Product: Flyboys [Blu-ray] (2006)
Rating: 5.0
"Star Wars" meets "The Great War" in this old-fasioned, exciting War film.
I for one loved this movie, my family loved it. Even my 64 year old war-veteran father who is very, very picky loved it. I for one am getting sick of all the critics dumping on it. The only other places I've seen aerial action this exciting and dynamic is in the "Star Wars" film series, "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and the 1995 TV series "Space: Above and Beyond". What makes this film special over those is that it's not in an abstract retro-futuristic fantasy world. It's a recreation of real WWI dogfights and they look so damn real. I'm an expert at spotting FX but there where many times when I really couldn't tell when they switched from real plane, to CGI model and then to scale model.Now as for being historically inaccurate. Most of what I heard was anal-pretentious nitpicking and thus wasn't nearly as severe as some would have you believe. Most of those naysayers are just quoting some garbage some other know-it-all idiot said verbatim. Not to mention if you want precise history at such a nit-picky level as those guys insist on, go read a book. Now I wouldn't call this film a truly serious war film like "Flags of Our Fathers" or "Saving Private Ryan". It's more in the vein of the war films of the 30s and the 40s, just with new state-of-the-art visual effects. Even the love story could easily been written for a 1940s film.In many ways it reminds of the WWI episodes of "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" - In fact if you want a great companion piece to "Flyboys" check out the Young Indy film "Attack of the Hawkmen" which deals with the Lafayette escadrille as well. However keep in mind that a 2007 feature film budget can do way more then a TV movie from 1995. However they both have that old Saturday matinée type feel.I guess that's why so many people call it cliché. I call it a good old fashion seat-of-your-pants thrill ride and a good way to introduce any young lad to the history of that time.Oh and the bonus disc of the DVD set is above average with it's highlight being a terrific documentary on the real Lafayette escadrille pilots and explanations on who each of the films characters where inspired by. It's where most of these self-proclaimed war historians got there information I suspect since everything i here them say about who each character is based on, is covered by the documentary.Now one major beef is with the stupid MPAA (Trey Parker and Matt Stone are so right about them.) They rated "Flyboys" PG-13 for "War Action (which is fine) and Sexual Content" What Sexual content they're talking about I have no clue whatsoever.The love story is sweet, innocent and old fashion and as G-rated as they come.Now there are a couple scenes in a brothel but the women are completely clothed and nothing sexual is discussed There's not even any cleavage or garters showing. If this film was made in the golden age of Hollywood I doubt even the Hayes Commission Production Code of the 40s and 50s could have found much to object to except maybe the use of the word prostitute.However this is 2007 and Anna Nicole's half-naked body is splashed all over ever news program and we have TV commercials that would have been considered soft-core porn 50 years ago so I don't see show that could be it. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if this is reason so many movie-goers and (mostly) critics didn't like this movie. They saw the "Sexual Content" and were geared up for some style steamy love scenes ;in the style the WWI semi-classic "The Blue Max".Now that I think of it I don't think I ever saw a major film critic criticize a heavily sexualized love story for being cliché'. Go figure. Not that I have anything against sex. I just don't need it to be in every TV show and movie.Lastly what I really find idiotic is the fact that most the critics who dumped on "Flyboys" for being clichéd and historically inaccurate gave glowing reviews to the WWII submarine turd-fest "U-571" with it's ridiculously well-lit, dry and roomy submarines, it's driftwood-like performance by Matthew McConaughey in the lead (While he's no Marlon Brando I'd James Franco in "Flyboys" over nude-bongo boy any day.)Not to mention if you want to talk historical inaccuracies, "U-571" completely re-writes history having Americans, rather then the British, find the first Enigma machine and decode it.Now "Flyboys" having planes a couple years too early or slightly the wrong color is no comparison for that level of deliberate falsification. However at RottenTomatoes.com "U-571" gets a whopping 67% "FRESH" with a consensus "Excellent cinematography and an interesting plot accompanied by a talented cast and crew make U-571 a tense thriller." While "Flyboys" gets a 33% ROTTEN with a consensus "Poorly scripted with mediocre acting and unconvincing battle scenes."Not to mention when it comes to historical inaccuracies don't even get me started on "Pearl Harbor", "Titanic" or Frank Miller's "300" (Which will be a huge hit despite the fact it bares little resemblance to the true story.)Now finally I know why Hollywood makes so much trash. When they made a good clean old-fashion staurday afternoon action movie critics dump on it and movie-goers end up avoiding it like the plague. Darn Shame.