made with canvas built in 1916...and no your grandpa doesnt count
   c) the acting wasnt actually that bad, im very analytical and i dont see why people are being overly critical..go ahead, make a movie...put it on youtube
   d) the flow and pace of the movie was consistent
   
   I dont even know what else to say, I have been taught so I can never see movies the same because I am supposed to analyze every detail...but in this film, just let all that go...why does everyone have to be so picky about films when they probably work at Loblaws
   

1. MickeyJoe Says:
   February 8th, 2007 at 11:15

   This IS a discussion board, some people go into a movie with expectations that result in an otherwise entertaining movie being disappointing. Which I'm sure happened for a lot of people with this movie. Perhaps the comments on histroical accuracy etc. would be better suited for a forum titled "comments on historical accuracy of flyboys" or somthing like that.
   Then thoses not interested in the historical aspect of the movie, who are just after entertainment, can separate themselves from thoses interested in the historical aspect of the movie who want to pick it apart. Then Greg and Andrey can debate whether or not the Neiuports were 17's or 28's.
   
   Thanks for the Loblaws comment too,
   
   I actually shop at Loblaws and I work for Lockheed, designing planes.

1. Hero Says:
   February 9th, 2007 at 15:07

   As pilot myself, I won;t comment on the air battles or realism, as they have first been covered ad nausem here, and secondly, its Hollywood, they never get it right.
   What I will say is this movie is terrible not for the dogfighting, but for the acting and cliches. Franco is one of the worst actors out there and I question how he continues to get movies when every movie he is in without Toby McGuire tanks at the box office. The characters are so artificial, so poorly protrayed, and there is no little character development that you are left with no attachment to any of them. The whole cowboy-leader thing Franco tries to pull off is awful, and the lone-wolf squadron leader who always flys and drinks alone is over-done. Awful, awful movie, painful to sit thru.

1. p51dude Says:
   February 11th, 2007 at 16:32

   My my, having just read all these posts I just had to join the fray.
   
   As my screen name indicates (P51dude) I am a pilot and have flown WWII fighter planes, the P-51 Mustang being one of my favorites as well as the Spitfire and P-40.
   
   It appears one thing we most all agree on is that this movie was cookie cutter Hollywood. Lean on research for accuracy, heavy on cliché and stereotype. I feel most people who have little to no knowledge of WWI will find the movie entertaining (look at the shallow topic movies that do well with today’s younger audiences) but most of us who appreciate history will be less than satisfied.
   
   This movie must reside with movies like the modern Pearl Harbor, U571, and others like them, that have excellent special effects, and in certain aspects did stir within one the heartache of war, but that ultimately were hopelessly inaccurate. Someone mentioned that if we want accuracy, stick with The History Channel. That is probably our best bet...but we can hope that here and there an historically accurate war picture still gets made now and then.
   
   I think, deep inside, that is why we nit pick. It’s not that we are inherently negative. It’s simply that people who truly admire courage and the human spirit tend to appreciate history…and we want those who made that history honored appropriately, hoping that our successive generations will do the same for us.
   

1. Sam Says:
   February 18th, 2007 at 19:22

   I think it was a good film...4/5. However, as afore mentioned, the historical accuracy was bad...For one thing, the early Nieuport models had machine guns rigged on the upper wing, not in front of the cockpit as the movie shows. Also, Reed Cassidy's character was sketchy (he was based on a real ace named Raoul Lufbery, who led the Escadrille with seventeen kills before he jumped to his death from his burning plane in May, 1918). He seemed to do little more than angst, which got annoying.
   Some of the scenes in between the dogfights were weak, and the Rawlings/Lucienne scenes could be almost painful...
   In the end, it comes down to this: sure the characters were painfully stereotyped, the romance was flat and boring, but the real point of the movie was the dogfights, and those excelled, even if they used the wrong planes and paint schemes--the movie isn't about accuracy, its about the dogfights.
   As for the characters, at least some of them were real, not just flat stereotypes--Captain Thenault and Whiskey were the only actually real characters, but Cassidy, Rawlings, and Skinner were all based on American fliers, although one of them (Frank Luke Jr, who shot down 14 balloons and between 4 and 7 planes and was the basis for Rawlings' character) wasn't actually a part of the Escadrille.
   Still a good flick

1. Derrick Says:
   February 19th, 2007 at 12:25

   I wish I had made it to the theatre to see this. I am sure the dogfight scenes lost a lot on a 27 inch screen.
   However, I still found it to be entertaining, if not all that educational. It isn't a documentary after all. Neither is Jeff Shaara's "To The Last Man" his novel of WWI which includes an account of Rauol Lufbery and the Red Baron among others. The movie and the book compliment each other and accomplish much the same thing....give you a taste of a very horrible war and entertain at the same time.

1. Flying Freak Says:
   March 8th, 2007 at 14:20

   Okay, first of all I'd like to say that the idiots above obviously do not know their history. For one thing: I've read tons of reviews and am sickened to death by the false fact that the tracers were unrealistic. Actaully, going back to actual reports from actual world war one pilots, they alwasy described the tracers as 'the white pencil lines of death.' For you information, the only glowing bullets used during world war one weren't used as tracer. It was called buckingham, used primarily for balloon busting, and in order to use the bullets you had to have written permission from the C.O. or some other official from your squadron. Believe me: I know what I'm talking about. While the cliche in the movie got annoying (when it was presented) the charecters are based on real people. Tracer was used during world war one, and yes, it did leave plumes of smoke following the bullets. Period. End of story.
   As for the movie, I'll give it three stars. While it is hopelessly inaccurate, perhaps in way too many respects, the action was amazing, and I found myself totally into the movie. The preview got me pumped and I couldn't wait to see it. For an action movie: right on. For a historically accurate action movie, it stinks. While there was historically accurate stuff, it was too little for me to not get uncomfortable.
   Now, for them painting most of the triplanes red, thats just a sin. The only known triplane to be painted fully red was, of course, the red barons, and that got me angry, until I immersed myself wholly into the movie, shoving aside the fact that it was a little to inaccurate, and found myself loving it alot. It had a lot of good stuff, and a lot of boring, cliche. But be that as it may it was entertaining, and pretty darn cool. I liked the charecters. The love story was way less obnoxious then in pearl harbour, and for people saying that the aircraft were flyng too slow, their just plain dumb. The aircraft flew an average of 100 mph. I thought their 'no speed' was pretty cool. However, just climbing staight up through the sky (while Franco is chasing the guy that killed his freind and then his gun jams and then the guy lets him go and salutes) that's stupid. For a world war one biplane to gain the height that they gained within seconds it took at least ten minutes. Again, I know what I'm talking about.

1. Rexdog Says:
   March 29th, 2007 at 17:57

   I was in a perfect position above and behind. ... neither plane, (Richthofen or May) was aware of me ... I had dived until the red snout of my Camel pointed fair at his tail. My thumbs pressed the triggers. Bullets ripped into his elevator and tail planes. The flaming tracers showed me where they hit. A little short! Gently I pulled back on the stick. The nose of the Camel rose ever so slightly. Easy now, easy. The stream of bullets tore along the body of the all-red tripe. Its occupant turned and looked back. I had a flash of his eyes behind the goggles. Then he crumpled - sagged In the cockpit ... Richthofen was dead. The triplane staggered, wobbled, stalled, flung over on its nose and went down. The reserve trenches of the Australian infantry was (sic) not more than 200 feet below. It was a quick descent. May saw it. I saw it as I swung over. And Mellersh saw it."
   
   This was taken from an article printed for Liberty magazine in 1927 called"My fight with Richthofen" It was loosely based on Captain Browns combat report and made to imply Roy Brown wrote the piece. Roy Brown never spoke about the events of April 21,1918 and never wrote this piece of pulp fiction. It is a good example of how over time fiction can become factual history
   As for the film,unfortunately the filmmakers failed to or more likely didn't care about researching facts when making "Flyboys" It's flaws are
   numerous and laughable. Still,go see the film
   
   

1. Markus Says:
   April 24th, 2007 at 14:05

   Today was the first time I red about the movie and I thought cool (in Austria the movie starts in may)....Reading the reviews here I better save my money (I like historical accuracy -movies like kingdom of heaven make me sick).
   
   @Ryan Yes there was another red bi-plane (since 1917) it was the Albatros D III of Godwin Brumowski Austro-Hungarias highest scoring Ace (35 Victories - still lame compaired to Richthofens 80) His insignia was a skull. (Btw I don't know were you got the name from - but OeFFag means Austrian Airplane Factory Coporation ;-))

1. Vicki L. Says:
   May 25th, 2007 at 00:58

   Okay, sorry JetJockJim, however, there were indeed black fighter pilots in WW1! Well, at least one: Eugene Bullard ("The Black Swallow of Death") flew with the Lafayette Flying Corps. He was wounded in the 1916 battles over Verdun. He also worked as a waiter and boxer in the UK before the beginning of WW1. He is the basis for your "token black person": Skinner. As a result of US segregation, he was not accepted into the US air service and died relatively unknown in the US, though he was buried with honors by the French in a US cemetary. A book of his memoirs, The Black Swallow of Death, was printed posthumously. Eventually, like the Navajo Code Talkers, his minority status was ignored and, on August 23, 1994 (exactly 77 years after he was refused by the US air service and 33 years after his death), he was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Air Force.

1. John Gordon Says:
   August 15th, 2007 at 01:05

   I wanted to enjoy Flyboys but I just couldn't - Hollywood have just stretched history way too far. Again! Many worthy points noted above, now I would just like to add my 2 cents worth. A tactical Zeppelin combat mission? In 1917! Escorted by Fokker DrI's, come on! Too much. After losing 4 of these enormous craft in 1914 the Germans gave up on such daylight missions and allocated them for long range naval reconnaissance and to the night bombing of London/England. The scene from the movie was totally ludicrous. Why couldn't the movie have depicted attacks against the heavily defended observation balloons instead? (Ala - many of Frank Luke's aerial victories). Is heavy bombing the only "mission" that the general public can understand? That would explain the movie's preponderance on heavy bombers. Was the German bomber in the movie supposed to be a Gotha GV? They were built for bombing England as well. I would be highly surprised if the Lafayette Escadrille ever came across this type of aircraft. Where were the German two seater observation aircraft? The Albatross CV or the Roland CII for example? For that matter there were no allied two seater observation aircraft flying in the movie either. Well, we saw a Bristol Fighter BRf2b near the beginning, and the hero managed to aquire a British two seater (Avro 504?) for his romantic convenience. Sure, there were bombing and strafing missions but one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the observation activity was the whole point of most of the aerial combat - missions to spot for artillery, to take aerial photographs - or trying to stop the enemy from doing the same. But no, the movie had to depict a Handley Page 0/100 escorted day mission to bomb a German ammunition dump. Please! These aircraft were used for night bombing of German U-boat bases, railway and industry infrastructure. They did not carry out escorted day missions like that depicted in the movie. And how effective the bombing too! Put a WW2 B17 crew/bombload to shame! Shall I go on? Suffice to say I hoped for a lot better. Did they do any research for this movie?

1. zhadi Says:
   August 27th, 2007 at 22:17

   I watched this movie with my boyfriend over the course of two nights. We both love movies like THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER, BLUE MAX, GLORY, and I love stories about heroism in the midst of enormous odds. I was really hoping to like FLYBOYS, but other than the dogfights, it was hard to watch. I'm on the cliche-ridden bandwagon. And while I realize they weren't trying to do a History Channel documentary, there's no reason for lazy writing, total stereotypes and really cheesy music doing its best to evoke an emotional response that's not forthcoming without it. WAY too over the top. I did, however, like the lion. Which has nothing do with anything other than I'm a pushover for big cats. :-)
   
   Hey, has there been a good film done about the Flying Tigers? The TV show Baa Baa Blacksheep doesn't count!
   
   

1. Sicj Says:
   November 1st, 2007 at 13:30

   Well i liked it but yeah just a 2.5 is all she wrote (all they were willing to write at least)
   
   Look i like my movies to be portrayed as accurately as they can get them. Thats what makes me happy AFTER the movie when i go home or to work only to find friends and coworkers discovering some innovative realistic scheme they used in this movie or that movie...
   
   Nowadays all people care about is the type of lightsaber Luke Skywalker used instead of the type of plane people flew in WW1.
   
   I couldnt ever get into WW1 like i could WW2 or Nam, due to it being one HUGE STINKING MESS OF DEATH, with seemingly important generals/men taking charge using limited technological innovation only to be bogged down by machine guns and artillery fire.
   
   So for this movie to TAKE IT TO THE AIR out of the trenches was refreshing until i saw/read all the inaccuracies. Look im an American, an average joe since i don't attend a college but hey if i go to see a movie i don't mind them slipping me a mickey and learning something during and after the film.
   
   So far the only entertaining thing to read about WW1 to me was the intro of tanks at the Battle of the Somme...

1. Taylor Says:
   March 4th, 2008 at 20:09

   I just watched this movie in my grade 10 History class, and I noticed that a lot of the characters were shot down before we, the audience, got a chance to really get to know them. This way it was impossible for us to feel anything when they were killed! I think if the director scrapped the horrible romance subplot (don't even get me started on that), and added a few scenes at the beginning that helped us to build a personal relationship with the characters, then we would be talking about a much better, and much shorter film!
   
   What do you think?

1. kiwiwahine Says:
   April 21st, 2008 at 22:02

   This movie is only based on the real story, it is not meant to be an accurate docodrama! it is an entertainment version. I enjoyed it very much and have since seeing this movie done more research into those brave men who flew and fought in these incredible battles...Had I not had seen this movie I would not have taken such an interest and therefore remained as ignorant as the rest of the masses!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)