free counter with statistics Flyboys | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

flyboys4.jpg
But Seriously Though: Can You Take Me High Enough?

Flyboys / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | September 22, 2006 | Comments (20)


For all six of you out there who really can’t get enough of “Flying Aces”-style WWI aerial combat, an interest probably begotten of some video game, Flyboys is the movie you’ve been waiting for. Based on the true story of the Lafayette Escadrille — a squadron of American fighter pilots who served in the First World War before the United States even entered the fray — Flyboys is a Top Gun-like recreation of their exploits. And Top Gun is a pretty useful basis of comparison here: Just like that particular Tom Cruise vehicle, Flyboys offers a plethora of dogfights and action imagery that should make every preteen kid squeal and twitch their Nintendo thumbs. For them and some particularly esoteric war enthusiasts, this will be fun; for anyone else, there’s no big reason to care.

The story hits the ground running, setting up a few flimsy backgrounds for some of the pilots and then whisking them away to wartime France. And herein lies an initial problem: Why?! It seems to me that joining up with an incipient military corps to fight for a country you’ve never been to is a pretty random thing to do. Why not volunteer for the Portuguese navy or mine diamonds in Rhodesia? Why not fly an air balloon over the Mongolian steppes? You get the idea. We’re told that de facto leader James Franco is trying to escape arrest in Texas and a couple of the others have vaguely patriotic inclinations, but from the get-go we’re never really presented with a reason that this cast of characters should have a particular interest in flying or fighting in the war. Most of them seem to be doing it for shits and giggles.

Anyway, once they arrive on the battlefront, Franco and company start training for their biplanes (there are some nice montages that keep the action snappy) under the leadership of Captain Thenault (Jean Reno, Hollywood’s go-to Frenchie) and a particularly jaded ace pilot (Martin Henderson). After they complete their montages, they begin flying missions and duking it out with smarmy German aces, showcased in pretty invigorating CG sequences.

Problem the Second arises as soon as the sweetly goofy and effervescent young characters we were introduced to start coexisting poorly with the violence of war and combat. As a whole, Flyboys has a distinctly amateurish feel to it — like a low-budget Disney or PBS film (which makes sense considering that they’ve deigned to advertise on our site) with cartoonish characters who have all the commanding presence of a titmouse. Of all the characters besides Reno, Franco is the only one who seems to have much experience, and he’s far too bland an actor to revolve the plot around. The film doesn’t really show any dynamic energy at all until the planes hit the sky. These aerial combat sequences are impressive for their visceral action and seeming authenticity, but otherwise feel oddly out of place with the rest of the movie. Ironically, though, they’re the only thing keeping us awake, especially when the film drags on for far too long in order to flesh out a subplot in which Franco woos a maiden fair.

Flyboys is boring and bland, though perhaps ultimately innocuous. The plot is predictable, which is not a good combination when the characters aren’t very engaging to begin with. For aviation and/or historical enthusiasts, there should be plenty of eye candy to make it worth the effort. For the rest of us, it should be pretty obvious as to why there hasn’t been a movie about this stuff in over 40 years.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR.


Fearless | All the King's Men



Comments

First post for the movie, first post for me.


Clichéd and predictable, but generally entertaining. At a free screening last night, the audience seemed to love it. I was entertained for two hours, nothing more.


Characters were about as deep as a puddle in the desert; a cornucopia of stereotypes. Acting was bland, personalities were a little over the top (the lion, come on, that was lame) and just not believable. Not one of them convinced me they were a pilot, or brave, or driven, or much else.

Special effects that went from pretty darn good to clipart in Word. The director took a few liberties with the capabilities of the aircraft as well. Snoopy on the roof of his dog house came to mind.

Looking for simple entertainment, Flyboys is not a bad choice. Wondering what drives a man to volunteer for a job with a life expectancy measured in handful of weeks, for someone else's country... you won't find the answer here.

Posted by: Bill Mc at September 22, 2006 7:57 PM

I predict the lack of comments regarding this "film" will be directly proportional to the box office come next week. And I didn't even major in math.

Great review, Turdslapper.

Posted by: idiot dentist at September 23, 2006 12:20 AM

I have always enjoyed the acting of Jean Reno. At that basically sums up the excitement I am feeling for this movie. Give me "The Tuskegee Airmen" anytime.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at September 23, 2006 1:53 AM

Actually, quite a few members of the Lafayette Escadrille joined it for 'shits and giggles'. Some others joined because France at that time was still thought of as the country that had aided the fledgling country during both its revolution and the War of 1812, and it seemed like the right thing to do to pay France back for its assistance.

Posted by: Adam C at September 23, 2006 2:08 AM

I can accept the critique of the acting and script, etc., but I'm getting tired of the genre bashing that seems prevalent on Pajiba. If its not your cup of tea, fine, but a lot of us like military history. And the last good WWI aviation movie I'm aware of was exactly 40 years ago - The Blue Max.

Posted by: Doug C at September 23, 2006 7:10 AM

When a man hath no freedom to fight for at home,
Let him combat for that of his neighbours;
Let him think of the glories of Greece and of Rome,
And get knock'd on the head for his labours,
To do good to mankind is the chivalrous plan,
And is always as nobly requited;
Then battle for freedom wherever you can,
And, if not shot or hang'd, you'll get knighted.

~Lord Byron

Posted by: big ben at September 23, 2006 3:31 PM

must second Doug C; you want to watch a terrific aerial WWI film? - watch "The Blue Max" (1966; Director: John Guillermin. Cast: George Peppard, James Mason, & Ursula Andress). flying sequences were spectacular. Paul Mantz Aviation (down in O.C.) did them to a "T".

Doug, don't forget "Battle of Britain" either. probably the best WWII aerial film ever done.

Philip - why didn't you post about the Ellison guy? his father apparently bought him the part in the picture for $24 million.

see the review in the NY Post. pretty damning.


box office tallies for Fri nite are weak. $861 per screen. reportedly it's a $60 mil budget - they've got a long way to go.

Posted by: boarwild at September 23, 2006 5:15 PM

oops - forgot to reference for the box office numbers; www.boxofficemojo.com

see Fri estimates.

Posted by: boarwild at September 23, 2006 5:18 PM

I think a new movie about World War 1 on the GROUND would be even more interesting than anything in the air. Half a million men died on the western front in the first year of war alone, and that's just as worthy of cinema as watching a bunch of canvas planes buzz around in the air.

Surely someone agrees with me?! I've desperatly wanted to throw that idea out there. OH! I even know what to call it!

'THE LINES.' This summer, the only way out is forward. Rated R for some violence and graphic kick-assery.

Posted by: Matt 2.0 at September 23, 2006 8:18 PM

I second Matt's idea about "The Lines" in WWI. Some guys at a dinner party I went to were talking about those unbelievable statistics, and I could barely imagine death on such a massive scale, and not by the H-bomb, but pure combat. Terrible. One said that he loved military history books but he couldn't read any more about WWI, because it was just depressing as hell. I think maybe Hollywood likes to focus on the air fights because it's more "positive." I say we need to know how f***ed up that war, all war I guess, really was.

Posted by: Viv at September 23, 2006 9:20 PM

HA! this is the 1st time ive heard someone say shits and giggles before...i thought my best friend and i were the only ppl...wow now im guna be obbsessed with tryn to remember where i got it from

BTW pajiba is my favourite reveiw site..especially as sarcasm is my favourite kind of humour

Posted by: go pajiba at September 25, 2006 4:15 AM

After watching James Franco in Freaks & Geeks, I feel like he could actually have some hidden talent. Especially if he were doing comedy. He's really funny as a stoned slacker but otherwise decent guy, and I wish he could play up the crazy in the Spidermans since he looks so much like Wilhem Defoe. If only he'd stop doing garbage like Flyboys and Anapolis in which he's so very bland.

Posted by: watoosa at September 25, 2006 12:03 PM

World World II does seem to get all good war movies, doesn't it?

I think because WWI is just so damn tragic on a human scale. I will cry every freakin' time I watch "Gallipoli", all those kids knowing they were about to be slaughtered.

Posted by: Wednesday at September 25, 2006 12:10 PM

I second that emotion on Gallipoli, although it is an excellent film. And one gets to see a young Mel Gibson before the alcohol bloat and overt anti-Semitism

Posted by: MaiGirl at September 25, 2006 3:31 PM

'Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War' is one of, if not the best war movies I've ever seen, and its a Korean Film about the Korean War (go figure, right?). The trench fighting scenes in that movie make Saving Private Ryan look like a romantic comedy- a particularly flowery romantic comendy. Have any of the Pajiba writers have seen it?

Also, thanks Viv, for the second. :)

Posted by: Matt 2.0 at September 25, 2006 6:04 PM

Matt & Viv - i assume you have seen "All Quiet on the Western Front" both 1930 and 1979 versions. both are top-notch and the '79 version was a tv movie! but you wouldn't have known it from the production value. also worth seeing is Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" (1956 if my memory serves me correctly) and Sergeant York (1941) about the true exploits of Alvin C. York. "Legends of the Fall" had a WWI backdrop that was actually pretty laughable. Brad Pitt running around with shoulder-length hair and riding a horse half-naked is (ahem) amusing to say the least.

probably two of best different war films ever made was Sam Peckinpah's 1977 classic "Cross of Iron", about Germans fighting on the Russian Front. Also "The Bridge" (1955) is a classic, directed by Bernhard Wiki about a group of boys inducted into the German Army at the eleventh hour and ordered to hold a bridge against the advancing Americans in May 1945.

the reason they don't make a whole lot of WWI films is simple; budget. any war film is expensive to make but WWI is worse; sets (you literally have to dig them, sandbag them, and string them with barbed wire) for quite a distance to have any scope. large makeup dept (muddy up all the uniforms), employ a large amount of extras, set dressing (got to make everything look shell-blasted) and tons of F/X (largely ordinance).

bottom line: why spend all that money when you can do a slacker pic like "Jackass 2" on a next-to-nothing budget and do $28 mil on opening wknd?

Posted by: boarwild at September 25, 2006 9:19 PM

Cool deal boarwild, I'll try to check some of those movies out. I can see what you mean about budget, but if they've dug and sandbagged everything, I can see the muddy uniforms taking care of themselves.

I still recommend "The Brotherhood of War" to any military history movie buffs (and to the Pajiba staff).

Posted by: Matt 2.0 at September 26, 2006 11:47 AM

matt -

i would be remiss if i did not also recommend another WWI actioner "The Fighting 69th" with James Cagney. Again, another top notch production. terrific story and very well done.

isn't it strange how older films seem to endure through the years and much of the current stuff is forgotten in it's second wknd?

and, if you've never seen "Hell is for Heroes" (1962: Director: Don "Dirty Harry" Siegel. Cast: Steve McQueen, Fess Parker, James Coburn, and Bob Newhart in his feature film debut!). it's WWII, but it is no stretch to call this film the "Saving Private Ryan" of it's day. no "ra-ra" here; gritty, unvarnished, and powerful.

Posted by: boarwild at September 26, 2006 3:11 PM

All this talk of wartime flying and no mention of Tora Tora Tora... sure it's WW2 but all the plane explosions are nice and real.

Oh and go pajiba: you most like got "shit 'n giggles" from Christopher Walken in Things to do in Denver when You're Dead (or maybe you got it somewhere else, I just love the way he says it).

Posted by: joemama420 at September 28, 2006 12:26 PM

joemama - are you kidding me about Tora's 'real' plane explosions? The movie came out when I was only 11 and even then I could see it was severely lacking! They fly a plane behind a hill, and moments later set off some explosives. THAT is a real plane explosion? They used WW2-vintage US training aircraft in place of Japanese Zero fighters. That was neither nice nor real. It was nice to see them using real footage, but that was all stock and had been used in many previous movies. From Here to Eternity, for example - made 17 years prior.

And people have been doing things for "shits 'n grins" or "shits 'n giggles" for decades. Not EVERYTHING is a movie quote.

But Tora! was done before the days of CG, so they had to use 'authentic' aircraft - at least real aircraft - and not damage them in the process. So realism was limited in a lot of ways.
Just like US tanks were authentic Shermans, but German tanks were always retired US M-48s from the Korean war. They needed tanks - couldn't get real German tanks - so they used available tanks that looked different from the American tanks.
Except for Kelly's Heroes, that is. THAT was a real Tiger.

Anyway, I loved the Fighting 69th and will see it whenever I can, but I don't find it - or Sergeant York - authentic recreations of WW1 combat.. Even Alvin York once said that the Gary Cooper movie was far from how it really was.

For WW1 aviation, The Blue Max really is about as realistic as it gets. Not enough flying or Ursula Andress, though.

Posted by: Aaarrgh at October 4, 2006 3:23 PM