The Worst Movie

One of the worst aviation movies has to be a little-known Australian effort called "Smithy," 1946 vintage, about the redoubtable Austalian flier Charles Kingsford Smith. I did my best to tape some (i.e. any) aviation related footage from this a few years ago, expecting there might be some, but the film completely defeated me. It has to be seen to be believed. Occasionally I stumble on the minute or so that I did tape and begin to go black out.

I've never seen Aces High, nor have I seen Richthofen and Brown, AND from the sounds of things I didn't miss much. My nomination for the worst movie was the movie with Rock Hudson playing a young Ernest Hemmingway, I think it was 'Farewell to Arms'. But on the other hand the best WW1 action sequence was in 'Legends of the Fall'. I really liked the night raid across the line where Tristan took scalps ... a nice 'homey' touch for Wild West afficianados. I hear that the movie 'Thin Red Line' was a waste also. But a movie like 'Saving Pvt. Ryan' makes up for the disasters in war films, and I think 'Tora Tora Tora' did a fairly good job in recreating the Pearl Harbor fiasco. Best movie for sheer English tenacity and humor ... 'Zulu Dawn' with Michael Caine. Great Australian movie ... 'Breaker Morant'!! Sorry all, I guess I got a bit side tracked there. Best Lines from 'Zulu Dawn' ... "I say old boy, how many engagements have you been in?" Answer ..." I haven't, I build bridges."
'Breaker Morant' ... "What rule did you execute prisoners under? Rule THREE OH THREE, we FOUND them, CAPTURED them, and SHOT THEM ... SIR!" And who can forget the memorable "Shoot straight you bast-rds, don't make a mess of it!"
VBR,
Jim

[Barrett]

Hey, hey, HEY! Let's not denigrate towel scenes just because The Greatest Towel Scene Ever happened to appear in a moderately enjoyable WW I Aviation filum....
I stand corrected in my omission of vR & Brown, a genuine certified stinker. So bad that the one time I watched part of it, I must've deleted it from my subliminal consciousness or something.
"Memphis Belle" wasn't terrific, but it wasn't really bad, and it was SO much better than that 1976 abomination allegedly dealing with the Battle of Midway. (By far the best film treatment of that subject was 1949's "Task Force" with Gary Cooper. Real Dauntlesses and Wildcats...makes me homesick.)
The Spirit of Aviation Award goes to TMM&TFM, with tremendous casting including, of course, the delctable Sarah Miles and the luscious Irina Demick. Terry Thomas is marvelously wicked, and the variety of zany antics (aloft and aground) is immediately acceptable to anyone who's ever worked in aviation. Another goodie is from the 1930s, "Men With Wings."
Until next time, the balcony is closed...

[mike_baram]

Jim,
I remember the flick as "Zulu", not "Zulu Dawn".
Michael Caine and Stanley Baker. Loved the scene before the final battle, with the Welsh singing to counteract the Zulu war chant. And that British Square.....noise and shouting and smoke so thick you can't see squat.
A true classic, old man....
Mike

[PeterL]

I believe "Zulu Dawn" is the book on which the film was based. I wasn't impressed with Michael Cain, the cockney accent kept coming through, but Stanley Baker was definitely the best James Bond never to have got the part.
Back on topic, IMO most flying flicks are pretty bad one way or the other. We're never going to have an airborn Private Ryan because half the cast get left on the ground during the action sequences and it all geta a bit episodic. Memphis Belle has been nominated as a turkey here, but IMO it came closer to solving this problem than most. I liked it.

Peter L

[Ira_Silverman]

Worst WW1 Movie...

It's a close call between "Von R & Brown" and "Lafayette Escadrille," but "Lafayette Escadrille" gets my vote. Any film that caused director William Wellman (a LFC veteran)to apologize for the rest of his life has to be a real stinker.

I though "The Lost Squadron" was so bad it was good (campy, if you will), and I liked "Memphis Belle."

VBR,

Ira

Absolute worst war filum.........

"Terms of Endearment"

Not a combat scene in the whole fecken thing.!!!!!!!

DRINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Australian productions of 'The Lighthorsemen' and the Mini Series 'Anzacs' were of a good quality. While not aviation movies as such, both featured action from the sky. In the Lighthorsemen, German Aviators were seen dropping bombs during the charge at Beersheba; while in Anzacs, an allied plane was shown flying overhead during the August 1918 attack. It was a good scene with the infantry advancing and the plane flying in cooperation.
With Anzacs I believe that the 5 part mini series was only shown in it's entirity in Australia and Britain. Apparently in the U.S it was condensed into around two hours and with the editing did not come out so well.

Cheers

Andrew

P.S-I liked Memphis Belle when I saw it at the movies. If it comes out of Hollywood you don't expect to much.
The movie 'Battle of Britain' was quite good as well.
The only true WW1 aviation movie I have seen was the'Blue Max' with George Peppard. From reading some of the comments about the other movies, it's probably just as well that I haven't seen more.

Both the movie and the book were based on a nonfiction book about the Zulu nation, "The Washing of the Spears" must reading for anyone who wants to know the truth about the Battle at Rorke's Drift. That book was so damned realistic you could smell the action...Caine's acting aside, the movie did duplicate the action, and the scene of battle: it was that second interior wall of mealy bags that brought the Zulus to their senses: when they realized that they were throwing away hundreds in dead and wounded for less than 100 redcoats, they abandoned the project...Anyone who has been in combat knows that no war movie Hollywood ever made could ever be good because you can't duplicate war years of the miseries of war in a three hour, technicolor movie, viewed in a comfortable seat with a pound of popcorn being processed by the alimenatry canal, or even in a more comfortable setting before a TV set, replete with commercials...The movies cited in this thread are bad because they are propaganda flicks designed to boost the morale of civilian and soldier alike and the government had censorship over the media. Post war movies depended on the services to supply sets and equipment and bit players, and none of them would permit adverse criticism. For those fortunate folks who have never been in combat trying to capture the war experience by watching movies like Private Ryan is wasted effort because that experience can not be captured: those were no real soldiers that you watched, but actors, who spent six days learning how to be infantrymen, actors who got public sympathy because they believed Tom Hanks, et al actually went through the experience. A case in point is the war movie that Audie Murphy (who had every decoration possible) made portraying himself in a re-enactment of his WWII exploits, well it did not approach the real thing, nor could it because Audie had no way of duplicating the agonies he had endured-before a camera. You can not duplicate fear and the horrors of war that are imbedded in the minds of those who knew what fear and horror was. Billy H.01/17/2000.

Both the movie and the book were based on a nonfiction book about the Zulu nation, "The Washing of the Spears" must reading for anyone who wants to know the truth about the Battle at Rorke's Drift. That book was so damned realistic you could smell the action...Caine's acting aside, the movie did duplicate the action, and the scene of battle: it was that second interior wall of mealy bags that brought the Zulus to their senses: when they realized that they were throwing away hundreds in dead and wounded for less than 100 redcoats, they abandoned the project...Anyone who has been in combat knows that no war movie Hollywood ever made could ever be good because you can't duplicate war years of the miseries of war in a three hour, technicolor movie, viewed in a comfortable seat with a pound of popcorn being processed by the alimenatry canal, or even in a more comfortable setting before a TV set, replete with commercials...The movies cited in this thread are bad because they are propaganda flicks designed to boost the morale of civilian and soldier alike and the government had censorship over the media. Post war movies depended on the services to supply sets and equipment and bit players, and none of them would permit adverse criticism. For those fortunate folks who have never been in combat trying to capture the war experience by watching movies like Private Ryan is wasted effort because that experience can not be captured: those were no real soldiers that you watched, but actors, who spent six days learning how to be infantrymen, actors who got public sympathy because they believed Tom Hanks, et al actually went through the experience. A case in point is the war movie that Audie Murphy (who had every decoration possible) made portraying himself in a re-enactment of his WWII exploits, well it did not approach the real thing, nor could it because Audie had no way of duplicating the agonies he had endured-before a camera. You can not duplicate fear and the horrors of war that are imbedded in the minds of those who knew what fear and horror was. Billy H.01/17/2000.