Jack works on his sports car and dreams of flying. His neighbor Mary is in love with him but he seems not to notice, having been smitten by the fair Sylvia, but he can't see that Sylvia has eyes only for David. The distant drums of war beckon, and Jack and David train to be pilots in the American Expeditionary Corp. Their rivalry soon evolves into camaraderie as they do aerial battle with the Germans in the skies over France. Meanwhile Mary has joined the Women's Motor Corp and despairs that Jack doesn't notice her. Two young men fall in love with the same same girl. After the US enters WWI, both join the Air Corps and become aces. They remain friends, but the relation to the girl threatens their friendship. This entertaining and occasionally impressive movie is still well worth seeing in spite of its flaws. The combat scenes alone make the rest of it worth watching, and Clara Bow gives a very good performance. She has plenty of energy as always, and here she makes her character especially sympathetic. But it has its weaknesses, too. The story is contrived and full of obvious holes, and except for Bow most of the acting is rather routine (Buddy Rogers is as likable as ever, but no more).<br/><br/>The highlights of "Wings" come in the battle scenes, and they are awfully impressive. Done without computers or other such advantages, they are exciting and are usually completely realistic. The aerial dogfight scenes are especially dazzling. This part of the movie is not shallow stuff, either, since it has a good balance between the thrilling and the horrifying. If the main story-line had been better, this could have worked very well as a classic film about the realities of war and its effects on the young persons who must carry the heaviest load in a war.<br/><br/>But unfortunately, it has the story that it has, which could easily have been better. It is far too heavy-handed, and is also riddled with unlikely coincidences, implausible developments, strange decisions by the characters, and many other such holes. If you can somehow look past all these problems, then it produces some moving and emotional moments, but such moments are too often undone by the contrived ways that they are set up. It's just the kind of mess that has often impressed the individuals who vote for well-known awards, but a movie with such strengths deserved to have a much better plot.<br/><br/>Nevertheless, it is still well worth watching for its strengths, and not just because it is the answer to some trivia questions. Just in case there are any modern movie fans who have accidentally wandered into the silents section of the database, please don't think that this is the best of what silent cinema has to offer, just because it won an arbitrary award. There are many silent film masterpieces that are vastly better than this. But it's good entertainment, and has some portions that were made with great skill. Silent movies always seem a bit, over the top. I tend to lose interest when all you hear is piano music and see overacting. I saw this was going to be on Turner Classic Movies and thought to myself, "Self, this won the first Academy Award. At least give it a shot." I am so glad I did.<br/><br/>On occasion the acting is over the top, but it seems rare. There is an actually decent soundtrack over the film and sound effects!!! The story line was good and, well, every gelled. To know (due to reading trivia here just before watching the film) that the lead actors actually flew the planes was just the icing on the cake. The aerial scenes were very well done even though at times they were a bit far off, it was countered by real, well done action.<br/><br/>Three things threw me and surprised me, taking into consideration it was made in 1927: At one point when the boys are signing up to be pilots, in the distant room others are taking their physicals. You see a line of naked guys butts. I did a double take.<br/><br/>At another point, you see Richard Arlen (David) with a German on his tail and he clearly mouths "Son of a Bitch!" Later on, you see Clara Bow's boobies. It's very brief and they're slightly obscured, but hey, again, 1927!!! I know, this is before censoring, but all three things took me aback and I think those small things thrown in just seriously kept my attention. Not that these were needed.<br/><br/>And speaking of Richard Arlen, does anyone else see a resemblance to Harrison Ford? Anyone? I'll sum up with this, it's a good movie made by a guy who knew what being a WW1 fighter pilot was all about and his experiences no doubt added to this terrific film and will enhance your experience if you watch it.<br/><br/>Say, is it just me or does the capitalization police around here get a little carried away? Just curious.
Ludvmign replied
295 weeks ago