Águias da Armada

Stepping-Up from its Poverty Row Stature, Monogram (soon to be Allie Artists) Turns its Production into a Cinecolor (soon made obsolete by Eastman Color) Battle-Royal.

Actually the Lowly Anemia of Cinecolor makes the 16MM Real Navy Footage Blend Better and the Result is a Treat for Fans of Actual WWII War Film.

The Confrontations with Japan Zeros and the US Navy Pilots is Dynamic and Exciting.

Surprisingly the Low-Budget-Movie Editing (John Austin) was Nominated for an Academy Award.

Sterling Hayden and Richard Carlson are Perfectly Cast as Type.

Perhaps if Complaints are Forthcoming, the Mixing of Aircraft Type and other Technical Stuff will Annoy Nerds and for General Non-Wonky Movie Watchers...

There are way too many Unconvincing and Static Shots of Pilots Sitting in Studio Cockpits and Gawking.

Their Non-Battle Below-Deck Dramatics are Labored and Boring Cliches along with the Grounded Script that does Nothing to Elevate the Characters or Their Missions.

Overall, the Battles are Worth the Price of Admission and the Movie is Worth a Watch for War Movie, Aviation, and Military Fans.

My attraction to this B feature from 1952 is the above summary. Tragic perhaps to most, but to me, not even remotely interested in the Navy or war films or Sterling Hayden and Richard Carlson or anything to do with guns (it might as well have been a western too, for that matter, but it isn't) ... my only and complete fascination is that it was made by Monogram using interesting Cinecolor. I actually quite enjoyed FLAT TOP for about an hour then I lost the thread of the story. It seemed to be a never ending circuit of missions/Japs/well filmed interesting dogfights, pink explosions in cine-color and men in jets looking out the window. I think this was one of those films that worked well in huge theaters full of kids or servicemen. Monogram seemed to have well scammed a great idea to make a film: Get permission and co operation from the US Navy to film aboard one real aircraft carrier ( A: no sets needed) using lots of men in uniform (B: no costumes needed and C: hundreds of free extras) cobbled a story together about jostling dogfight commanders and some disciplinary tactics (scenes in small rooms using A+B and some outdoors/on deck filler scenes using C. The actual footage of some spectacular genuine dogfight action seemed to be plentiful (again, provided by the Navy or the War dept) as there was a lot of fight scenes and flying through explosions and bits of blown apart planes (all very interesting and adding to the reality) and on and on it went. Some back projection with actors wobbling and swerving their cockpit and presto: one Govt sanctioned movie as a Korean War propaganda and recruitment piece now showing thu 1952 in 10,000 theaters. Very profitable. My fascination with Monogram's production methods satisfied again. the Red/Bue cine-color was interesting as it resulted in tan skin tones with a lot of blue/grey (handy if you film an aircraft carrier and a sky) and a lot of orange/red (good for lifejackets and explosions). There was no yellow in the film and no actual green. It all worked as I am sure it was expected to. The music was excellent, the studio photography good too. Very well edited into 85 minutes. My research in Australia showed that it had a good run and stayed in play up until the 60s believe it or not. Monogram ceased to be a production name in 1953 when they changed name completely to Allied Artists. People criticize Monogram's inventive budget production methods but I find them ingenious.

This is a rather run-of-the-mill War movie on board an American flat top in the Pacific against the Japs. Definitely not in the class of "A wing and a prayer" or "Tora, Tora, Tora" and, without much background footage, even not up to the mediocre Midway. Education under fire with an as always impressing Sterling Hayden, not much else. Definitely a B-Movie under war movies issued during this area. Consumer commodity stuff not, if you want action, look at the above mentioned movies, if you want it along with history, choose Victory at Sea. Five out of Ten at best for the dogfight at the very end. Actually difficult to crunch out ten lines for this, isn't it.

I am into WW2 aircraft carriers and the Pacific War and I find this film to be a good one for its time. The editing is great and there is only a couple of war film segments that appear twice. Unlike Midway, they don't use modern carrier shots and even through it is not completely tied to a battle or campaign, every thing gets explained(In Midway, they didn't show the fact that the USS Yorktown CV5 sinks, or at least is supposed to sink). Over all, I'll give this film 3 1/2 stars out of five.

Ok, this is a pretty good time waster, especially for those who crave for routine war films showing the American army, Navy or Air Force. Beginning a story taking place during the Korean war and resuming back to WW2 against Japan is rather strange but after all, why not? For the rest, the director Lesley Selander was a specialist of westerns, a chain western provider, one of the most prolific, besides Ray Nazarro, and here, in a war film, he proves that he could do something else than showing cow-boys, sheriffs, Indians or military fort intrigues. Good point for him, but this war film is anyway forgettable, compared to a William Wellman or Andrew Marton's feature.