Flyboys

[WillyGib]

Just happened to go to Video Detective and saw this movie coming out Sept 22. I haven't seen anything on this movie until now. It looks like it may be a good WWI movie.

http://www.videodetective.com/trailer-preview.asp?publishedID=855003&customerid=97135

[Michael Sargent]

Really? The ads on TV make it look like another Pearl Harbor. Too much bad CGI. Way to many planes way too close. Overhyped. I haven't checked, but I'm sure Jerry Bruckheimer has something to do with this.

Mike

[WillyGib]

Well, maybe I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD and see how it is. I love war movies and I do own some bad ones.

[dgolombowski]

Looks pretty cheesy to me. Another CGI disaster. Watch The Blue Max if you like the WW I flyers.

[kweezr]

Saw the trailer at the movies last nite, too much CG! Seemed like it focused on the planes more than anything else.

[Dcostanza]

Saw a sneak preview at Air Venture (Oshkosh)this year in July. At the conclusion there was a Q&A with the director and one of the actors which gave some interesting insight into the production. Diligent attempt at accuracy of that time. It went over very well there (of course there was a hangar full of pilots and aviation enthusiasts).

Thought it was very well done but would be surprised if it hit number 1 for more than a day or so. Overall I enjoyed it and will be purchasing it when it hits DVD.

Best regards
Don

[sethwas]

Well,
It's right up my alley (lots of CG and military stuff, missing the sci-fi though... :cool: ) and I look forward to seeing it. I hope the story isn't too flat though.

Seth

[Scott Simonian]

Too much CG? Huh? Those kind of action sequences could be replicated in REAL LIFE on CAMERA? Don't think so... I thought the CG looked pretty decent. I mean, how real can you make a zeppelin blowing up and some guy running down it?

When the next Spiderman or Xmen or some other "we make real people with computers" movies...can I troll that thread with, "there is WAY too much CG in this!"?

Ugh.

[GreySkies]

Local critic (Dean Richards on WGN) called it "worse than Pearl Harbor."

[WillyGib]

Is anyone going to see this in the theater? I don't go to the theater anymore since I built my HT. It is hard to wait for the DVD though!

PS,

Greyskies,

Do you normally agree with Dean Richards and his reviews?

[sethwas]

how real can you make a zeppelin blowing up and some guy running down it?

Jackass 3?

Seth

[DIZ2]

I saw it this past weekend and I enjoyed the spectacle. The acting was a little flat, what do you expect from James Franco, but the arial shots were very cool. I liked it better than Pearl Harbor because the romance angle was very low key. What I did like is that you got attached to some of the characters and cared what happened to them. It kind of put in perspective the bravery of these guys who flew combat missions when flight was in its infancy and some of the risks they took (no parachutes, unreliable equipment...etc). It is not a masterpiece, but not a bad way to spend 2 hours. It looked great on a large scale screen and the soundtrack was very active containing nice bass effects with great seperation in the surrounds. I will look forward to this in the home theater environment if it somehow makes its way to HDDVD.
Dan

[MatthewR]

Too much CG? Huh? Those kind of action sequences could be replicated in REAL LIFE on CAMERA? Don't think so... I thought the CG looked pretty decent. I mean, how real can you make a zeppelin blowing up and some guy running down it?

When the next Spiderman or Xmen or some other "we make real people with computers" movies...can I troll that thread with, "there is WAY too much CG in this!"?

Ugh.

deep breaths.....

[petergaryr]

I saw it today.

The aerial sequences were pretty good an it looked at times that they were actually using some vitage bi-planes for some of the shots. I agree with a previous poster that it took a little time on character development and did make some of the fates of them more compelling.

Jean Reno did his usual great job. I don't think I would have a need to see this movie more than once however it was worth the price of admission.

I did have an "unusual" theater experience (or maybe not so unusual).

The multiplex it was showing in had sections of the screen repaired that was very noticible. Also, the picture was not sharply focused and the sound system wasn't that impressive. It reminded me why I have invested so much in my HT.

[Dcostanza]

Director Tony Bill had 4 Nieuports built in 52 days for the film. That is an incredible fabrication schedule for one plane let alone four. They have been promoting the movie at all the major air shows in the country. Overall they had some original WW1 planes for the movie, 3 Fokker DR1's two original Nieuport 17s, (the four Nieuports built for the movie) three SE5A's,a Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter, a Bleriot, and a dozen non-flying aircraft to make the film.

What I thought was interesting from the presentation we saw and the Q&A was some of the elements that were shared from the research Tony Bill did. I found it fascinating that they attempted to recreate the sky in the movie after a battle. Apparently after an actual air battle during that time people on the ground would see what appeared to be spider webs in the sky. This was from the number of rounds shot off during the air battle as conveyed to all of us in the audience.

The movie will appeal to a bit of a niche market but there is a lot of research that went into this movie that made it as accurate of a portrayal as possible.

[suffolk112000]

When the next Spiderman or Xmen or some other "we make real people with computers" movies...can I troll that thread with, "there is WAY too much CG in this!"?

Ugh.

Or lord of the rings for that matter...
I plan on checking it out at the theater if I have time. If not, I will add it to my que.

Craig

[Tnilsson]

The movie is getting good reviews in my area. Even the worst review I have seen admits that it is a decent way to spend 2 or more hours. I will watch this sometime, but probably not until it hits DVD. It irks me that it costs me more to go see a movie one time in a theater with my wife than it costs us to buy the movie when it comes out on DVD. And the cost to rent a DVD is even lower, only 1/4 the cost of two people going to the theater. It has to be an exceptional movie before I will go to the theater anymore . . .

[Maltby]

Too much CG? Huh? Those kind of action sequences could be replicated in REAL LIFE on CAMERA? Don't think so... I thought the CG looked pretty decent. I mean, how real can you make a zeppelin blowing up and some guy running down it?

When the next Spiderman or Xmen or some other "we make real people with computers" movies...can I troll that thread with, "there is WAY too much CG in this!"?

Ugh.



As suggested above, rent the movie The Blue Max.

The previews of the movie reminded me of a scene from Hitchcock's The Birds.

[mflanagan]

Is anyone going to see this in the theater? I don't go to the theater anymore since I built my HT.


Whats a Theater? ;)

[WillyGib]

Whats a Theater? ;)

It's were DVD's go to be made for home theaters. :D

[HeadRusch]

Biggest Problem with this movie is its name, and in the 1 and only time I saw a trailer it was just a bunch of pretty looking guys running off bad diologue. CGI I dont mind, I want a movie not a documentary (see: The Aviator and Howard Hughes).

[NetworkTV]

Too much CG? Huh? Those kind of action sequences could be replicated in REAL LIFE on CAMERA? Don't think so... I thought the CG looked pretty decent. I mean, how real can you make a zeppelin blowing up and some guy running down it?
OK, I'll bite. Most of the scenes from "Flyboys" were already done decades ago live in front of a camera via Howard Hughes' "Hell's Angels" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020960/). No CGI in that one.

[JayF]

Saw this tonight and liked it. Don't let the trailors mislead you because it's absolutely not an out of control CGIfest. In fact, I thought the aerial scenes were quite well done. The whole movie has a nice vibrant look to it that should look great on HD media.

BTW, saying this is worse than Pearl Harbor is preposterous. Tony Bill has directed a lot of television in the past few years, but in the 80s and 90s he made some great little movies I still love like My Bodyguard, Five Corners and Untamed Heart. Some accuse him of being too sentimental, and I think that carries through in Flyboys. For me that is a good thing.

[WillyGib]

Well, I am glad to hear that the couple of members who have actually seen this movie liked it. There is always room in my collection for another war movie. :D

[HeadRusch]

There is always room in my collection for another war movie. :D

Seconded...unless its When Trumpets Fade....but thats another matter entirely :D

[CoreyM]

OK, I'll bite. Most of the scenes from "Flyboys" were already done decades ago live in front of a camera via Howard Hughes' "Hell's Angels" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020960/). No CGI in that one.
And if I remember correctly a number of planes crashed into each other and quite a few pilots/stuntmen lost their lives filming Hell's Angels.

[SbWillie]

Too much CG? Huh?

When the next Spiderman or Xmen or some other "we make real people with computers" movies...can I troll that thread with, "there is WAY too much CG in this!"?

Ugh.RIGHT ON! :D

[Chewbacco]

I enjoyed this more than expected. I think it was the DTS track and the girl that made this enjoyable :D. The acting was about what I thought it would be from the various actors and they made a weak attempt at relationships but the dogfights were fun and as it turned out I'm glad I saw it...except I would have turned Paris upside down ;).

[NetworkTV]

And if I remember correctly a number of planes crashed into each other and quite a few pilots/stuntmen lost their lives filming Hell's Angels.
The point is, it's been done. You can capture that kind of action on camera without CG. Even if they used CGI for the most dangerous stuff, there would be plenty of room to use some real planes. They took the easy CG way out, relied on cliche anfter cliche and couldn't find a decent actor with two hands and a star map.

CGI is no substitute for good filmmaking - of which there was none in this movie.

[Sean Nelson]

CGI is no substitute for good filmmaking - of which there was none in this movie.When CGI is cheaper and safer then you're going to have an awfully hard time convincing investors to spend the money on real aerial dogfights. Even in Howard Hughes' time the only reason Hells Angels got filmed the way it did was because Hughes was such a big aviation buff.

[SbWillie]

6/10 for me...not renting again though.

[Ron Temple]

I was quite surprised I liked it as much as I did after reading some pans and it making Ebert's standin and Roeper's 10 worst list. I got caught up in it, sure it was totally formulaic and predictable, but I loved it anyway.

[AKA BUD]

I rented it yesterday and thought it was pretty good. However, the dvd I rented along with it was way better.....Picked Parts...a very funny comedy.

[Rutgar]

Saw this last night. Not as bad as Pearl Harbor. But close. Glad it was just a rental. Very formualaic, predictable, and forgettable.

[dragonbud0]

Think the music and the audio quality of Pearl Harbor were much better, and there were Kate and Faith Hill.

[Sean Nelson]

Haven't seen Flyboys yet, but if you like this sort of thing I imagine you'd also like The Rocketeer. It's set in the 1930's, has a kind of "golly gee" feel to it and the score by James Horner is really quite wonderful.

[Art Sonneborn]

Very impressive visually and sonically on BD. Because of the look and feel ,OK story and acting it was very entertaining for me.

Art