Dalton Newton Ill keep this short. although this film bombed it really doesn't get the credit it deserves. first off the directing is amazing. It thoroughly goes into detail of the struggles of being a pilot in war while telling multiple stories (the film focuses on many people). James Franco delivers an unforgettable performance and i have to say that this film is truly one of the greats. I cant tell you how factual it is but i can say that it kept me interested and entertained. I actually first saw this film in class and most films they show at school are garbage (we all know this) but this film was good enough for me to watch it a second time and then write this review:) i hope you get the chance to watch it at some point.

demelewis Being that I'm avidly interested in WW1 aviation, and having seen negative reviews of this movie when it came out, I'd avoided seeing it. However, I came across it in a shop for three quid and thought I'd give it a look. Having done so, I figured I'd try and belatedly address the slamming it received, because I thought it was hugely impressive and deserved more credit.First up, let me say that not only am I a qualified pilot (and yes I have flown a couple of biplanes), but my job is teaching people how to create CGI effects for the movie industry, so I hope you'll agree that I'm at least qualified to comment on some if not all aspects of the film. Anyway, here goes.Not wishing to let facts get in the way of a good story, the screenplay for Flyboys is somewhat liberal in its interpretation of historical facts and is not afraid to mix events up a little to make for a more fluid and enjoyable experience as far as pacing goes, something which is not unexpected with big budget action movies of course, and is (quite shortsightedly) at the heart of much of the criticism it received.Similarly, there are few surprises when it comes to the storyline; cue young handsome idealistic American hero going to France to volunteer to fight, getting in some scrapes, meeting a beautiful French girl, falling in love and when in the air fighting the 'evil Hun', avenging his fallen comrades. No surprises there, but even so, this familiar trope is nevertheless well crafted, with good direction, cinematography and indeed some decent acting performances. Whilst this might not make it the perfect date movie, it at least does offer something beyond merely seeing aeroplanes and pilots shoot each other to pieces and is actually quite a nice love story.It's easy to critique the occasionally clichéd dialogue and the somewhat soppy romanticism of Flyboys, but I would caution those critics who have done so to perhaps read a few autobiographies of WW1 aviators, and maybe they will learn that many of those clichés became so because they were once the real and indeed quite common experiences of those young men who went off to fight in a foreign land all those years ago, who then wrote about them later. Go on, read a few of those books and you'll see.I might also caution those who have offered armchair expert comments on the flight characteristics of WW1 aircraft, in that many of them are merely repeating some clichés of their own, but in this case inaccurate ones. For example, it's an oft-repeated chestnut that WW1 aircraft were vastly underpowered flimsy unreliable contraptions with hugely inaccurate guns. And whilst it is true that some WW1 aircraft were underpowered (mostly early British observation aircraft), and a few designs were structurally weak in places, lots of them were nothing of the sort, some where in fact very tough; more than a few WW1 aircraft types were capable of diving at well over two hundred mph, some types even remaining in service over a decade after the Great War ended because they were so good. Moreover, you might be surprised at the agility and phenomenally rapid climb rates which many of them could achieve, because more than one original WW1 engine has been tested and found to be putting out far more horsepower than it was thought at the time when it was built. I also challenge anyone who thinks that the Spandaus, Vickers and Lewis guns of WW1 were inaccurate, to stand two hundred yards away from one of them whilst it is fired at them. If they are still alive after that, I'd be happy to stand corrected.It's with this in mind that the production designers had sought to realistically emulate the way such craft were flown in WW1; a time when such aeroplanes were the brand new hot rods of their day, flown in desperate combat, rather than the coveted museum pieces now flown gently at airshows which they are today.The production crew used a number of innovative camera tracking techniques to achieve the portrayal of how the aircraft move in Flyboys, and it shows too, in that you simply cannot tell whether it is CGI or a real aircraft in flight for almost every shot in the movie. No other action-oriented movie has ever managed that when blending CGI and live action, or even come close to it to be honest. It's an incredibly impressive feat of both technical innovation and quality planning of aerial photography.Yes it is true that there weren't that many Red Fokker Dr1 Triplanes and most of the American Volunteer's opponents would have been earlier Fokker types, Albatrosses, Aviatiks etc rather than nippy little Dr1s. And yes it is true that the Nieuports should have been earlier variants or perhaps the odd SPAD or Morane. But all of that detail is eschewed to make the thing less confusing for people who are not WW1 aviation buffs and who simply know to boo when they see a red Triplane and cheer when they see a silver Sesquiplane. So really, all those sticklers for accuracy should realise that is the reason for the amendment to accuracy, shut up and just enjoy what are undoubtedly still the most realistic CGI'd aerial battles ever seen, and not a bad love story too. Oh, and the soundtrack (Trevor Rabin) is good as well.

AbeStreet To begin with I'll state that I found this film to be highly enjoyable. I know it bombed at the box office and was rated poorly by many critics but I can't help it, this is a good film. There are a couple of ways to evaluate this film and I'll list them below. 1. Historic perspective: As many reviewers have indicated in previous reviews this film suffers from many inaccuracies. For true history and war film buffs this may ruin the film them. Myself, I knew very little of the details, other than the German planes were not colored correctly, and so the story line kept me interested. In fact, this film sparked such an interest in the story of the Lafayette Escadrille that I did a lot of research reading on the topic. I would encourage people to read up on the actual events and people. 2. Film locations & special effects: I'm thought the costume design, set locations, props, flying sequences, and special effects were extremely well done. I was completely sold on the time period and setting in which this film takes place. No doubt the film relied on CG animation for some of the fight scenes. These effects were so well done that there is no jarring juxtaposition from real life to animation that the viewer is momentarily distracted from the film's story. 3. Story: I found the story to be very good. Not overly complex but that does not mean it is a simple color by number type story. The supporting characters are given enough attention and screen time, some more than others, that the viewer is emotionally connected to their fates. Lastly, I would say that the main reason this film works for me is that I'm drawn into the story. The writing was good, the acting was good, and the story was believable. Special Effects, good sets, and costume design don't make a good film, think PEARL HARBOR (2001). The story is the thing that links all these other things together and this film links them together pretty well.

richievee I must have seen a different movie than the one lambasted so harshly on this site. I think FLYBOYS is excellent throughout, with nary a false step along the way. Okay, I'll grant that some of the aerial CGI is unconvincing, but the great majority of it adds exciting action - - and who really cares if a physicist might find fault? Staging is brilliant, treating us to plenty of period detail, and the story is taut, with lots of intriguing characters about whom I truly care. I do not find FLYBOYS excessively clichéd. Indeed, the screenwriters (Phil Sears, Blake T. Evans, and David S. Ward) quite often back off from easy stereotypes. If anything, the fine cast UNDERacts, which is a refreshing change from other films in this genre. Particular praise goes to James Franco as Blaine Rawlings, Jean Reno as a believable Captain Georges Thenault, and Jennifer Decker as a sweet French girl named Lucienne. The love bypath within this film demonstrates how sensitive the writers are to avoiding the typical Hollywood gimmick of throwing in a boy-girl relationship that eventually overpowers the essential plot line (PEARL HARBOR, TITANIC). Here, the characters of Blaine and Lucienne are treated honestly, with the respect they deserve, and not flung into the sack after knowing each other for five minutes. I'm sorry that this film was not successful at the box office, for director Tony Bill and his massive crew do a fabulous job of storytelling, and I am proud and unashamed to add it among my favorite war movies of all time. Please ignore the pseudo-intellectual posturing of the professional and amateur critics, and give FLYBOYS a chance. It is wonderful from beginning to end.