everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Had the pleasure of watching this film again after putting it on the shelf for a couple of years. For the most part I think it's a great film. Lots of action, nice love story. Great special effects with the airplanes. The only thing i didn't like was it was rather historically inaccurate. Germans' didn't all fly around in red tri-planes. Maybe the Red Baron did, but not the rest. Most likely they would have been flying Fokker bi-plane. The planes were doing things that WWI could never do. Flying upside down and inverted would mostly likely rip the wings off those old craft. The German triplanes only had 90 horsepower. Hardly enough to make your plane do those things. The harrowing night that Rawllings flies Luciene and the children out of danger?? Not likely. They didn't fly at night because you can't see and fly at night instruments had not been invented. Also the guy flying with a 'hook' hand? Don't think so. He would be grounded permanently. Jean Reno's character speaking English? Don't think so. WWI Frenchmen did not speak English. But all in all it was still a great film. I thought Jennifer Decker was superb. There you have it!

I recently saw the film this year and found it entertaining and fun despite the horror of war. Air fights were very real. The award which was for the heroic act is also real, the medal is true. Although it is not real view that only the Germans used Fokker triplane, plus see very simple scenes I think the film gives us a slight context of how the Flyers were preparing for war and especially the historic air squadron in which inspired this film is worthy of inspiration for new generations of young people. The film clearly shows the German red baron but in black, the director shows him as a bad person, this contradicts the figure which shows the German film The Red Baron where this historical figure is presented as a gentleman and which I stuck in my mind the phrase "We do not fight to kill men, but to shoot down aircraft" which expresses the greatness of this person despite the war. Flyboys think that is a good movie and will be the start for new movies that will come and we must not forget that "the future is the past" and why not see in the future a film inspired by the 94th Aero Squadron "Hat in the ring" where the nascent US Air Force got its first ace. After seeing the Flyboys film has left me a question. Why the plane of the hero of the film uses a pair of flags of red and yellow on the wings of his aircraft. This has some historical significance or just liked the director or producer of the film. I appreciate your help about this question.

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.

I enjoyed this film because I am really into aeroplanes and like to get an aerial dogfight fix from time to time. BUT, this is your typical Hollywood blockbuster, full of cardboard characters, ridiculous looking CGI effects and ludicrous plot holes. This is loosely based on a real story. There was a real squadron of mostly US Pilots flying for France. There was a real black US Fighter pilot flying in France at that time (not in the actual squadron) and someone really DID have a Lion for a pet. But you basically get everything you expect of this type of film. Hackneyed, clichéd stereotype characters, ridiculous romantic subplot, silly implausible flying sequences, and of course, ridiculous amounts of historical inaccuracies. The Germans all flying Red Baron style Fokker Triplanes I think has been explained as making it readily easy to identify between the French and German planes, but I think that's the usual Hollywood trick of treating your audience like morons.A French Nieuport 17 and a German Albatros are sufficiently different in shape and standard colouring that most audience members NOT familiar with planes could still tell the difference. That is far from the only anachronistic thing in the film either. I own the DVD (paid £1) and the special features shows that the director actually filmed footage of real WWI Aircraft flying. Why he bothered is a mystery because he completely ignores all this for ridiculous physics defying flight characteristics in most flying sequences. While they are enjoyable and a non plane buff might not notice, they do come across more like a video game than anything approaching real life. The Romance is mired by the implausibility of how quickly the French woman learns English, and the fact the US Pilot seems to be able to use his plane to just go off on a whim for a tryst with his loved one but is otherwise believable. Other characters often do some really out of character and implausible things too, but the pilot landing his plane in the middle of No man's land to rescue his friend without first strafing the German trench from the air to minimise the amount of shooting in his direction and then cutting off his colleagues hand rather than just digging out enough dirt to free it is one of my favourites. Some of the acting is actually quite good, notably the ever reliable Jean Reno as the Captain and Martin Henderson as the veteran pilot. The Chivalrous German pilot is a nice contrast to the "evil" one and the racism stuff is dealt with well and succinctly. Implausible though the flying sequences are for the most part, there aren't TOO many actual explosions and they are enjoyable to watch, but they are interspersed with the slow dragging romance. Basically it isn't an awful film, but it's not really a good one either, and if done properly, could have been so much better. If you love Michael Bay Films, you'll probably like this, or if you are a plane junkie who wants his flying fix,or a bit of a laugh, or both, then it's worth watching, otherwise, probably best to stay clear.