Avis des utilisateurs

I saw this movie many years ago, and just tonight on DVD. Wow. This film has been remastered by the UCLA Archives, and the sound is very clear. Clear enough, that you can hear some rather explicit language coming from Monte during the dogfight sequence. And if you understand German, there is even more. Definitely before the Code. This is a Great film, and for those who would criticize the acting, editing, etc, compare it to other films made during the first years of the "talkie era." It stands up very well. Pay special attention to the wounded pilots as they are dying in their planes. Very gritty. The realism of the aerial battles has never been equaled. This film is a true classic. How many other classic films circa 1930 come to mind? Not many.

I saw this film (movie) in about 1933 and still remember every scene. Without the use of bad language it conveyed the fear,excitement,and gallantry of the time. The German evil was perhaps overplayed,but it was made just a very few years after the War. The flying scenes were dramatic and at least as effective as any made in recent years.

Is it possible to obtain a copy?if so where.

Brothers Roy (James Hall) and Monte Rutledge (Ben Lyon) enlist in the Royal Flying Corp and end up flying dangerous missions over England and France in the early days of aerial combat. Howard Hugh's film is best remembered for its extensive aerial footage, involving dozens of aircraft including period-correct Royal Aircraft Factory S. E.5s, Fokker D. VIIs, and a 1920s Sikorsky S-29-A mocked up to look like a German Gotha bomber. The flying scenes (real and in miniature) are outstanding with the attack on the Zeppelin over London and the crash of a large bomber standouts. The epic production, during which several planes were destroyed and three pilots/crew lost their lives, was said to be the most expensive ever (although this may have been marketing hyperbole), partly because it was caught in the silent-to-talkie transition period and needed to be extensively reshot before release. The simplistic 'human story-line' about the brothers, one heroic, one cowardly, is much less memorable with a lot of stilted dialogue, artificial-sounding bonhomie, and trite romantic melodrama (involving up-right Roy's pining after Helen (Jean Harlow), a peroxide blond vamp of dubious morals who seems more interested in variety than sobriety). The pre-code film contains some expletives (shocking then, tame now), Harlow wears some clingy and revealing dresses at times, and the scene in which a character is shot in the back is extremely real looking ( for an era when most 'shot people' simply put a hand on their chest and fell over wearing a shocked expression). A must see for fans of both vintage films and of vintage aircraft.

My roommates and I saw a few minutes of this many years ago, and we spent weeks poring over TV listings and video rentals to find more of this movie. We were not disappointed. The aerial combat scenes are, quite simply, the most astounding ever. Some scenes show DOZENS of REAL airplanes roiling in a frighteningly tight ball like a cloud of gnats, and barely missing each other. 3 pilots died filming this movie. I'm forever spoiled for the safe choreography, heavy editing, and airplane-free skies of Top Gun... Hell's Angels has real pilots doing really scary stuff. Real planes crashing into real hillsides, not "drifting behind a sand dune and then setting off a gasoline pot."

I now scoff at the computer-generated zeppelin scenes in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Howard Hughes kicked their butts over 70 years earlier.

Some of the movie is melodramatic and dated, but some human scenes are brutally harsh, powerful, and would never get filmed today because they're TOO chilling.

A really stunning movie, which not only holds up, but betters today's air movies.

About what you may have heard: the aerial sequences, both the midpoint first half climax with the Zeppelin attack and all of the moments showing the bravery and idiocy of war (all those men falling off the zeppelin to their deaths is pretty shocking and I'm glad it's there as part of the futility of WW1), and that final half hour with that massive, appropriately and approximately chaotic dogfight, featuring some wildly violent deaths and airplane stunts, crashes and cinematography that should have received a special Medal of Freedom award, are the reason to see the movie. Of course most of us know George Lucas told his crew and editors before. Star Wars to study closely WW2 documentary footage of dogfights, but it wouldn't surprise me if he showed Marcia some of the scenes from this movie as well. It's innovative and stimulating action that keeps going past where it has to.

And the rest of the story is.... What it is. I don't care much for the brother-love-triangle line, Ben Lyon has a few good moments (that "Yellow" rant in the mess hall), and Jean Harlow has a lot of natural screen presence and attitude but isn't as strong of an actor as she would be just a year or two later (it was her first movie so cut her some slack and all). Maybe the ending has a bit more pathos than the rest of rhs film, but only because of the stakes of that scene. Hell's Angels in a nutshell is like a much, much superior version of what Michael Bay would do with Pearl Harbor: it's basic at best and at worst trite and inept as drama, and as action it should be seen on IMAX screens still today (not to say that is so for PH, the action in that is risible and offensive, but maybe you get my point).

With the release of "The Aviator" there will be renewed, and well deserved, interest in this classic. Hell's Angels holds together surprisingly well for a 75 year old film. Sure there is the over-emoting one would expect from a film that bridges the era between silents and talkies, but the character development is good, the flight scenes are amazing and the story holds the attention from beginning to end. And we haven't even talked about Jean Harlow!! There can be no doubt that Howard Hughes was a genius, a perfectionist, and that he set out to, and did, produce of of the greatest movies of all time. The most expensive film of it's day, and worth every penny.

The only good film Howard Hughes ever made was this one; Hell's Angels. Partly because Hughes was an aviator himself, so he understood how to shoot the film correctly (and the cinematography is outstanding). As the film was made pre-code, it contains graphic violence and foul language, two things we would certainly expect to find in a real combat situation. A good film worth viewing.

This is a fabulous film, far ahead of its time. The screenplay is outstanding, and all the actors did a marvelous job, and the ones who played Germans as well. There was only one German in a minor role and one Finnish actor, who played a German, all the others were Americans, to my big surprise! I am an Austrian and German is my mother tongue and I would have bet that there were at least half a dozen Germans in this movie! I was also mesmerized by the details of the air battles, which were mostly shot in the air. Jean Harlow was beautiful and gave a persuading performance, not to mention her great looks! I rented this movie, because I heard about it the first time, when I watched "The Aviator" and I have to say that this picture is one of the most entertaining and exciting movies I have seen in a long time and it should be an example how movies should be made as a guideline for modern day Hollywood! It is a perfect example that a great story, action and special effects can live together in a beautiful piece of art without sacrificing anything!

Incredible aerial combat scenes redeem a poorly written and acted story. The Zeppelin sequence illustrates the intensity and ultimate futility of that form of warfare. The dirigibles, shown as capable of doing a great deal of damage, are also shown to be death-traps incapable of protecting themselves from determined attacks. The dogfights seem as realistic as anything you are likely to see this side of actual combat, probably because they were filmed using stunt pilots, many of whom participated in the real thing a decade or so earlier.

The story is so weak, however, even more so when one realizes that such strong plays as "What Price, Glory" and novels such as "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "A Farewell to Arms" were available as models to Howard Hughes and his writing stable.

Also jarring to my modern (but not necessarily superior) sensibility is the switches to blue monochrome scenes that occur more or less at random throughout the movie. Perhaps audiences in the the 1930s appreciated the addition of tints, I surely did not.

One final comment, it was helpful to realize that the imperious, officious Prussian officer stereotype preceded World War II films by many years

Three-quarters of a century before "Flyboys" hit the big screen, Howard Hughes had already made the definitive World War I flying movie, "Hell's Angels". While the plot and acting may occasionally leave a bit to be desired (the same being also true for "Fyboys") the flying sequences are the among the finest ever filmed for any motion picture.

Because the art of special effect was in its infancy at the time, the marvelous aerobatics were were actually performed by scores of pilots, most of them actual WWI combat veterans. (As in combat, some of these maneuvers were quite hazardous, and several of the pilots were killed during filming.) Look also for the bombing footage; this is the only movie I've ever seen where the bomb can actually be seen falling away, punching through the roof of the building, and blowing debris back up toward the plane.

Even in the few scenes where models were used (notably in the dirigible sequence) Hughes' meticulous attention to detail is apparent, as it is difficult to see that it is not a real Zeppelin (Hughes wanted to shoot down a real airship, but the Navy refused to sell him one of theirs!) With the restored version of the movie running a bit over 2 hours in length, things can drag a bit between battle scenes (that's what fast-forward is for!) but if you enjoy combat flight footage that looks real because it is, you owe it to yourself to see this classic movie.

I found the Howard Hughes cinema biography, "The Aviator," to be more interesting when it came to describing the trials and tribulations of making "Hells Angels" than the actual movie itself.

There are some very good aspects of this film, which took a long, long time to make and a ton of money. The aerial scenes, including blimps - which a lot of people forget about - were excellent. The color tints, such as a mysterious blue, on some of those action scenes were cool, too. Jean Harlow looked as good as I've ever seen her in her first major role and the ending of this film was excellent with brother against brother.

While the photography, airplanes, and a few actors were all fun to watch, the dialog was not fun to hear. It was very dated. Sometimes dated dialog is a lot of fun to hear, but most of this was just plain stupid. Also, if I want a bunch of swearing/Lord's name in vain I'll watch a post-1967 film, which I often do. If I don't want to hear that stuff, I'll put in a "classic" film in my DVD player or VCR. So, imagine my shock to watch this and hear at least three abuses of the Lord's name in vain, along with SOBs and other assorted profanity.

In all, worth seeing once since it is so famous, but I wouldn't sit through it again.

Hughes as director had his limitations, but he was at his best in making possible the great combat and special effects scenes. The Zeppelin scenes are so realistic it is difficult to believe it was all model and special set work. In 1927-1930 there just wasn't available a "junk" Zeppelin for Hughes to buy and shoot down. It would not surprise me to learn that he offered the U.S.Navy or the Zeppelin Co. a good round sum to buy "Los Angeles" (LZ-126) or "Graf Zeppelin" (LZ-127) for that purpose! Hughes' inexperience as a director shows up at its worst in his handling of the cast. Even allowing for the difficulties of "Dawn of Sound" filming, and that HELL'S ANGELS started as a silent, Hughes tolerated some of the worst acting ever seen in a major film. There is some good work, though. Jean Harlow is very smooth and natural, and the actors playing the German officers are satisfactorily sly and evil.

The story? Oh, two brothers are in love with the same girl, who doesn't really give a hoot for either of them. They volunteer for a suicide mission in a captured German bomber, and .... But, see the ending for yourself. Meanwhile, the Germans are trying to bomb London with their Zeppelin, but the Royal Flying Corps in on the job. That's about it.

For true airship buffs, I'll add a word about the designation "L-32" visible in one scene when the "Zeppelin" is over London. In the minds of folks not too knowledgeable about Zeppelin history, there is apt to be confusion about the "L" and "LZ" designations of German airships used in The Great War (WW1) and after. The German Naval Air Service gave their ships an "L" number. The Zeppelin Co. gave its products an "LZ" number, and the two did not correspond. There was a real "L-32" (LZ-74), and a real "L-7" (LZ-32). Both were destroyed during raids over London in 1916. Perhaps Hughes may have had either of these airships in mind for his fictional one. Incidentally, there is no record of the "observation gondola", which figures in the film story, ever having been used over England. It was used to some extent in raids over European cities.

World War I was the source of two great war films, All Quiet On The Western Front and Hell's Angels in 1930. The first was the Best Picture for that year according to the Motion Picture Academy, the second is known for its special effects and had the Special Effects Oscar been a category that year, Hell's Angels would have won no doubt.

The other thing that Hell's Angels is noted for is the screen debut of Jean Harlow in a major part. She had done several bit roles prior to Hell's Angels when Howard Hughes who produced and directed this gave her the big break. Harlow is perfect as the flighty upper class woman who flirts between brothers Ben Lyon and James Hall. Hughes photographed her to best advantage the way he would do for Jane Russell later on in The Outlaw. Harlow was not the accomplished comedienne she later became, but all she has to do in Hell's Angels is be alluring and sexy and that she did without practice.

When it came to the special aerial effects and filming of same, no film could touch Hell's Angels. The film received it's one Academy Award nomination for cinematography. It lost to the documentary film, With Byrd At The South Pole. If there had been a documentary category that year, the Admiral Byrd film would have been in that category and probably an easy winner. As it was the real life heroics of Richard E. Byrd trumped any make believe that Howard Hughes put on the screen.

But Howard Hughes was not a man of thespian profession and was no director of actors. He was also no judge of scripts. The plot is an overwrought melodramatic one involving two brothers, one a heroic if somewhat dull figure, the other one both a ladies man and a weakling as well. Maybe with a real director the acting would have been of a better caliber.

The most famous sequence is the aerial battle between the German Zeppelin and the Royal Flying Corps squadron sent up to bring the big dirigible down. Even there with the well done battle sequences there's a bit of ridiculousness where the German crew after everything else has been tossed overboard to lighten the load and gain altitude is asked to sacrifice themselves. And you see them jumping out the plane for the Kaiser and the Reich as they put it WITHOUT PARACHUTES. I mean PLEASE give me a break.

The German commander who had a run in with the brothers before the war when they were touring Germany as Oxford students is played by Lucien Prival. He must have been the guy that the producers called for when they couldn't get Erich Von Stroheim. He had all of Von Stroheim's bullnecked Teutonic personality down to the last sneer. He did fine with the part, but it must have been something with this guy to be cast in these parts and only when the producers couldn't get Von Stroheim.

Aviation fans will love this film, but for all its technical wizardry it's not close to being as good as All Quiet On The Western Front.

This film, produced only three years after sound entered the movies, is entertaining and thoughtful. It makes good use of sound effects and has great visual effects as well. The flight scenes are impressive. Hughes flew a plane in this film (but crashed it) and three other pilots were killed during filming. The scenes of dozens of tiny aircraft swarming in the sky are still breathtaking. The plot is standard good-guys/bad-guys but adds some sensitivity to all parties. We have groups fighting a war in the air, and not too happy to be doing it. But they do their jobs, and give their lives for victory. The scene of Germans abandoning their airship is particularly wrenching and affective. Some token love interests and the usual inept comedy characters round out the cast, which all stood up to the task as well as anyone in 1930.

Jean Harlow gets her first billing in this film (she's one of my all time favorites), so it is her breakthrough movie.

Not a keeper, but see it if you can.

Roy (James Hall) and Monte Rutledge (Ben Lyon) are British brothers in pre-war Germany. Roy is obsessed with girlfriend Helen (Jean Harlow). Monte is obsessed with all women although he gets entangled with a drunken woman. The woman's German military husband insists on a duel. Roy is mistaken for Monte and gets shot in the arm. Back at Oxford, their peace-loving German friend Karl gets conscripted into the Navy. After war breaks out, the brothers enlist in the Royal Flying Corps.

Howard Hughes famously spared no expense in the making of this movie. He spent years putting it together as the technology changed all around him. It's sound although they still use silent era text cards. This is partially in primitive color film for emphasis in short sections. Apparently, Hughes was very hands-on with new shooting star Jean Harlow. I do notice the jewelry. The guys are less compelling. I don't really care about these characters or their stories. I kept waiting for the real dogfights. The twenty minutes section is very impressive. The masses of planes are awe-inspiring. I love that one shot of some thirty planes flying into the dogfight. I like the actors doing their cockpit work in real flying planes. The movie is technically superior which elevates the rather average story telling.

Howard Hughes produced and directed (with a little help from Edmund Goulding and Howard Hawks) this 1930 aerial extravaganza, whose plot is both hackneyed and largely irrelevant, since one is merely waiting for the heavy melodrama to end so as to feast one's eyes on Jean Harlow and aerial combat scenes. The photography is magnificent, and one gets a kind of God's eye view of reenactments of World War I dogfights. The leading actors, Ben Lyon and James Hall, playing brothers, give such intense performances as to suggest at times that they are not merely emotionally but romantically attached to one another. Those old-fangled airplanes are something to see, as is a gigantic zeppelin, and the combat scenes, full of billowing clouds, the sky full of airplanes that resemble orange crates with wings, buzzing and whistling through the air like flies, are the stuff of dreams, and make this otherwise turgid movie come alive and live in one's mind long after it's over.

Two brothers, James Hall (Roy) and Ben Lyon (Monte), join the Flying Corps at the outbreak of WW1. They have different personalities - Hall is honourable and longs for the love of 1 woman, Jean Harlow (Helen), while Lyon only lives for his own pleasure and likes to womanize (good lad). Harlow is a bit of a bitch/slag so most women should be able to relate. The brothers volunteer for a dangerous mission to bomb a German ammunition hold.....

While the acting is generally wooden with people over-emoting, Jean Harlow is good in her role as a slag - she is funny, cruel and unrepentant. Ben Lyon isn't particularly likable and James Hall would make a good Dracula, but they manage to keep the film ticking along as the 2 brothers. It was interesting to see the tactics that were used to recruit soldiers at the time. The one moment that dooms Lyon is when he succumbs to the recruitment ploy of "kiss the pretty girl and sign up". He kisses her and walks on by but is grabbed back into the recruitment office. Dirty tricks campaigns have been running for a very long time indeed!

This film is much better than I expected. It is made up of a series of sections, eg, the Zeppelin raid, the dance, the mission, etc, some of which are done in colour. There are exciting moments, tense moments, funny moments and it's ultimately a tragic story. It certainly doesn't seem like over 2 hours long and this must be a good sign. The acting is sometimes stagey but this film has memorable scenes that will stay with you, eg, the German sacrifices on the Zeppelin.

OK, so the story is corny, and some of the performances (dialogue coached by James Whale!) are early sound acting at its worst. This is nonetheless a very watchable movie, even its hoariest plot devices (all about friends and enemies and duty and how betrayal is sometimes the greatest expression of devotion, creeeeeeeeeak) excused by breathtaking aerial footage and a truly memorable sequence in the middle involving a German dirigible over London. Some German dialogue adds realism, although that sign in occupied France that reads "Munitions Depot" is not too authentic. The portrayal of women, including a very young Jean Harlow, makes the late 20th-century viewer squirm; it's also unfortunate that that German general looks so much like Pee Wee Herman. Watch it anyway for the flying and the extremely effective two-color and three-color sequences. "Top Gun" doesn't look nearly as good and will not age this beautifully.

"Hell's Angels" is a movie about WW I aviators. From what I understand, it was originally meant to be a silent film, but, after the introduction of sound, many scenes were re-shot.

What makes this movie stand out is that the dogfight scenes are authentic. Apparently, many of the pilots who flew the planes were themselves war veterans, giving authenticity to those parts of the film.

It clearly influenced a number of later movies, such as "The Dawn Patrol" (featuring Errol Flynn and David Niven) and "Twelve O'Clock High" (starring Gregory Peck). Even 1986's "Top Gun" used many of the same techniques for its flight scenes.

As for the story itself, I found it to be rather ho-hum. The plot drags at times and the acting was often wooden. One should remember, though, that sound in movies was still a new feature and studios were learning how to incorporate it into the films that they were making.

Despite those shortcomings, "Hell's Angels" is still worth watching as it pioneered a number of special effects techniques.

In many ways this is a movie made in the style of its own time, which might leave audiences of today a bit underwhelmed. However in some ways no film made since has measured up. The aerial combat sequences remain the finest representation of dogfighting ever filmed, and I doubt we will ever see them bested. The scale, scope and sheer expense of filming something to rival what Howard Hughes accomplished would make that virtually impossible. And computer animation can do many miraculous things, however this might be it of the reach of even the best CGI. This is the best, and maybe it should remain the best.

"Hell's Angels" took so long to make that it started life as a silent film but then had to be largely re-shot to incorporate sound. It shows, as this is an oddly disjointed film, with stilted, dramatically inert scenes juxtaposed to gorgeous and technologically brilliant ones.

Howard Hughes gave "Hell's Angels" the epic treatment, complete with intermission, but the story he has to tell doesn't warrant the film's long running time. The film's major selling point are its action sequences, and honestly it's worth watching this film just to see them. The highlight is a scene showing a German zeppelin on a midnight bombing run and the efforts of British pilots to stop it. You can clearly tell which moments of the film come from the original silent version, as they're the most artfully lit and framed. When the film stops for dialogue and plot exposition, it gets a bit dull and hampered by that awkwardness common to so many early sound films.

"Hell's Angels" might actually be best known to audiences today as the film that introduced Jean Harlow to moviegoers, but her entire character feels like somewhat of an afterthought. This movie is really about men and their planes.

Grade: B+

Back in 1930, multi-millionaire, Howard Hughes (25 at the time) may have been the richest kid on the block, but, regardless of that, when it came to competently directing a Hollywood, adventure movie he was sure clueless, as was clearly evident here with Hell's Angels.

Even for a film from that particular era of early movie-making, Hell's Angels was still noticeably mediocre and below-par in so many ways.

With this film's budget being $4 million (making it the most expensive picture of its time), I have to tell you that I honestly couldn't see (by the final product) where all of this money was spent.

From my point of view - The one and only reason for watching Hell's Angels was for its fairly impressive aerial dogfight sequences (which, unfortunately, happened so few and far between throughout the story).

Without these action scenes, this film would've been a real forgettable, nothing picture. And, believe me, at 2 hours and 11 minutes, Hell's Angels was already running on empty, anyway, right from the very start.