Les Aéronautes

This is an idea of alternative history. So the filmmakers decided to change a famous story of 2 old men in a balloon surviving a disaster to a male researcher and a female pilot surviving a greater disaster. I pretty much dislike all such pointless historical changes in movies. It's also a big disservice to women who actually did fulfil crucial roles during this flight and you could have had important wives, moms, emotional support roles here for actual historical women instead of putting a random historical woman from another time into this setting. It would actually be a huge service to history to depict real people doing what they did in history.

But I love science and history so I was interested in this movie anyhow. Also, it makes sense for a filmmaker to want to put an attractive actress into a balloon with a geeky scientist as you can create quite a potent romance subplot this way. Of course it has to be done right for the weird ahistorical decision to make any sense and unfortunately it's done badly for several reasons.

Firstly, the camera work is terrible much of the time. The balloon scenes have the camera flying around the characters as they are trying to create "action" by never keeping the camera steady. This shows how little they trust the plot, actors and story to deliver entertainment by itself. The director clearly felt the story was boring and needed some fake action this way. Which shows lack of director abilities.

The acting is terrible at times. The ahistorical change needed to make sense so there needed to be a strong connection between the 2 leads. Instead we get a male nerd character with bad acting. And as the guy is supposed to be autistic in some ways there is no connection to the attractive and charming female in his balloon. The scenes between them just feel off and weird as they stare at each other for long periods of time, but never seem to make any real connection. Not on a friendship or romantic level. They just seem to be in their own heads or bicker/make up. This also shows that the change to a female character unfortunately backfired in big ways as it made it all way more weird. Which is unfortunate because there is a strong story here somewhere they just didn't find. It also doesn't work that the man gets them into this huge trouble and she lets him. This makes it all feel like they were just being fools and deserved to suffer a bit.

There is also a friend sidekick character. He is the token minority character in this historical setting that lacked these people. An Indian researcher. He is actually very good and believable and his scenes work well. Then there is the sister who also is fairly good, but unfortunately her scenes largely consist of her whining and wanting her balloon sister to remarry. Which is fine it's just not that fascinating. It's all very fake "big research" stuff and the dialogues about how important the flight is are nonsensical bragging about "changing the world".

Then of course there is the HUGE issue of narration. The story leading up to the flight is told via random flashback scenes. So the first scene is them going up and then we have A TON of flashback sequences. You already know they found the money for it. So having half of the movie being about finding the money and courage for something that is already happening is rather pointless. Flashbacks rarely work well in movies and of course they don't work here, but at least those scenes are properly filmed and acted unlike the intolerable balloon scenes that can feel like nails on a chalkboard with the overly dramatic fake acting and creepy "friendship" where you feel like the man may at any point attack the woman. Which he of course does do at one point, but she uses words to calm him down - luckily for her it works otherwise he'd have killed them both. Also, the brilliant filmmakers decided that flashbacks were the way to go to tell her background story. So it's flashback disaster class.

Messy ahistorical movie. But the idea is really cool and the ahistorical setting could work if the writers were better. I don't trust the filmmakers or writers to make anything better. But the idea could for sure work in a remake. There is a certain charm in the idea I really adore. But I have to give it a 5 because overall it's dull and I wanted to shut it off at the end.

While this does not hold to established history, it does show a fun view of what ballooning in the 1800's might have been like. An entertaining distraction for an evening.

I watched this on Amazon Prime streaming. While it was inspired by a real person, James Glaisher who set the early groundwork for understanding and predicting weather, the story told here is a highly fictionalized account of his 1862 ascent by balloon to perhaps 36,000 feet.

Felicity Jones as the fictional pilot and Eddie Redmayne as James Glaisher are both good. Being a scientist myself I was a bit put off by such things as climbing the exterior of the balloon at above 30,000 feet where the air temperature would be somewhere between -50 and -65F, and without gloves! What is depicted here is fantasy.

But what about the good? The production values are high and the action interesting. Plus how many have even heard of Glaisher and his pioneering meteorological studies at a time when other British scientists laughed at him? He was a very important scientist in the history of weather forecasting and contributed to changing the world.

So yeah, it has lots of things it can be legitimately criticized for but still it is an entertaining movie if you are in the right mood. I mostly enjoyed it.

If you want to watch a movie about the true events that "inspired" this movie, then go watch a documentary. If you want to watch a decent, family-friendly, period piece, with an interesting plot, then you may find this movie entertaining as I did.

I had no prior knowledge of the true events this movie is based on, but watching it piqued my interest to learn more.

This film was worth watching, but would challenge even the best director to capture such an inspiring story.However the true hero has been removed from this story. Why does this film not do justice to the true story, why is it full of hot air. The direction this film takes is good but, it starts of a little slow. This was such a triumphant moment in history discovering temperatures and humidity in upper atmosphere whilst breaking the world record. The question is why create Amelia Wren in The Aeronauts, she was "fictional", a character invented by screenwriter Jack Thorne. She is based on Henry Tracey Coxwell (a man), who saved Glaisher's life after the meteorologist passed out on their record-breaking ascent into the sky. Two men made history only for a complete idiot to omit their story, are we going to make a movies where women were first on moon just to sell tickets.