7/10
Note quite as pretty as the 1938 remake, but it's still a dandy film
3 June 2007
It's obvious that this film didn't have the budget of some of its more famous contemporaries (HELL'S ANGELS and WINGS), as there were less aerial stunts and more of an emphasis on story. However, this wasn't really a bad thing, as the story itself did have more depth than the other two films--focusing on the pressure on WWI pilots and the fragility of their lives. In many ways, it reminded me of WWII films, COMMAND DECISION and 12 O'CLOCK HIGH because they, too, talk about the burden of leadership and responsibility of sending men to their deaths. So it's obvious that this is NOT your typical "war is fun" type film you so often see! As far as the film goes, it was quite dandy but unfortunately, the 1938 version really wasn't all that different. About the only noticeable difference was that more actors actually spoke with British accents in the remake. Because they are so very similar, I recommend you only see one unless you are a real purist. And, if I needed to say which one, I'd say the later version is slightly better--mostly because it is a bit more polished. The 1930 version lacks background music (something shared by most films in 1930), though otherwise they are neck and neck as far as which one is best. Interestingly, the 1930 version also features James Finlayson (of Laurel and Hardy movie fame) in a supporting role.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed