Baron Rouge

Is funny how many film nerds take films literally and criticize them, narrow-minded and quick enough. Life is more than just obvious and literal things, so films usually try to show those things in a bit more exaggerate way so people realize how things are or at least, in order to express some idea or feeling. As books, movies sometimes tell about something else, and don't have to have taken literally. Is funny how many historian nerds claim faults in such film or other. Strictly historic accounts would take a unusual long movie to make. Always licenses are taken and some freedom, lyrically too, showed. Sometimes the faults are there, but sometimes too those faults are left aside for being uninteresting in a film making. I really failed to see or read the statement "this is a documentary film", or the like. On medics films, we hear the real medic persons complain about such drug or anesthetic. Come on, don't be so serious, films have to be dynamically paced, regardless its real pace speed. We have metaphors, remember? Boredom kills films more than anything on this world, perhaps.

I went sideways, I know... about the film:

With some lyric and historical licenses, this one adds something not shown before and with objectivity: man is being killed (as today) on both sides of the front, nothing else. Ideals are worthy as long as we keep them alive, even when gone with the idealist himself, or worthless when they die facing some majority "truth". The movie doesn't lack action and earthly brotherhood with your fellow man, or that should be. Has some romance without catchy parts, and have a strange flash in almost all scenes, like a private and intense sense in each of the chronologically arranged cuts. The hard-to-grasp feeling, as for today, of gentlemanly conduct, regarding human life in some circles, and at the same time, the brutal butchery developed along 4 years by both sides of the fence. I guess in ancient times was about same situation, but this time, and from then on, machinery came into scene and that allowed man to kill man quicker, from afar. Also leads us towards the fact that the man really got into flying, a dream long desired, and this flying was perfected through war, the great technology bringer. Enough said, this film worth the watch and have some good moments, as the ambiance is there, and that is more that we can say of many Hollywood, CA productions of late, or before. So long.

it is not exactly the expected historical film. maybe a documentary. far by patriotic enthusiasm - so familiar from American films- , without emotional twists - the tone is almost blank, giving the portrait of a legendary German hero in precise lines. a cold sketch. about the Red Baron and his comrades, his girl friend, humor and passion for its duty. the historical accuracy is far to be the best point but the film gives a realistic portrait . and this is a real precious virtue.

Being a pilot, aviation enthusiast & someone who reads everything I can about the Red Baron and WWI flying in general, I was very excited to hear there was a movie on the cards about him. For 2 years I felt like a child on Christmass eve. I couldn't wait to get my hands on this movie. In spite of the negative reviews I imported the DVD to South Africa at great cost. I was going to see it come hell or high water. I picked it up from the post office, rushed home, popped it in the DVD player and I couldn't believe my eyes. I feel robbed. Utterly robbed! I feel like going to the film makers and forcing them to do it over. I WANT MY RED BARON MOVIE!

All this movie is, is a jump from one dramatic speech to another. And if you want to make a movie with just long dramatic dialog, you need actors who can pull it off. The acting in this movie is as bad as it gets. And the award for worst actor in the movie goes to... (drumroll) Volker Bruch for playing Lothar Von Richthofen! Basically everyone was bad. Mathias Schweighofer, Volker Bruch and Lena Headey tries too hard. They act as if they are acting. Even Joseph Fiennes, who I have a great deal of respect for, couldn't pull it off. Especially the Canadian accent. The only actor who didn't look like he was acting was Til Schweiger, but a 46 year old playing a 20 year old? More on that later.

Acting aside, lets look at the real Manfred Von Richthofen vs the movie one. The real one didn't dream of becoming a pilot as it is told in the movie. He joined the air service, because the cavalry(where he started the war) was fast becoming obsolete. He only wanted to do his part in the war effort. In the movie he loves flying, in real life his aircraft was just a platform for his guns. He didn't do aerobatics and frowned upon pilots(like his brother) who did. He always looked respectable and made other officers button up their tunics if they were undone. In the movie he walks around with unbuttoned tunics and stretched jerseys. He didn't go to whorehouses like in the movie, he didn't shoot down Roy Brown twice, there is no evidence of a relationship between Manfred & Kate Otersdorf that here is the basis of the movie. In the movie Lanoe hawker flies a Bristol fighter, in real life he flew a DH2 in his last dogfight(a machine obsolete by then). And the list goes on.

CG effects. Nicely done, but unrealistic. Af Albatrosses could fly like that they would be shooting down F22's over Afganistan. Those planes were built from wood and fabric and would disintegrate if they were flown like in the move. And it seems the movie makers didn't have the money to do complete dogfight scenes, because a fight just starts, then they jump to a speech again.

The movie also jumps from scene to scene so much, that no one who doesn't know the basic history of the Red Baron would understand what is going on.

What market did they aim for when making this movie? Its not a family movie, its too boring and complicated. Action movie? Not much action. Aviation movie? Not much flying. Biographical film? Too much fiction. Drama? Love story? Yes, but why use the Red Baron to make a love story? Why not cowboys talking to horses or poor coal miners?

What should they have done? They should have told his story. He was a soldier, who wanted to do his part in the war. He was the highest scoring ace of WW1, who awarded himself cups for his victories until Germany ran out of silver.He wanted to be the best. His career was greatly influencedby Oswald Boelce, who is mentioned twice in the movie only. He was there when Boelce died. They should have shown the Boelce/Von Richtoven relationship. Werner Voss a 20 year old pilot(not 46), was his main rival for top ace(and good friend), who died in one of the most impressive dogfights of the war. They should have shown the dogfight. They should have shown the Baron's last flight. They basically took all that was interesting about this man and made sure that it was left out of the movie.

All in all, the writers would have a great career in Soap operas as well as the actors.

If you're an aviation fan, you're going to love this movie. The aerial scenes of World War I era biplanes in action are truly astounding.

The lead role of the Baron is played by Matthias Schweighöfer whose boyish good looks and magnetic smile are fully exploited to make the Red Baron impossible to dislike. The character of the Baron is portrayed as a young man of high principals who struggles to reconcile his humanity in the completely inhumane circumstances of war. He is torn between his sense of duty to his country and it's megalomaniac leadership and his conscience. Now I don't know if any of that is actually true, but it makes for a touching story nonetheless.

Overwhelmingly I was aware that the makers of this movie wanted to transmit the message that Germans are not the stereotype so often portrayed in war movies as either emotionless auto-bots of death and destruction or blood thirsty hums. Is this done in an effort to raise public opinion of Germans (it is a German production by the way) or because audiences are growing intolerant of stereotyping and it's injurious, evil nature. I can't say, I'd like to believe the latter, but you'll certainly find the Baron and his fellow pilots all endearing characters and you'll be saddened when most of them meet their maker in the course of the story.

The writer – director Nikolai Müllerschön isn't very loyal to historical facts in many respects. I was particularly disturbed by the portrayal of the German Emperor (Kaiser Wilhelm) as a warmongering protagonist and Paul Von Hindenburg as a foolish smiling fat man. However, in order for the character of the Baron to shine so brightly the Baron needed dark forces to nobly resist and therefore these men were transformed to serve that purpose. I strongly advise the viewer not to expect to get a history lesson from his movie.

Despite an ending that can't help but make the viewer feel a little cheated, this film is a success on many levels. Only a little historical inaccuracy, which while certainly not a problem for most films but is almost demanded in a biopic, is a noticeable flaw.

Also, while perhaps not as "gritty" as one would like to see in a modern film, the ambiance of the film feels very "right." The viewer is seldom distracted by the realization that one is seeing CGI. The set decoration and costuming are rich and look accurate. The photography is excellent, although there is some mixing of exposure which is sometimes distracting. There is quite a bit of "floating" camera-work in establishing shots, which adds a little playful interest, almost as if one is watching from a small biplane buzzing through the scene.

The performances are understated, although the dialog does feel a little sparse at times.

Viewers who are hoping to experience another version of the exuberant athleticism of "Flyboys" from the German perspective may be underwhelmed by this film, but I found it most satisfying, especially in its restraint in delivering its anti-war message.