Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Kirpianuscus result of ambition of Howard Hughes , it is more a cinematographic delight than a film in the precise definition. because it remains source of memories more than example of acting. the fall of zeppelin is one of its memorable moments. the chemistry between Ben Lyon and James Hall - the other.short, a film about war, so intense, so out of ordinaries rules, using heroism and the duty in a poetic manner who becomes touching against each comparison. sure, in strange manner, it is the film of Jean Harlow. not for her performance but for the biographic details. but, in same measure, it is one of films who remains amazing scene by scene because the evolution of technology has not chance to translate, in same subtle manner, the beauty of an air fight as a form of magic with roots in the memories about fairy tales.

jjnxn-1 Of interest more as a historical landmark than a great film. The aerial scenes are very impressive especially those in rudimentary color but the acting of the leads keeps the film from being remarkable. An 18 year old Jean Harlow is very green as a high society Jezebel but holds the screen with the magnetism of a star plus it is the only chance to see what she looked like in color which in a strange way makes her more real even if the color is garish. The same can not be said of her co-stars. Both Hall and Lyon have moments that register but by and large they are stiff and dull, you have to wonder how much better this would have been with Gable & Spencer Tracy or James Cagney in the leads. John Darrow is good as Karl but his part is small. It's easy to see why this was a big hit on release just as talkies were dawning but now it is more of an artifact of time and place that a compelling viewing experience.

calvinnme In 1927, Howard Hughes began production on a epic featuring the pilots of World War I that would be heavy on aeronautical thrills much in the same vein as "Wings". However, Hughes just could not stop tinkering with his pet project, eventually running the production cost up to four million dollars. This movie is a good example of not being able to tell where Hughes' OCD ends and his desire for perfection begins. However, it all paid off in the end, although it took years. Eventually the film did make eight million dollars, making it one of the top money-making films of the 1930's.There are two major flying sequences in the movie, part of which were actually filmed by Hughes since he couldn't get a professional cameraman to take the kind of chances involved. 1927's "Wings" had some great aerial combat, and had actually won a special Academy Award for engineering, but this film really outstrips it in daring and realism. For example, there are thirty or forty biplanes spinning around one another in one breathtaking combat sequence. Hughes pulled these scenes off largely by employing actual veteran flyers and ex-doughboys eager to show off their skill on camera in return for the big bucks Hughes was offering. However, after three of them died in the extreme sequences, the rest refused to fly for the final scene, saying that they were sure to crash. Hughes decided to fly the scene himself, getting the needed shot. However, just as the pilots had predicted, he also crashed the plane, although he escaped with relatively minor injuries. The main dirigible model was built on a vast scale, and when it explodes (in partial color) the effect is impressive. For the final aerial scene, Hughes used an authentic rebuilt German Gotha biplane bomber.Politically, this film has quite a bit of anti-German sensationalism. For example, the German dirigible commander decides to lighten his ship by ordering his own crew to jump to their deaths. In this film, although there is one "good" German - Roy and Monte's Oxford pal Karl - the women are all faithless. There are no adoring mothers or girlfriends waiting for our airmen to return home in this movie. This is especially true of Jean Harlow's character, Helen. She toys with Roy's heart while every man in uniform becomes her target of opportunity. Helen's outfits are all very revealing and definitely pre-code. There is also plenty of rough language between the pilots, especially when they are aloft. Although this is probably quite realistic in terms of what went on, this also could only happen in the pre-code era. Hughes knew the so-called "code" had no teeth in the era in which this film was made, although his stunts caused him real trouble in his later films.It's hard to tell from the film if Hughes had any real hard and fast feelings about World War I or war in general, or if it was just him inserting the right sense of showmanship at appropriate places to stir up the audience. For example, in one scene a man demonstrating in the street preaches that it is folly to fight a war that is really about capitalism being impeded by the petty inter-fighting of the various European powers, and is beaten by the crowd as a result. But strangely enough, when that line of reasoning is later adopted by the "bad" brother Monte, although much less eloquently, he is deemed a coward. Monte tries to redeem himself by volunteering for a dangerous aerial mission, but even then he has to be dragged to execute the assignment by his brother. When both brothers are captured and Monte wants to tell everything about the pending British attack to his German captors in order to save himself, brother Roy comes up with a clever but unpleasant solution.This is really great entertainment if you are at all interested in either film or aviation history.

agsconnolly I really had no idea what to expect from this film. Like many people, I had been attracted to it by the clips shown during Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, and was intrigued enough to buy the DVD. I read several reviews before watching it, which were inconclusive, but I must confess I was dubious about the fact that the majority of the film had been re-shot after the dawn of motion picture sound, suggesting a rushed or insensitive job.Having now seen the film, I must say I was more than pleasantly surprised. Considering it was made in 1930, Hell's Angels is unfailingly watchable. The relationship study between the brothers Roy and Monty, along with Jean Harlow's Helen, is unexpectedly interesting, and some of the avenues the film explores are, at times, gripping. The sexuality of the film must have been rather shocking for its time, not unlike director Howard Hughes' compelling use of colour in certain scenes.But of course, the great talking points of Hell's Angels are the aerial battles that were filmed so daringly by Hughes in mid-air. The closeness of the aircraft and the clear danger that many of the planes were in is alarming stuff and - whatever one says about the wisdom of the techniques involved - makes positively stunning film. Three pilots died during the filming, and Hughes himself was badly injured; but he was always fascinated by how far boundaries could be pushed, and that is clear right throughout the movie.The film's plot has been somewhat maligned, which is rather cruel considering when it was made and the fact that it is not predictable in the way that many of today's movies are. The performances are competent, the characters believable and the ending is what would be deemed 'satisfying'. The scale of this film is frankly monumental, and it is hard to think of a film being made on a scale which would equate to it today without the use of CGI. I am surprised this is not considered a classic, as it offers as much, if not more, than many movies placed in that bracket from a similar era.