PDA

View Full Version : Red Tails



pendell
2012-01-23, 11:03 AM
I'm considering seeing the new movie by George Lucas about the exploits of the Tuskegee Airman. Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/red-tails/) hates it. They seem to want it to be more of a historical film, with more depth and less cornball.

That's why I'm asking here. The movie wasn't made to appreciated by movie critics. It was made to be appreciated by the young and young at heart. In other words, by gamers. By people like us.

So I've gotta ask -- anyone see it? Is it any good? Or is it another Phantom Menace with great special effects but little else?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-24, 11:41 PM
Haven't seen it, don't think it looks too good, but do what you want regardless of popular opinion. If you want to see it, then go so long as your fine with the possibility of wasting around $9 on a ticket and approximately 2 hours of your life, but then again, you make that risk with all movies you see in theaters.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-25, 01:41 AM
I might have gone to see it had it not had Lucas' name attached or if 2011 hadn't been such a terrible year for movies. Just to kinda snub the reactions too it since they all seem to take the line that "it deserved to be better" which got me in a spiting mood and heck movies with dog fights don't come around that often. And then this faded on my distaste for Lucas and that I have been bereft of moviegoer spirit. I literally cannot remember when I went to see something in theaters (I think it was Captain America) and I used to average about every two weeks.

I don't see anything worth seeing coming down the pipe soon except Miyazaki's latest hitting the states.

Xondoure
2012-01-25, 02:05 AM
I might have gone to see it had it not had Lucas' name attached or if 2011 hadn't been such a terrible year for movies. Just to kinda snub the reactions too it since they all seem to take the line that "it deserved to be better" which got me in a spiting mood and heck movies with dog fights don't come around that often. And then this faded on my distaste for Lucas and that I have been bereft of moviegoer spirit. I literally cannot remember when I went to see something in theaters (I think it was Captain America) and I used to average about every two weeks.

I don't see anything worth seeing coming down the pipe soon except Miyazaki's latest hitting the states.

Well we've got the Avengers and the Hobbit to look forward to down the line.

Dragonus45
2012-01-25, 02:13 AM
I went to see it, it turned out to be a fairly average movie. But it was that weird kind of average where you have some stunningly touching well done moments interspersed by moments that make you want to ask for your money back and curse god, and all that is wrapped in a solid bundle of mediocrity and ham. That said i would recommend it for a rental when it goes to dvd. Or to watch with friends that have a good sense of humor.

thubby
2012-01-25, 02:18 AM
I don't see anything worth seeing coming down the pipe soon except Miyazaki's latest hitting the states.

off topic:
FTR, this movie is fantastic.

on topic:
dang it lucas, this could have been great. it doesnt take a lot to make a pilot movie good, really.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-25, 02:33 AM
I went to see it, it turned out to be a fairly average movie. But it was that weird kind of average where you have some stunningly touching well done moments interspersed by moments that make you want to ask for your money back and curse god, and all that is wrapped in a solid bundle of mediocrity and ham. That said i would recommend it for a rental when it goes to dvd. Or to watch with friends that have a good sense of humor.

Any particular concentrations? Like is the action good but when they aren't in the air its time to grab a bathroom break? Or is it doing to whiplash randomly between good and bad?

Dragonus45
2012-01-25, 06:05 AM
The action scenes were alright, if a little overdone. Honestly the movie really touched me. There are no really really good times to hit a bathroom break since it gets so schizophrenic with the quality. But the best times to head off are the fight scenes i guess.

ThePhantasm
2012-01-25, 06:47 AM
I don't really plan on seeing it in theatres. Cornball is a good descriptor of how the trailers seemed to me.

kpenguin
2012-01-25, 10:40 AM
Is it at least the fun sort of cornball? I have a friend who wants to go see this.

pendell
2012-01-25, 11:06 AM
Wait wait wait ... there's a new Miyazaki movie? WHERE WHAT WHY WHEN? TELLL MEEEEE!

Usually respectfully but now raving in a sadly fanboyish manner not at all becoming in a 40-year-old man,

Brian P.

Xondoure
2012-01-25, 11:46 AM
Wait wait wait ... there's a new Miyazaki movie? WHERE WHAT WHY WHEN? TELLL MEEEEE!

Usually respectfully but now raving in a sadly fanboyish manner not at all becoming in a 40-year-old man,

Brian P.

The Secret World of Arriety (US name) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp2nb9Vq0yY)

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-25, 11:52 AM
Wait wait wait ... there's a new Miyazaki movie? WHERE WHAT WHY WHEN? TELLL MEEEEE!

Usually respectfully but now raving in a sadly fanboyish manner not at all becoming in a 40-year-old man,

Brian P.

Why I brought it up, I doubt the marketing will be much. Opens February 17, 2012.

t209
2012-01-25, 10:26 PM
The Secret World of Arriety (US name) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp2nb9Vq0yY)

It looks like the small people from The Borrowers (I used to watch it as a kids).
And Wiki said the the main character's name is same as Hayao Miyazaki.

Mewtarthio
2012-01-25, 11:24 PM
It looks like the small people from The Borrowers (I used to watch it as a kids).

I believe it's a new adaptation of the same book.

otakuryoga
2012-01-25, 11:40 PM
it is decent enough...haywire was better

the dogfighting was good..love story was meh at best
though the whole "blow up a Destroyer with 2 MG strafing passes"...ummm, right, sure

Xondoure
2012-01-26, 03:07 AM
I believe it's a new adaptation of the same book.

Yup, although in the same universe but otherwise completely different is probably closer. Its mentioned in the UK version but not here. Presumably because no one reads in America. :smallsigh:

pendell
2012-01-27, 12:15 PM
Well, the movie has garnered a Plinkett review (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag/red-tails/), so Red Tails has added value to the universe. Whether it added any ADDITIONAL value is up to question.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-27, 03:38 PM
I don't see anything worth seeing coming down the pipe soon except Miyazaki's latest hitting the states.

Really? You can't think of anything? Not 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_%282012_film%29), 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_knight_2), or 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%282012_film%29) films at all? Please turn over you official geek license now.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-27, 03:59 PM
Really? You can't think of anything? Not 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_%282012_film%29), 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_knight_2), or 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%282012_film%29) films at all? Please turn over you official geek license now.

After a long long fall and winter of not seeing anything my in the pipe means "remotely soon" and May is still a ways away. Besides that might make only 4 movies I see this year.

Cikomyr
2012-01-30, 07:29 PM
I really hate George Lucas to have dishonored such a rich historical legacy, one that was already the subject of a GREAT dramatic movie, to make a cheap action-based movie with CGI and no plot.

Closet_Skeleton
2012-01-30, 07:37 PM
Yup, although in the same universe but otherwise completely different is probably closer.

Its actually pretty close to the book plot wise. Unlike Howl's Moving Castle.

Karoht
2012-02-07, 03:32 PM
I really hate George Lucas to have dishonored such a rich historical legacy, one that was already the subject of a GREAT dramatic movie, to make a cheap action-based movie with CGI and no plot.

I was horrified when I saw the trailer.
WWII fighter planes? Great.
Dubstep? Eff that.

CGI effects themselves don't necessarily bother me, except in the case of events such as the the great Gopher offence in Indiana Jones. As for action sequences, it just makes sense to use CG. Star Wars Ep 1-3 don't offend me because they used CG, they offend me because they are bad movies.

If a WWII vet or a surviving family member said they were offended by the film, that would tell me everything I need to know. As it stands, I'm still curious about the film, so I'll probably wait until it's in cheapie theaters.

Hawriel
2012-02-07, 08:54 PM
it is decent enough...haywire was better

the dogfighting was good..love story was meh at best
though the whole "blow up a Destroyer with 2 MG strafing passes"...ummm, right, sure

You need to be educated.

The naval actions start at 2 min 20 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53LGJhjYICM&feature=related

The P-51 was armed with six .50 cal machineguns. I honestly can tell if the planes in the video above are P-51s, corsairs, P-38s, or P-40 thunderbolts. However they all had very similar armaments.

Here is some tuskegee gun camera footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I7Wo4iHkUU


The movie was bland, and uninspired. The writing and directing was flat. The music belonged in a made for TV movie from halmark. It was a wasted use of the casts potential.

If you want to see a good movie about the Tuskegee airmen I highly recomend Tuskege Airmen (1995) staring Laurence Fishborne. Cuba Gooding Jr. is also in it.

pendell
2012-02-08, 09:56 AM
The P-51 was armed with six .50 cal machineguns. I honestly can tell if the planes in the video above are P-51s, corsairs, P-38s, or P-40 thunderbolts. However they all had very similar armaments.


Couple points:

1) That's USAF camera footage from the ETO, right? In that case, there wouldn't be any Corsairs. The F4U Corsair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U_corsair) was built for the Navy and the Marines. The Air Force didn't use 'em. They were also used primarily in the Pacific, not Europe.

2) I think you mean the P-47 Thunderbolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt). The P-40 Warhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40_Warhawk) was a different aircraft entirely. It was obsolete long before the Red Tails were formed.

3) I could be completely mistaking what I'm seeing -- I'm not a combat vet -- but I'd be very surprised if anyone could spray a destroyer with .50 cal machine gun or 20mm cannon fire and get much result. But P-47s and P-38s could be armed with 5-inch rockets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Inch_Forward_Firing_Aircraft_Rocket), and THOSE would get a result, I think. I suspect that if anyone's shooting at a destroyer and making it blow up they're probably using rockets. They could also use bombs, but I didn't see any bombing in the footage.

ETA: While the P-47 and P-38 could be equipped with rockets, the particular model I linked is a USN weapon and probably would not have been mounted on USAF aircraft. Regrettably, I cannot find the exact weapon model that would have been used, but I think the link gives a good example of a 'typical' WWII air-to-ground rocket.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

Jimor
2012-02-09, 06:35 AM
Rockets are hardly necessary for what was seen in those videos, .50-cal will chew up a small ship pretty darned well. And while I also doubt that .50-cal ammo will penetrate a full destroyer enough to get to the boiler to blow it up, at the time the Red Tails were operating in the Mediterranean, they were far more likely to be encountering E-boats and other shore patrol sized craft, as well as cargo ships that were very vulnerable to simple machine gun fire.

thubby
2012-02-09, 08:24 AM
Rockets are hardly necessary for what was seen in those videos, .50-cal will chew up a small ship pretty darned well. And while I also doubt that .50-cal ammo will penetrate a full destroyer enough to get to the boiler to blow it up, at the time the Red Tails were operating in the Mediterranean, they were far more likely to be encountering E-boats and other shore patrol sized craft, as well as cargo ships that were very vulnerable to simple machine gun fire.

there's also the threat of hitting an ammo store. not the most likely thing ever, granted, but it happened.

Philistine
2012-02-09, 02:29 PM
The 332nd FG did fly their first combat missions in P-40s - they hadn't yet adopted the distinctive red empennage, and they were assigned to ground attack missions rather than bomber escort (the P-40 could barely reach the bombers' operational altitude, it stopped being a fighter aircraft for all practical purposes several thousand feet before then), but the unit that became famous as the "Red Tails" was operational in the MTO prior to Husky, flying P-40s.

There are stories of concentrated .50 cal fire basically sawing destroyers in half - but those refer to strafer-configured B-25s with fourteen forward-firing guns all clustered together near the centerline, not to fighters with 4-8 guns* spread along the wings. For a fighter to blow up a destroyer by strafing, yeah, you pretty much need a Golden BB into the depth charge or torpedo storage. So it shouldn't be a surprise that the ships blowing up in that gun camera footage appeared to be small coastal packet freighters and patrol boats. (I noted 2 that looked like they might have been destroyer-sized - neither of which blew up.)

* The Navy standardized on 6x .50" from mid-1942 on, but Army fighters might have 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 guns, ranging from rifle-caliber .30" machine guns to 20mm and even 37mm cannon in addition to the ubiquitous .50" Browning. In fact, the only wartime USAAF fighters to sport 6x .50" were the P-40 (standard from 1941 onward) and the P-51D (some of which reverted to the 4-gun configuration of the -B and -C in a bid to improve performance).