Pájaros de fuego

Frankly, I don't really understand why people complain so much about this movie. Top Gun ripoff? Maybe - so what? As something of a "military otaku", I've seen both, and I'd say I know enough about the matters portrayed, as well. Is it realistic? Not really, but it does provide simple, enjoyable entertainment and great viewing experience for the aviation fan in you. The footage is indeed great.

People keep bringing "Top Gun" up over and over. Just as unrealistic, if not worse. I'd say, TG is far more far-fetched than Fire Birds. Why does everyone hold TG in higher regard? It came first, but... that's about it.

I hear complaints about bad acting... I can't really tell, as the Polish edition has, just like everything else, that annoying lector instead of subtitles, efficiently making all the original dialogs inaudible. The dialogs, however, seemed quite okay in translation.

Honestly, I really like this movie. It's been in my collection for a dozen years now, and I've gotten myself a DVD recently. What's important to understand, is that it's one of those movies that are NOT supposed to have a deep storyline. The plot is nice and simple, just enough to keep a story going and show off the Apaches.

I love Top Gun, for its beautiful F-14 footage and a simple story that doesn't get in the way of the viewing experience. And i don't really mind the corny lines and obvious lack of any realism. It's not a documentary, it's an action movie, one of the few of its kind (aerial action movie?) As for Fire Birds...

I love Fire Birds for the same reasons - beautiful AH-64 footage and a simple story that keeps the thing going and doesn't get in the way of what I want to see there in the first place - the Apaches in action. I don't mind the corny lines nor flaws in realism. Just like TG, it's not supposed to be a documentary. It's an action movie of the same, rare genre as Top Gun. I wish there was more of those...

'Wings of the Apache' is a truly awful film. I can find little good to say about it. During the first five minutes I was 'on the edge of my seat' only in a bad, jaw-droppingly amazed kind of way. I've watched many bad films over the year. I normally turn them off. However, I sat all the way through this one's one hour and seventeen minute runtime. I really couldn't avert my eyes.

Most people describe 'Wings of the Apache' as 'Top Gun with helicopters.' Yeah, I think that's a reasonable description, only Top Gun was watchable for different reasons. The opening five minutes I spoke about is basically Nicholas Cage narrating over a bland action scene involving a helicopter dogfight over some mountains. Now, I'm no expert, but I seem to remember the first rule of storytelling is 'show, don't tell.' Yet Cage just tells us what's happening in a monotone voice. Apparently, the drugs cartels are now using helicopters to shoot down American helicopters. Does this actually happen in real life? Never mind, it does here. And Nicholas Cage – being the only guy who's seen the cartel's helicopter in action – must lead the charge against the lone chopper.

He's ably aided by Tommy Lee Jones – a great actor in his own right, now reduced to barking orders in the most stereotypical 'drill instructor' way possible. Plus there's a love interest. Guess where that subplot goes? So Nick, Tommy and the token woman must train to fight the baddie then fight the baddie then save the day. Hardly inspiring, but I think the most unforgivable element of the film is the editing. It's just bad. It's like every shot has been filmed separately to every other one and then spliced together – badly. There's a slight pause between when someone answers the person original speaking, making conversations seem stilted (assuming the dialogue spoken was any good to begin with – and nine times out of ten it isn't).

So, in case you haven't got the drift of what I've been saying, 'Wings of the Apache' is just bad. And I watched it all until the last credit rolled. Now I've seen it, I wonder why I did and yet I'm also curious as to why I may – one day – even watch it again, just to remind myself how bad it was. It's bad, but bordering on that so-bad-it's-good kind of way. If you're prepared for that, it will certainly keep your eyes fixed on the screen for exactly one hour and seventeen minutes.

The remarks of Mr Alex Ward are pretty much right on the money however, the one problem is that the directors DID consult with people from Ft Hood. If you watch the credits, Ft. Hood is listed in the end credits for thanks. However, this just goes to prove that in the early 90's it still wasn't important to be factually correct on many things, and even though the directors consulted people at Ft. Hood, Hollywood wants their movies a certain way. This is sad because this could have been an "Independance Day" type movie. Alas, it fell far short. For young kids though, it is a good boost for kids wanting to be helicopter pilots. But sorry when all you kids grow up and learn the truth of Helicopters.

This film is nowhere near as bad as people on here claim.

Alright, it's not original, and it's not accurate, but it's a fun way to spend an evening.

Not to mention the AWESOME performance from Tommy Lee Jones. He delivers line after line of cocky deadpan humour to perfection in this film.

If you are a Tommy Lee Jones fan, this film is a MUST see, as it has him at his very best. If you loved lines like "dammit, we've only got an inch of topsoil left!" in under siege, or the "Alright people, listen up, we have a fugitive on the loose!" speech from The Fugitive, you are going to love some of his stuff in this film.

I don't know for sure but after reading all of these comments at least half of them seem to come from the same person using different handles. All seem to say the same thing that this tried to be a Top Gun with helicopters. I really didn't see any comparison to Top Gun whatsoever. No more than there were people flying and there was a love story. Someone mentioned the Iron Eagle series. If one copied the other it was probably Top Gun copying Iron Eagle Since Iron Eagle came out 3 - 4 months earlier.

I just got finished watching this movie Which I saw originally on NBC.

I thought originally that this was a Made for TV movie for some reason but I guess after reading here that it was put out at the theaters. I would have loved to have seen it on the big screen but admit I would not want to pay 7 dollars to see it. IT still rates better than 1 or 2 stars and all the bad insults it is getting here. I agree with one of the people that posted here that it would go great as a "Movie for Guy's who like movies" As a guy I love movies with action. I am not in the army and know a "Little" about the equipment. I am not a fighter pilot though and am not in the military. As a civilian I love this movie as an action movie. If I wanted to see realistic and authentic representations of Millitiary equipment I'll go to the History Channel. If I wan't an action movie with just the right amount of comedy and romance I'll go see fire birds again.

Is it realistic? NO Is it fun? Yes Is it accurate? No are there some corny lines? Yeah but let me ask you this. All these people talking about Top gun being so big... how many pilots would really fly upside down and flip off a Russian and take it's picture? how many pilots would really do those kinds of fly by's and still be in the Navy? and I won't go into the corny lines from that movie.

All in all Firebirds is deserving of just as much respect based on it's merits as a fun action/romance movie as is Top Gun without comparing them to each other.