Red Tails

Thank you for reviewing this movie in advance, you just saved me $10.

Not that I was particularily interested anyways. :)

Young Grasshopper,

I also saw “Red Tails” at it’s first available showing. After having seen the previews and knowing the back-story of the Director I didn’t really think this would be a good war movie,…and I wasn’t incorrect in that thought. I hesitated in voicing my opinions as I didn’t want to seem biased, or prejudiced.

The writing was simply TERRIBLE! And the screen play felt nothing like a war movie, or any movie for that matter. The actors were overall really good but were “torpedoed” by the writing and the way the screenplay was presenting them and their atmosphere. I actually felt sorry for the actors as they deserved a better script and writing than this. I don’t think anyone will truly enjoy this film for reasons of the film itself. The previous film on this subject matter was a MUCH BETTER movie. I might be incorrect, but I believe the previous movie was called “The Tuskeegee Airmen”.

And as far as historical inacuracies and technical gafs there are simply too many to list. Such as with nothing but .50 cal. bullets everything shot at bursts into large napalm-like fireballs. And none of the pilots ever needed to concentrate on flying their aircraft, even when doing a victory roll, because they’re busy talking to each other. And one pilot just takes his oxygen mask off when he’s way above 10,000 feet escorting the bombers without any ill effects at all. And the P-51 fighters flying straight and level alongside the much slower B-17 bombers for as long as they wanted without having to weave back and forth because of their much faster speed. And some of the Insignia on the planes was
post-war style.

I will say this, though. They showed one of the pilots with a “Flight-Officer” ranking, a blue bar w/a gold spot, signifying a pilot that’s been promoted from the enlisted ranks through flight training. Not many people, even historians know that much about these flying enlisted men in WW2. I have two good books on this subject, though. I give them ONE POINT for this. The ONLY POINT this film deserves.

And the “action” was almost all c.g. stuff, and not always convincing. Somewhat reminiscent of “Star Wars” from some years ago but not nearly up to the quality of movies made in the last several years, especially when compared to the likes of “Saving Private Ryan” or “The Pacific”.

In summing up,…I enjoyed the loud booming of the Theater sound system and very little else. If I hadn’t gone to the matinee showing at half price, I would have demanded my money back. I still might. I suggest that you wait and watch this one on Cable TV or when it’s released on DVD for cheap!

“Tall Paul”

Sorry to disappoint gents, but Lucas said this was his last major budget film. I saw the trailer and knew it would be crap. “How do you like that, Mr. Hitler?!” is one of the worst lines of dialogue you could write.

GG

Yeah, thanks for the confirmation of my suspicions guys.

If Lucas had any inclination to go back to making movies the way he made Star Wars Ep 4-6 and Indiana Jones 1-3 then I would be sad that this was his last “major budget film”. But since he seems incapable of that and wants to make digital movies and hate on the system that made him so successful, well maybe it is best that he retire now and be remembered fondly by cinema history …. and just let everyone forget about Jar-Jar, Shia Labeouf swinging with monkeys and the hollow effort that was Redtails.

Well, no one forgets about Jar-Jar. That move earned him eternal ridicule.

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was pretty good and it had all kinds of new school CGI. I thought Jackson’s “King Kong” was pretty good too. It isn’t how you do the special effects that is the issue with a lot of the so called film making today. If you don’t start with a good script all the Harry Hausen stop animation in the world isn’t going to help your picture.

Will any other Star Wars movies get made?

@ABWorsham:

Will any other Star Wars movies get made?

No, Lucas said he won’t make any more Star Wars, and thank God! He’s not made a decent Star Wars film in 30 years. ;)

GG

@Young:

Lhoffman
It is proven every year that the old school special effects are way more effective than digital graphics, over the past decade film makers have become lazy in their craft. The only movies where I feel that CG worked 100% were Titanic and Jurasic Park.

Hey, no argument from me. In fact that was what I meant. And yes, I would agree with Jurassic Park I & II … excellent films, and the CGI worked very well. Never seen Titanic, but was the whole ship CGI? Seems the perfect fit for a model with CGI enhancements. I would throw The Lord of the Rings and upcoming Hobbit into this list also. Even though Jackson is old school and loves using models, there was a huge amount of CGI thrown in, which was unobtrusive for the most part. I mean… Gollum alone was totally groundbreaking and entirely believable. Jackson hit it out of the park with LOTR.

@Young:

As for Lucas retiring…. Maybe it’s time, because it’s obvious that he has lost his willingness to authenticate his imagination. Let’s see if Peter Jackson can fill his shoes.

SECONDED!   Sort of.     I mean I don’t want a George Lucas Jr. who makes defining classics and then tanks later in his career. I know none of us want that. I just want quality movies where the special effects (and story) are as real, accurate and meaningful as possible. Movies like Transformers and Avatar (and the new Star Wars trilogy to some extent) have exposed the public as CGI action junkies. It sells, which is unfortunately all the studios care about… so they market more of it. Hopefully we get more people like Jackson who don’t feel the need to stoop so low to acheive only pseudo-lifelike results to please the tasteless masses.       LOTR did well worldwide though, and in the Academy… so maybe there is hope yet.

@frimmel:

If you don’t start with a good script all the Harry Hausen stop animation in the world isn’t going to help your picture.

Point.

Red Tails looks like crap, I don’t know how anyone would expect it to be good.  That being said, a friend asked me to see it with him so we’ll go on the cheap and maybe have some beers while doing so.

Honestly, I feel the discussion of old Lucas vs. new Lucas/CGI vs. old school special effects is silly.  The first point frim has already made.  I’d also add that everyone here discussing it is doing so through rose colored glasses.  I’d venture to guess that we were all younger and nostalgia gets the better of us when reflecting on old movies.

Jurassic Park had great special effects…for its time.  I mean, it definitely beats out low and mid budget movies of today, but movies with an equivalent budget for special effects look better today for contemporary audiences.  Check out District 9…half the budget of Jurassic Park with better special effects (that’s before inflation).  There certainly were movies released around the time of Jurassic Park that had higher budgets, but they were paying for big names and such, whereas JP had none (Samuel L. hadn’t even been in Pulp Fiction yet).  Another thing is that with CGI on things we “know” seem to be judged more harshly than things we have no point of reference from.  For example, dinosaurs, robots, aliens…we have no point of reference so they don’t stand out as good or bad, but put some humans or buildings, etc., then you have people easily picking it out from reality.

Some movies I’d bring up with impressive special effects: the aforementioned District 9, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Inception

Plenty complain about Lucas’ newest trilogy.  I thought they were bad, but still enjoyed seeing them (in particular Ep. 1 while I was in high school, although the continuity and script logic is atrocious), yet the original trilogy is not that far off.  The movie plots are pretty hokey themselves.  Teddy Bears fighting an imperial army?  An incredible battlestation destroyed not once but TWICE through a simple vent (that was increased dramatically after the first destruction…WTF?)?  Muppets galore of random goofy creatures…although I like them and think it was Yoda at his best.  I mean, in a galaxy of crazy creatures, Jar Jar does not seem that out of the question for me, and he was filling in for what the Ewoks were in ROTJ: kiddie attractions.

Hell, the original trilogy was nearly a straight translation of a few of Akira Kurosawa’s works (with elements of the Arthurian legend and other myths, etc.).  Not exactly a Lucas original.  Star Wars has always been a feel good drama/action movie, and they always will be.

Also, I don’t get watching a movie in the theater, not liking it, and expecting your money back.  It’s not the theater’s fault that you chose a movie and didn’t like it.  It’s like returning an empty candy bar wrapper to the gas station.

Jermofoot,

I’m not comparing old Lucas vs, new lucas.

I’m not looking through “rose colored glasses”.

I have REALLY enjoyed seeing some well-done CGI in movies.

And I don’t judge “RT” against anything other than normal standards.

But that being said,…

Red Tails is CR*P!!!

And I watch/collect ALL war movies, even if a lot of them aren’t very good, or were made in a time when the “special effects” of that era leave a lot to be desired.

But “RT” is embarasing. Â

“Tall Paul”

@Jermofoot:

Honestly, I feel the discussion of old Lucas vs. new Lucas/CGI vs. old school special effects is silly.  The first point frim has already made.  I’d also add that everyone here discussing it is doing so through rose colored glasses.  I’d venture to guess that we were all younger and nostalgia gets the better of us when reflecting on old movies.

Perhaps… but isn’t that part of what age is for?  :-D    But in all seriousness, I (and apparently almost everyone else in the world) thinks trilogy 1 was better than the prequel trilogy. I realize that “which is better” is not the point we are discussing, but part of what makes the original better is the special effects. For whatever reason… Again, not the only thing, but I think a large portion. It just feels more real.

@Jermofoot:

Plenty complain about Lucas’ newest trilogy.  I thought they were bad, but still enjoyed seeing them

I still enjoyed seeing them too. I wouldn’t even call them bad, because I really do like them. It’s just that in comparison most people find Ep. IV-VI to be better films than I-III. I still enjoy watching them and there are a heck of a lot of memorable lines from Ep. I-III to quote among friends. … Most of which happen to be Jar-Jar ones, but that is a side note…

@Jermofoot:

in a galaxy of crazy creatures, Jar Jar does not seem that out of the question for me, and he was filling in for what the Ewoks were in ROTJ: kiddie attractions.

Perhaps that is true. They are equally bogus in real-to-life situations… but there is just that something extra about Jar-Jar Binks (and Gungans in general) which is comical/stupid to the point of embarassment. I am not sure that I can put my finger on it… Can anyone else here? I mean, you just see the guy and laugh because of how he looks, acts and talks… and not in a good laugh. His role of comic relief was overdone for what people expected to be a more serious film. All Jar-Jar jokes in our society today are about mocking the character because he is a blemish on the Star Wars legacy. Ewoks as furry aborigines are much more acceptable to me than, well, a Jar-Jar Binks is.

But hey, maybe Jerm is right and we are looking through rose colored glasses. It sure seems like most Star Wars fans are wearing the same glasses then, even those younger ones for whom Ep. I-III is “their generation’s” Star Wars. I am just saying that it seems a consensus about Jar-Jar Binks. But maybe history will prove us wrong and he will become like Yoda or something.

Sorry… this is a galaxy far, far away from the topic.

@Tall:

Jermofoot,

I’m not comparing old Lucas vs, new lucas.

I’m not looking through “rose colored glasses”.

I have REALLY enjoyed seeing some well-done CGI in movies.

And I don’t judge “RT” against anything other than normal standards.

But that being said,…

Red Tails is CR*P!!!

And I watch/collect ALL war movies, even if a lot of them aren’t very good, or were made in a time when the “special effects” of that era leave a lot to be desired.

But “RT” is embarasing. �

“Tall Paul”

Thanks for the Heads up….    I also collect WW2 movies.  I was looking forward to this one  :x

Guess I will leave a gap in my collection (right beside the empty space where Inglorious Bastards should be.

My brother and I saw it at a local theater the Friday it came out and he hated it because as he said it lacked action and didnt have surround sound. he gave it a “……” .lol

I really liked it. It felt like an old school WW2 movie.

You know, I agree that “Inglorious Bastards” was a bad movie, but I thought that it was only offerred up as a toungue-in-cheek kind of flick, not a real war movie. Something like that old Charlie Sheen “silly” navy movie with the old “Sea Hunt” actor. Sorry, I can’t think of his name and don’t have much time. It wasn’t really supposed to be a serious movie,…was it?

“Tall Paul”