उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

The movie is quite enjoyable as a fairy tale. It's supposed to be based on a true story, but to be politically correct Amazon has rewritten history and turned one of the two main characters to a women. It was two men, not a man and women. There is no need to rewrite history. I'd be annoyed if they make a movie about Amelia Earhart and turned her into a man. It's history. Just do the history.

I'd rated this a 9 if they hadn't lied by saying this is based on true events.

The acting is pretty good and the story line is good and it's fairly clean.

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.

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.

I had big expectations for this film, but unfortunately, it looks like people behind the creative decisions in it have never flown in a balloon. Neither they seen clouds up close or used a spyglass. The Aeronauts is definitely not for the ones interested in aeronautics.

They've added this character, Amelia Wren, and whilst she isn't like a bad character, she's completely made up, and replaced the actual hero who was Henry Coxwell. Feminism propaganda? Maybe not however it was needless, and then romance between James Glaisher and Ameila Wren was implied at the end which is adding to the fiction in this film which was meant to be based on a true story.

Having said all that, if I take off my history specs and put on my film specs on, there are more positives to look at.

The film switches between past and present. The past looking at how they got to the balloon in the first place, and the present is the journey on the balloon, and the emotional and physical battles they face.

All in all it was an alright effort, definitely entertaining and engaging, and Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones did very well. I'd say worth a watch but if you're a bit touchy with the correctness of the history then I'd give it a miss.

Came to see this without too many expectations and was pleasantly surprised. The backstory wasn't very interesting and a bit slow to develop but the balloon scenes were beautifully rendered, thrilling and engaging. I literally clung to my seat during some of them. I liked how the film respected the scientific endeavor and the viewers by avoiding cliche romantic developments between its characters. Overall, an entertaining night, even if I won't remember it by tomorrow.

Acrophobia. I have this. If you also suffer from this condition, it will turn this into a horror movie. It will be worse than The Exorcist or Jaws. I mean, why do they have to climb all over the basket and lean over the sides and not tie themselves in? If it were me, we would all have on harnesses and be tied securely in.

This movie is exciting, and a little bit historical. I love adventure movies, and historical adventures, and Victoriana, so this was right up my alley. I don't know how true the events are, I don't know if the woman really did the things she did in this movie, but it was thrilling to watch, nonetheless.

But for the love of God and all things holy, PLEASE, stop leaning over the side of the basket, and harness yourselves in!!

GRADE: B-

THIS FILM IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

IN BRIEF: Fine CGI keep this contrived, entertaining, and all so untrue bio-pic stay earthbound.

JIM'S REVIEW: Tom Harper's The Aeronauts is a classy children's film. It is fine family fare about the early days of flight exploration, even though the actual story has been seriously altered from its original source. This revisionist "based on true events" lesson seems to be the unfortunate trend these days as writers playing fast and loose with historical accuracy. As biographies go, this is twaddle. As fantasy adventure, the film is fun.

The real event occurred on September 5, 1862 and would establish scientific data to help guide meteorologists to predict weather patterns. The journey involved two British scientists, James Glaisher and Henry Coxwell, and their balloon flight to test the unknown atmospheric conditions as they broke the world's altitude record during dangerous weather conditions. However, somewhere from page to film, Mr. Coxwell changed gender and became the purely fictitious Amelia Wren, a daredevil aviator, winningly played by Felicity Jones. Her co-pilot remained Mr. Glaisher and Eddie Redmayne is reunited with his co-star. Up, up and away we go!

The film resembles an rousing adventure film for children, an old-fashion Saturday matinee type with lots of peril for our brave heroes to encounter. Forget that our courageous twosome have forgotten to pack hats, scarves, or gloves...those omissions certainly defy logic, but more is the danger! Amelia is played as an independent modern woman, unafraid of society's restrictions or heights. She is women empowerment personified and little girls in the audience will identify with her struggle while her male counterpart as performed by Mr. Redmayne has been essentially neutered. Adults will just shrug at the heroic feats and enjoy the nonsense.

Ms. Jones and Mr. Redmayne are set adrift in a silly and simplified story, lost in the movie's own grandiose special effects. Whenever the film is airborne, the film is action-filled and riveting. The CGI is terrific viewing, Mark Eckersley's editing is concise, and George Steel's photography captures the wondrous beauty of the skies. However, when the movie flashbacks to their aeronauts' personal lives back on earth, the film remains grounded, unable to soar.

Mr. Harper directs skillfully. Yet his screenplay, co-authored by Jack Thorne, takes too many liberties with its subject. Even though the dialog between the two actors is well delivered and quite poetic in its wordplay, the plot is banal and extremely contrived.

The Aeronauts hovers and rarely takes flight, although it is well-crafted and always entertaining...especially for the younger set.

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.

It is only based on real events. Even documentaries do not tell the whole story. Films based on books skip tons of pages because films are films. Note to the critical reviews: even when u tell stories at dinner I am sure you change things and skip things and add things. It is a movie and I loved it. Fantastic scenery and thrilling. Highly recommend it as a movie nit as a history lesson

Two men made this flight, not a man and a woman. Women made a lot of incredible contributions, but this wasn't one of them. There are many true stories about amazing women waiting to be told without changing the person's sex. It's like Hollywood doesn't believe there are stories about women worth telling, so they switch msle characters to female. Apple made a series about the space race with women inserted where there were all men. I suppose this gets kudos in Hollywood, and the independent film circuit, but most viewers of historical movies get excited and take their friends when it's the actual story of what took place. Filmakers have so much hubris they think their version of history is better than what actually happened. Filmakers are obviously free to make any story they want, but if you claim to be telling a true story try using a little truth.

The Aeronauts is a very tense and technically brilliant film. Some of the visuals this movie manages to pull off were incredible and the visual effects, stunts, and camera work were so good, I didn't doubt for a second that the characters were in that balloon and one second away from falling to their death. Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones also have a very natural chemistry, and while the scenes that take place outside of the balloon were formulaic, they weren't completely insufferable. As far as historical accuracy goes, if I wanted historical accuracy I would read a Wikipedia article. I watch movies for thrills and entertainment, and this move delivers a lot of thrills.

I just got out of Aeronauts

I was having some lunch with my son, when we decided to go see a movie, I'd not even heard of this movie, let alone seen a trailer (I seemed to miss this thread) or read any reviews, so I went in 100% cold, except knowing it starred Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones.

I'll just say this, if I had watched the trailer, I would have not have gone. As I spent the majority of my time, gripping the arm of my chair, or shaking with vertigo!! Ever since I suffered a brain injury a few years ago, I'm awful with heights.

I was surprised to see it was made by Amazon Studios. I have to say this is the kind of adventure tale that isn't made well that often anymore. When it focuses on its main plot, it's an effective movie of two people who did the impossible, when it shows flashbacks, it gets a little flat.

I have a bit of a soft spot for Redmayne, I find him really likeable and I enjoyed Jones in Rogue One and The Theory Of Everything, they do have good chemistry, even though there is no romantic relationship, here. Himish Patel (Yesterday) was solid supporting too.

With great cinematography and a truly engaging performance from its female lead, this one surprised me, and if you have a chance to see it in theaters before its eventual Amazon release, you should take it.

The Aeronauts had the potential to be a gripping historical adventure, but unfortunately, it takes too many liberties with the truth, distorting history in a way that left me more frustrated than entertained. While I can appreciate a bit of creative license in filmmaking, The Aeronauts crosses the line, turning what should have been a celebration of real-life achievements into a fantastical spectacle that bears little resemblance to reality.

One of the biggest disappointments is the film's decision to replace key historical figures with fictionalized characters. By sidelining James Glaisher's real-life partner, Henry Coxwell, and introducing Felicity Jones' fictional character, the movie sacrifices historical accuracy for dramatic effect. This choice not only distorts the story but also diminishes the true heroism of those involved. For someone who values historical integrity, this felt like a missed opportunity to tell a genuinely inspiring story.

That said, the film does have its moments. The visuals are undeniably stunning, with sweeping shots of the balloon soaring above the clouds that truly capture the awe and danger of 19th-century ballooning. Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones deliver solid performances, bringing some emotional depth to their characters, even if the script doesn't always support them.

However, even these positives can't fully redeem The Aeronauts. The film's pacing drags in places, and the tension that should be building in such a life-or-death scenario often falls flat. The lack of historical fidelity overshadows what could have been an inspiring tale of scientific discovery and adventure.

In the end, The Aeronauts left me wishing it had stuck closer to the real story. While it's visually impressive and has a few standout moments, the film ultimately fails to soar, weighed down by its unnecessary distortions of history.

Ok so I guess having a lady in the movie is more "marketable" than 2 guys 1 balloon, but come on, what about Henry Tracey Coxwell? Nothing? Not a single word? Ok then... have my 6, bro

As long you nothing about the real story you'll enjoy this and see it for what it is - a visual masterpiece which would be amazing in IMAX .

History was made by Glaisher and his male co pilot reaching roughly the height of Everest - the achievements of Victorians in their primitive pioneering equipment has to be admired

For drama and film fans the fictional female co pilot works really well and adds to the story who cares if it's not accurate - is Shakespeare historical ? Not it's drama based on history .

Felicity Jones is the star of the show both in her acting and the character she plays .

Greenwich looks great as the obvious location to base most of the film in and the drama in the basket could easily transfer to stage .

The film deserves credit for costume , setting and make up .

It's a film like a piece of classical music it takes a while to get into but builds up to a great crescendo always backed up by a great script

Pad.A 7/10

Yes ok the film is "inspired" by true events. I think it was a good call having the woman.

Two men in a balloon complaining about it being cold? Really that's what you'd like to see?

It's a film..it needs something to extend the story folks

The historical record has what actually happened. Many films that are based on events have various inaccuracies. Well I liked this film..it was different.

Though I think the Felicity is hot also so that was a plus for me anyway. The effects were cool and the last third was savage!

Tom Harper's camerawork and Jack Thorne's writing tells semi-biographical story of two Aeronauts played by Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne.

In 1862, fanatic scientist James and town-favourite Amelia challenge themselves to create a balloon that will propel them higher than anyone in history. Although, as expected the journey is quite the turbulent one and proves a consequential factor in achieving the pair's goal.

With the need for accurate CGI and a 19th century set, the film held a budget of $40 million, though with COVID's hit, the production couldn't be released in cinemas for its guaranteed set time, and instead was snapped up by Amazon Prime Video, reasoning for its Box Office bombing that saw the film amass just $3.8 million. Harper's work is thorough with the large sum of money used to manufacture the on-screen detail of the time and the size of the project. We see the bustling streets of urban England, the beautiful, serene views from up high, and the chaotic devastation of a nearby storm, capturing all the season's weather and still focusing on the connection between Jones and Redmayne's characters.

James and Amelia have contrasting personalities, the former is ambitious and strives to develop his scientific knowledge to prove and test astronomical practices, while the latter enjoys the spotlight, she is an entertainer, a crowd-pleaser; which is why I believe they are the perfect match, you have the slightly rational, aware brain of Jones and the incredibly intelligent input of James. To view as the audience, it is comforting seeing the two together and find themselves and their purpose even in the most desperate of situations.

The film is disposable and enjoyable, with glimpses of thrill and tension, the core focus is the blossoming bond of the two protagonists.

An insightful watch that is no thrilling rollercoaster, but does deserve more recognition.

This film could be great but the director has decided that the feats of the real people are less important than pleasing the PC brigade. All too common these days. Very sad...

Yes, we get that this movie is not 100% historically accurate. Yes, we get that Henry Coxwell has been omitted. So sorry. Yes, we get that Amelia Wren is an amalgamation of at least two noteworthy nineteenth-century female aeronauts. Yes, we get that a bunch of dudes are hurt that this movie isn't entirely true.

Get over it.

It's fun, it manages to show how important this moment was while also recognizing that several under-noted women also played a role in nineteenth-century aeronautics, and so we get the entire picture of an era in a short film. It's inclusive, because history is not so clean as the white-male centrists want to believe. It's an amalgam. It tries to capture many events in a two-hour movie, and that's okay, because the women are too often ignored.

And it's a fun, well done movie with some fine acting. I'm all for it.

Give it a watch and just enjoy it.

I see a lot of 1 star reviewers here so bothered about the historical correctness and which they probably have the right to be ... but FOR ME ... I couldn't care less who flew the balloon, if it was a man, a woman or a damn dog ,, I don't see why it matters when judging an " Action, Adventure" movie,, This is not a biography .. so the movie is thrilling and emotional ,

The script was quick and connected ,, no holes of dullness ,, each and every scene matters,, putting flashbacks here and there was nice .. The cast was genius ... Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne duo was spot on ,, didn't get cheap romantic like many other movies of the same genre.

For a young director, Tom Harper did an amazing job here,, the visual effects , I can't even imagine .. they were perfected to the point were you actually start to feel the ups and downs of the gas balloon with them.

So final say,, I suggest you watch the movie like you don't know anything about the history and all,, just watch it like you watch Jumanji minus of course the comedy 😂 and you will enjoy it like I did.

OK, here we go again, and again, and again...

The film is a major disservice to history of science and to the real people involved in this fascinating episode in the development of balloning. The fact is that the omission of Henry Tracey Coxwell the lad who was Glaisher's copilot is another shameful act by Hollywood. A film that claims to be based on "true events" should at least give credit where is credit is due. If writers and directors continue this trend, I will not be surprised if, for instance in a film depicting the D-Day invasion of Normandy we see the American army composed entirely of women.

In a truly bizarre twist, the makers of The Aeronauts (2019) decided to tell the story about an 1862 hot-air balloon flight by scientsts James Glaisher and Henry Coxwell by dumping Coxwell and replacing him with a fictional female character. The resulting rewrite of history makes no sense at all and reduces what might have been an interesting story to rubbish. What we're left with is a bowdlerized historical event rendered in CGI to the max. Eddie Redmayne plays the real-life James Glaisher while Felicity Jones plays the fictional Amelia Rennes. The Victoran-Era story that we're left with is preposterous.

To add insult to injury, Jones' character is one of the most annoying females I've seen in a film in a long time ... well since BOOKSMART. Totally out of character for the Victorian Era, this shrieking harpy is loud and pushy and rude. Redmayne pretty much walks through his part. His parents, played by Tom Courtenay and Anne Reid, are way too old for their roles.

Another gripe is the racial parade of Blacks and Asians all done up in the Victorian finery. So there's another PC push that is not historically accurate, plus Redmayne's friend/assistant is Indian. Victorian England was not that culturally fluid.

Probably 90% of the film is dominated by CGI and green screen technologies that always seem to have that flat, unnatural look. And isn't it amazing how Jones can hang on to icy, frozen ropes and dangle in mid air. Total bosh!