wdw Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Is the Red Tails movie really as bad as many critics are saying it is? If so, it is very disappointing as I have been looking forward to it. From what I've read so far, I think I'll give it a miss. Edited January 20, 2012 by wdw Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dbec Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I always try to support anything plane related in hopes they will make more. I think its worth $10 even though they will get a lot of stuff wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I've only seen the trailer for it but just as I thought the CGI flying scenes are over the top and cartoonish. This sort of stuff really disappoints me. I want flying scenes to look as natural as if real planes were being used. But too many movies today just go over the top in stunt scenes, fight scenes and in movies with flying action the flying scenes using CGI. :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dkobayashi Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'll be passing on this one. The trailer just looked way too cheesy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I don't get it. This was never billed as a film devoted to the pleasure of airplane geeks. It was (presumably) designed to tell the far too often overlooked story of the Tuskegee Airmen and their contribution to the war effort and the effort to achieve equality for African Americans. Was anyone really expecting a 100% authentic, 100% technically accurate film here? If so, you had your sights set WAY too high from the get-go. Is it going to get the Oscar for best picture? Probably not. I haven't seen it, but I plan to, simply to appreciate what it was intended to portray. If it turns out to be as bad as "Pearl Harbor" (God help us all), I'll be disappointed. If not, I'll be pleased. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It's a Hollywood movie. Right there, you have to know it's designed to fill seats, period. Accuracy is not exactly needed for that. Even "Lord of the Rings" and "King Kong", which Peter Jackson worked on to be accurate (if possible from fictional subjects) still didn't completely please the fans of the originals. LOTR wasn't long enough, and Kong was too long. You can't win for losing if you're a film director. Or a model manufacturer. The movie "Memphis Belle" wasn't exactly historically correct, and the Messerschmidts in BOB were the wrong type completely, but those are still considered "realistic" films by some. I was completely put off by the trailer for "Memphis Belle" on TV, the model work looked really bad. Yet, in the theatre, it was perfectly fine. Go figure. But in the end, it's your 10-12-14-16 bucks, spend it how you see fit. Myself, it's going into Tamiya paint stocks. :) Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Liberator24 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 At least we have some flying on the big screen!! I will be there at 10 am. Will I enjoy myself? Oh yeah! Will I want to build all the mustangs I can in the next 2 days?...hell yeah. -Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'll be seeing it tonight. After hearing George Lucas interviewed about it, it's easy to understand why he made it the way he did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
toadwbg Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Sometimes I get the impression that people on these forums want it to be bad so they have something to get on their high horse, b8tch about, and feel superior about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Neo Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) im definitely going to see this one but not tonight as the GF says she wants a romantic night. and somehow she said going to the movies to watch an airplane related film does not qualify ill go next tuesday Edited January 20, 2012 by Neo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anotherP51nut Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I agree with Jennings, we were never intended as the target audience. I hope it raises interest in and awareness of the subject, and puts the struggles of just 70 years ago in front of a young audience. That being said, I think from what I've heard from reviewers I respect, the movie is a missed opportunity. It is basically Lucas indulging himself in an action film which doesn't really develop the Tuskeegee story, of the fight to participate in the war, and the irony of fighting a war on two fronts as it were. It is basically a comic action film based on true events. It could have been so much more and dealt intelligently with the myths and the reality. But this is Lucas and that is not what he is good at. But on a more selfish note...it's two hours of Mustangs on a huge Cineplex screen with digital sound! I'll probably see it a couple of times. Richard Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonW Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It's a movie, you know, for entertainment...... Compared to the last movie I got subjected to by the misses, this is one I'm looking forward to. The following review sort of sums it up. It's supposed to be like an older style war movie. Sounds right up my alley. http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/movies/red-tails-george-lucass-tale-of-tuskegee-airmen-review.html?src=dayp Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I don't get it. This was never billed as a film devoted to the pleasure of airplane geeks. It was (presumably) designed to tell the far too often overlooked story of the Tuskegee Airmen and their contribution to the war effort and the effort to achieve equality for African Americans. Was anyone really expecting a 100% authentic, 100% technically accurate film here? If so, you had your sights set WAY too high from the get-go. Is it going to get the Oscar for best picture? Probably not. I haven't seen it, but I plan to, simply to appreciate what it was intended to portray. If it turns out to be as bad as "Pearl Harbor" (God help us all), I'll be disappointed. If not, I'll be pleased. My sentiments exactly. I will say that the Drew Brees-like 'to the last bullet' rah-rah bit seems a bit of an artificiality, meant to pander to the 'man in the street' who thinks that's actually what we do before a combat hop (wait, was I SUPPOSED to have been doing that all these years??), but overall I'm glad the story is getting some overdue attention. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frankycee Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) I'm in Ottawa next week for 3 nights with nothing to do...I'll go check it out! Better than anything with Vin Diesel in it I guess...even if I'm pretty certain that strafing a BB with .50 cals isnt going to blow upup a ship, i'll pretend that the ship is hit by a bomb at the same time as the guy lets loose with a burst from his HMGs... Edited January 20, 2012 by frankycee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Am I way off base thinking that yellow-nosed 109s were based only in northern France? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) IMHO I think of it more of an opportunity missed, like Pearl Harbor. There is a GREAT story there with the Tuskegee airmen. From what I can gather instead of going for the real serious story and being honest to the events, he went for a combination action movie/hero comic book story. Which is fine in itself, but if that's what you want to make in a movie, then why pick a really historically significant story and do it apparent injustice? (I say apparent because I haven't seen it yet)I think too many are relying on technology to make the movie and forgetting that story is what makes a great film. IF you put story first, believability second and THEN popcorn stuffing action peppered in here and there, then that's a movie I'd be excited about, AND it would tell the story for ages to come. So for me it's not so much I don't think he should have made the film. I'm glad there is another aviation movie out there. I'm happy about his admirable goal of appealing to an urban youth and inspire them. BUT I doubt this story will ever be done with a serious take on it for a very very long time now. I mean who would want to re-make Pearl Harbor now right? Same with this. Bill Edited January 20, 2012 by niart17 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
catfan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 i say screw the cridtis. go see it for your self then make your own chose not what these cridts say. they are payed to bash moves with out even seeing them at all. i bet non of them even know what a p-51 is Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) The commercials are enough to give me pause. I haven't seen any great aviation war films since Battle of Britain and Tora! Tora! Tora! And maybe Midway. Edited January 20, 2012 by Slartibartfast Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-17 guy Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Well I just got back from seeing the movie. I enjoyed it, wont say I loved it but I did enjoy it. Some times it sucks having knowledge of the real aircraft. I'm looking past the fact that all the mustangs parked on the ground had blunt tipped, uncuffed hamilton standard props and the german planes had alot of yellow noses, especially for the theatre the movie is set in. Or even the fact that most of the aircrew in the B-17's (opening part of the movie) are not wearing their oxygen masks. Look, honestly, there are alot of little things guys like some of us here will notice that are wrong. But if you let yourself get past all of that you should enjoy the movie. I can deffinetly see what JasonW said about it's supposed to be an old style war movie, you can hear that in some of the dialog. I'm kinda mixed about this movie, I liked it dont get me wrong, but I did leave there feeling a bit disapointed in it. Red Tails reminded me alot of Tuskegee airmen, see the movie and you'll see what I mean. One last thing I'll add. And Ive said this before about people bashing memphis belle for all it's inaccuracies. If gets people like my 9 and 5 year old boys interested in the history of the planes and the men who flew them, then it's a damn good movie as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 My sentiments exactly. I will say that the Drew Brees-like 'to the last bullet' rah-rah bit seems a bit of an artificiality, meant to pander to the 'man in the street' who thinks that's actually what we do before a combat hop (wait, was I SUPPOSED to have been doing that all these years??), but overall I'm glad the story is getting some overdue attention. BoB, Tora Tora Tora and even Midway were to name but three quite entertaining yet not so over the top and cartoonish movies. Not just in special effects but in the script and how the acting was not plasticky and shallow. Why do all too many movies, not just war or aviation ones have to be so damn phony baloney and over the top in such things today? Dirty Harry movies were all quite thrilling but had interesting characters and scripts, enough credible action to keep the viewer watching but still believable to a credible point. Hollywood has lost its way in most movie making for a generation now... That is too bad as the home environment and not just the commercial movie theatres allow watchers to really get into movies today. Acting too is definitely on the downhill slide in most movies today. :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IrishGreek Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 One last thing I'll add. And Ive said this before about people bashing memphis belle for all it's inaccuracies. If gets people like my 9 and 5 year old boys interested in the history of the planes and the men who flew them, then it's a damn good movie as far as I'm concerned. Ditto. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Can someone at least reassure me that they don't portray the pilots as a bunch of hiphop gangstas? The trailers show just enough to suggest that they went there, but I'm hoping George Lucas still has enough integrity that he didn't let it get that far off. I can live with CGI and I want to like this movie. Other than the Steven Speilberg / Tom Hanks colaborations (mostly on HBO), Hollywood doesn't have a good track record with historical movies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 BoB, Tora Tora Tora and even Midway were to name but three quite entertaining yet not so over the top and cartoonish movies. Because CGI wasn't around then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-17 guy Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Can someone at least reassure me that they don't portray the pilots as a bunch of hiphop gangstas? The trailers show just enough to suggest that they went there, but I'm hoping George Lucas still has enough integrity that he didn't let it get that far off. I would say no, they didnt look like gangstas to me. Just a bunch of guys in the military, similar to any other movie like this. I liked the flying sequences for the most part, however some of the battle damage you'll see were very highly overexaggerated! Comparing some of the damage the B-17's take to what I know I've seen in pics of real B-17's in combat, the movie was way off, they looked paper airplanes getting shotdown. And the oxygen mask thing bothered me. Still liked the movie. The best way to descrive this movie, Tuskeegee airmem II Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Because CGI wasn't around then. They did use quite a bit analogue film effects especially in BoB but the point is the stories were better written, the acting was generally stronger the filming/camera work was worlds better. Finally there was no need for plasticky, shallow, over blown hype and effects. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.