Hell's Angels is no great shakes as a drama. The acting is for the most part servicable, sometimes mediocre, sometimes outright bad. The dialogue, average at best. And yet it gets 7.9 on IMDB's aggregate of user votes and I think I know why: The action sequences, especially considering this was made in 1930 which was not only decades before CGI but a few years before even miniature work was that good, are extraordinary. Howard Hughes, the eccentric billionaire of reality and legend, may not have been much with actors and dramatic scenes (he had to hire in then unknown but soon to be famous James Whale for those scenes since actors and drama were not of his interest), but damn did he know his way around an action/special effects sequence. Watching the action scenes in this movie makes one wonder if Hughes didn't miss his calling as a second-unit director for special effects sequences.
There are other good parts to the film as well. One was the decision to have the Germans in the film speak German, not English. That very year in the far superior All Quiet on the Western Front, the characters, all German, spoke English. Before sound came in, foreign languages weren't a problem as inter-titles took care of all dialogue anyway. But once sound became a part of the film experience directors had to decide whether to go with foreign language and subtitles or just have everyone speak English. Unfortunately, the latter became the standard until fairly recently. But not here. Hughes has the Germans not only speak German, but only provides inter-titles, not subtitles, for the stuff the viewers can't figure out on their own. All the rest is left up to the viewer to translate.
Finally, the plot itself offers a slight change of pace as it takes the old cliche of friends on opposite sides of the battle and gives it a hard-edged, unsentimental ending. [SPOILER] They all die. All of them. [END SPOILER] But mainly, it's the action sequences, the ones Hughes spent millions on, as dramatized in Martin Scorsese's lackluster The Aviator (2005) that make much of this movie worth watching. That Hughes may have been one crazy bastard but when he set his mind to putting together an action sequence, he was a genius. Below is the finale of the Zeppelin attack sequence in the movie. The sequence lasts for about twenty minutes and builds with a slow, methodical pace that reminds one of the expert pacing in the duel scene in Barry Lyndon. I've put up the last two minutes here. As all the fighter planes have been shot down, the last man standing, his machine guns jammed, makes the decision to go kamikaze on the Zeppelin to bring it down. The sequence begins beautifully, shot from overhead, as we watch the Zeppelin, motionless on the screen as the fighter plane goes from the bottom of the screen to the top, moving to the front of the Zeppelin. Then it circles back around and goes into a dive. Hughes used color combined with black and white throughout the film and this scene is no exception, as you'll see with the flames. Be sure and watch until the blazing conclusion, and note the exceptional use of sound, the airplane's engine heightening the suspense of the dive, the immense roar of the flames, the thundering crash. And remember: It was made in 1930!

72 comments:
Great stuff. I haven't seen this, but I have seen Howard Hawks' Today We Live, which incensed Hughes by "borrowing" some of the action footage from this film. The action scenes are the best parts of that film, too.
Hawks also annoyed Hughes by making the similar aerial picture The Dawn Patrol in the same year that Hughes was finally releasing Hell's Angels, and Hughes desperately tried to block the Hawks film. The Dawn Patrol is great, though, with some truly brilliant aerial action sequences.
Ed, you should see this sequences on the DVD for a much better view. I didn't realize until I had uploaded it but it's so much brighter and crisper on the DVD. I didn't realize the upload was going to look so dark and murky.
Nonetheless, it still looks great. Going in to this I was thinking Hughes was nothing more than a rich boy who made movies because he had money and could. But watching the action sequences I realized he really had a feel for it. The non-aerial parts are pretty mundane, but boy, those action scenes are terrific.
I thought the scenes in The Aviator of Hughes making this sequence were the best ... it's so energetic, it even livened up Marty's film which, as you point out, is kind of dull.
Scorsese's film just kind of wandered, going here and there, before ending long before Hughes public career ended. Which is odd because they make it seem as if he has finally gone completely schizo and it's now over. Anyway, aside from the LSD-like "come in with the milk" scene, I like the Hell's Angels filming parts the best too. And they were right at the beginning! Ugh.
I liked The Aviator. I mean, for a biopic, it's a masterpiece, and as just a movie, it's still pretty good.
Bill, a masterpiece as a biopic? Well, I don't think it's bad, just lacking any luster (if only there was a single word to illustrate that quality).
I thought Diciprio and John Reilly were both very good but overall it seemed too much of a surface brushing, especially the opening where it's implied there is no neurological disorder, which clearly with Hughes there was as a result of his head injuries suffered in crashes, but instead an overbearing mother. That's just silly. Also, why must Scorsese always have a racist statement (in this one from the mother) from a character in his movies. And I mean every movie that takes place in the states. Every damn time. goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, The Departed, and so on. Frankly, it's getting kind of creepy. Like he's sitting around in script meetings and says, "Hold on guys. No one has insulted a black man yet in the script. I'm not shooting until that happens."
Maybe Jonathan Rosenbaum is right when he says that Scorsese's films, especially Taxi Driver which he loathes, are essentially racist.
But anywho, I like The Aviator find but like I said about Zodiac, I just don't find it special.
That should be "fine" not "find."
I'm with Bill - I love "The Aviator" and I still feel it was robbed of its deserved Oscars by Mr. Eastwood and his "Million Dollar Baby."
It's a masterpiece for a biopic, most of which, I thought we were all in agreement, are pretty dull.
Off-hand, I don't remember the racist remark in the film, but look at the Scorsese movies you list, and the kinds of characters that populate those films. You don't think there's quite a bit of racist talk, or at least race-baiting, among those guys?
Ah, Jonathan Rosenbaum...passer of moral judgements based on films he's seen. Spare me.
When I said I thought "The Aviator" was kind of dull, that's what I meant ... kind of dull. Not terrible -- it's hard for Scorsese to make a terrible movie -- but just dull.
But I have to agree with Bill that the kind of characters Marty films are going to be racist, and I don't get Rosenbaum's opinion, based on my viewing of his movies.
Ah, Jonathan Rosenbaum...passer of moral judgements based on films he's seen. Spare me.
Bill, that made me laugh at my desk.
And yeah, it is the characters but it feels unnecessary most of the time. It's usually doesn't add anything to the characters for me. But anyway, biopics are kind of dull and I agree with you, this one doesn't follow the same standard structure so I give it high marks for that.
Pat, if you like it so much why don't you marry it?
Sorry, that was uncalled for.
Like Rick just said, I found it lackluster, not terrible. And I wasn't kidding in my response to Rick that I love the "come in with the milk" sequence. I thought that was shot, edited and handled perfectly.
That was a great sequence, and I think it's really a handful of moments and scenes like that elevate the film for me. For stretches, it has a hell of a lot more energy than most such films.
Oh, and since we're kinda sorta talking about biopics, I figure that I might as well say that I saw Milk yesterday, and, while I still despise Sean Penn (as a person), he was pretty damn good in the film. Most of the time, while watching it, I thought, "That's Harvey Milk" as opposed to "Sean Penn is acting at me." Still not as good as Mickey Rourke, but pretty damn good.
Bill, I kind of liked Milk, and kind of wrote about it over at my place (<-- shameless plug).
I thought Penn was terrific, but Van Sant's treatment of the tragedy a little too pat (not Pat, just pat).
I still haven't seen it so I passed on Rick's Thoughts on Milk post, not to mention I thought he was talking about the liquid substance as opposed to the movie. I was going to do a Thoughts on Donuts post as a kind of add-on until I realized he was talking about the movie.
I wonder how the Scorsese directed Teddy Roosevelt biopic will be. It stars, of course, Leo in the lead.
I'll check it out, Rick. I never read your review, though I knew it was there, because I hadn't seen it, but now I shall. Well, later on today I will, when I get back from where I'm about to go.
I forgot to add, when I think Teddy Roosevelt, I think Leonardo DiCaprio.
I wonder how the Scorsese directed Teddy Roosevelt biopic will be. It stars, of course, Leo in the lead.
That'll come out right around the time that Spielberg's film about Lincoln does.*
*And Liam Neeson's recent tragedy has nothing to do with why I'm not holding my breath for Spielberg's film. In case anyone thought I was making a tasteless joke.
I forgot to add, when I think Teddy Roosevelt, I think Leonardo DiCaprio.
What is it? The squinty eyes?
Way to make a tasteless joke Bill.
Rick, actually it's the rotund build and walrus moustache.
I like The Aviator a lot, I think it's sleekly directed with marvelous set design. But you just have to overlook Leo. No need to beat around the bush: He's miscast in every single Scorsese movie, but he's also the only way they got made, so you just have to roll with it.
Zodiac is very good/borderline great, but it helps to be in the newspaper business to appreciate it even more. And to have been in the business when newspapers were still like that.
By the way, I'm still calling ya Lapper. It's more poetic.
But DiCaprio for all my poking fun at him does a good job as Hughes. He doesn't have the look or feel of Hughes at all, like a Tommy Lee Jones (The Amazing Howard Hughes), but still he does okay.
As for Zodiac, I say it's very good. Working in the industry might help appreciate it sure, but its quality should be apparent regardless. I think it is apparent but I don't see anything in it that's one for the ages. Just a very good investigative police procedural.
And the name's Greg. I'm not going around calling you the Shamus anymore am I?
Why are we dissing Spielberg's Lincoln before a single shot of it has been filmed....
Why are we dissing Spielberg's Lincoln before a single shot of it has been filmed....
That's just Bill. He does that all the time. Even now he keeps telling me how shitty the Best Picture Oscar winner of 2017 is.
I think he's from the future.
That's just Bill. He does that all the time. Even now he keeps telling me how shitty the Best Picture Oscar winner of 2017 is.
Well, regardless of quality or hype, I doubt Spielberg is ever going to direct another film to a Best Picture win. I don't think he'll ever catch the self-important zeitgeist as he did with Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Munich was nominated, but more for its subject matter than anything else (I would imagine. IMO, Munich is leaps and bounds above the other two)
I think he's from the future.
That's what he wants you to think.
But why does he want me to think that? See that's what I'm suspicious of.
I also thought Munich was the best of those three but still not without its problems. Bill will let us know if Spielberg wins any more Oscars.
But why does he want me to think that? See that's what I'm suspicious of.
To keep the truth about him from ever getting out!
Bill will let us know if Spielberg wins any more Oscars.
Outside of his obligatory honorary, I'd be surprised. He's been about pleasing himself these last few years. That usually doesn't get one many oscars.
Depends how you please yourself I suppose. I please myself in private so I'm not eligible.
I suppose I deserved that.
Wait...I thought Spielberg's Lincoln movie was coming out in the next few weeks, with Matthew Perry and Zac Efron playing Lincoln at different stages in his life? I've been seeing the trailer everywhere.
I'm pretty sure I didn't just dream the whole thing up.
BLH, you're thinking of Francis Ford Coppola's Rutherford B. Hayes movie R.B. Hayes and the Reconstruction All-Stars. Easy to mix them up.
That's with Billy Dee Williams, right?
Man, Coppola's post-70's career is chock full of hidden gems.
Speaking of Hughes, I caught part of THE ROCKETEER on TV the other night, and was reminded of how much fun Terry O'Quinn's Howard Hughes is in that film. I doubt it's at all historically accurate (I don't think a film about a pilot zooming around Hollywood with a rocket strapped to his back is worried about accuracy), but O'Quinn's tough-talking, charismatic Hughes makes an interesting contrast to DiCaprio's (which i also liked). And I enjoy O'Quinn in just about everything I've seen him in.
BLH, you said a mouthful. Or a chockful at the least.
Brian, I also like Dean Stockwell's brief appearance as him in Tucker (speaking of Coppola). And also, just so we're all clear, Terry O'Quinn is one of the most underappreciated actors of the last 25 years. He's marvelous in everything he does. I actually watched Millenium because of him and that's saying something. Eventually, when the series is over (I always wait for the series to over) I'll watch him in Lost too.
O'Quinn is fantastic. I really like Lost -- especially the current season -- and he's consistently one of the best, most interesting actors to watch on that show. The episodes centered around him -- and his frequent onscreen sparring partner Michael Emerson -- are often among the best the series has to offer.
The episodes centered around him -- and his frequent onscreen sparring partner Michael Emerson -- are often among the best the series has to offer.
Freakin' end already Lost so I can watch you.
FYI - I hate watching shows when they are still in their run. See, I'll catch up on the DVD and then like it and feel obligated to catch the new shows and so on. As it is every single night is mine (after the kids are taken care of) and my wife and I never sit down to watch a show together, only old movies. So that's why, for the curious, I avoid them while they're still on. Once it ends I can watch the whole run of the show in one week, one month or one year. However I want to.
God I love DVDs!
What about The Young & The Restless? How do you watch that?
Well, it'll end in 2010, so you don't have too long to wait.
I completely sympathize, though: I don't like having too many shows to watch regularly. I catch up with a lot of stuff after it's over, and for the few ongoing shows I watch, I download the new episodes so, much like you, I can watch them at my leisure.
And actually, Lost seems like a great show to catch up to on DVD. During the first couple of seasons, it could be maddening to watch from week to week, especially with big gaps when it'd be off the air. It plays much better on the DVDs when you can watch a whole season in a much more condensed way.
BLH, I'm still waiting for Guiding Light to end! I mean, damn, it's been 72 years. Hurry up and wrap up the story why don't you?
Ed, I also love that so many classic shows are available online now. I've been catching up on classic Twilight Zone and Outer Limits episodes lately.
I look forward to watching Lost soon though, I've heard so many good things about it.
Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson on Lost are the two greatest things that have ever been.
I wasn't trying to rag on Lincoln. I'd really like Spielberg to make it (I don't hate Spielberg like Greg does), I just don't think he will. He's been talking about it for about ten years now.
Fox is going to win an Oscar in 2022. I can't tell you what for, but it's pretty surprising.
I've always found Michael Emerson a little one-note on Lost. It's a compelling note, I guess; but he plays everything as if he were the rapist-of-the-week on Law and Order: SVU.
I think it's hilarious how Emerson is able to make virtually anything sound sinister. In recent episodes, he's had innocuous lines like "That's my lawyer" and "I didn't account for traffic," and they've been played like big dramatic lines with these foreboding overtones. I think the show's very self-aware and has a lot of fun with Emerson's creepy portrayal of Ben.
And as long as we're talking Lost actors, Henry Ian Cusick and Jeremy Davies certainly deserve some mention. It's interesting that, other than O'Quinn's Locke and a couple of others, most of the best actors/characters on the show were introduced after the first season.
It certainly seems like the pilot was cast with an eye towards the typical JJ Abrahms set; and the show-runners have spent the intervening years surrounding that initial group with actors of genuine interest.
Has anyone been keeping track of how many former residents of Deadwood have popped up on Lost?
Fox is going to win an Oscar in 2022. I can't tell you what for, but it's pretty surprising.
It's Best Actress isn't it? For some reason I see a sex change in Fox's future. And he'll do it for a trivial reason like, "I wanted to see what it would be like to fondle my own breasts."
Or no wait. Maybe he wins for his documentary about the sex change.
Ed, BLH - I can't join in the discussion because not only have I not seen Lost, I have avoided all detailed descriptions of it. So when I do see it I'll be going into it fresh.
Now then, is it really going to wrap up next season? I really hope so. After five or six seasons even the best shows start to crumble. Plus, it won't take me forever to get through them all.
Davies and Cusick are both really good, and so is Nestor Carbonell(sp?) and...whoever plays Juliet. Can't remember her name. The thing about that show, though, is that they'll suddenly introduce a new character, and you won't get much background on him, but they cast just the right actor pretty much every time, so you believe the character right out of the gate. Like that new guy. With the long hair and glasses. What's his name. You know. Anyway, he's good.
Now then, is it really going to wrap up next season?
I believe so. If the creators had their way, it would have ended last season. The network wants it to go on forever, and the creators wanted it to be three or four seasons. They ended up compromising.
Bill, I never heard the creators wanted it to end last season. Around the middle of Season 3, they settled on a solid six-season timeline and set the end date. It's now definitely going to end after the sixth season, and they've supposedly had at least the last three seasons roughly planned out for quite some time.
Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliet) is another great actor/character. I've got a big TV crush on her.
And by the "new guy," you mean Horace (Doug Hutchinson)? Because he's been on the show a few times before this season -- proof that it can be really hard to keep track of all the characters on this show over time. He's really good, though. As BLH said, some of the original cast was a little sketchy, but most of the actors introduced after the first season have been really solid.
I have also really enjoyed the cameo role by the guy who died behind the diner in Mulholland Dr.. I only ever knew him as that, so it's been kinda surreal to see him in any other part.
Ed - The show has been mapped out for six seasons for a long time, true, but I'm pretty sure that, in its inception, the creators ideally wanted it to be three or four seasons.
Horace, yeah, that's the guy. Has he been on before?? Christ. There is so much that I'm sure I don't remember about the past seasons. Right now, I just go with the flow, because the writers, directors, and etc. have proven to me that I'm in good hands.
Yeah, Elizabeth Mitchell. I have a crush on her, too. I want Juliet and Sun to get their own spin-off. I'd rather not tell you what it's about, but, suffice it to say, they wouldn't be able to show it on network TV.
I'd like to take a moment and defend Matthew Fox, who frequently gets kicked around both for the character he plays and for his acting. I like Jack! And I think Fox is good! LEAVE HIM ALONE, EVERYBODY!
"Yeah, Elizabeth Mitchell. I have a crush on her, too. I want Juliet and Sun to get their own spin-off. I'd rather not tell you what it's about, but, suffice it to say, they wouldn't be able to show it on network TV."
I'm sure you've seen the movie Gia...
And, uh, Matthew Fox basically just isn't very good at acting. Objectively.
And while we're on the subject of interesting actors that have been added to the show to help distract from Matthew Fox, how about Jeff Fahey? As Bill was saying, the writers didn't need to give him one of the show's typical backstory episodes. We just got what his character was about because of the casting.
I'm sure you've seen the movie Gia...
I have. You guessed the secret of my spin-off idea.
And, uh, Matthew Fox basically just isn't very good at acting. Objectively.
Uh, I think you've mixed up the definition of "objectively" and "subjectively". You goof!
Fahey's also great. It took me forever to figure out it was him, though.
You know, I actually think Matthew Fox is not bad on the show -- the problem is that his character's kind of obnoxious and annoying, and he's a little too good at portraying that.
And yeah, Horace has appeared in a few of Ben's flashbacks before, he was one of the few Dharma guys who appeared prior to this season.
What is so obnoxious about Jack? That's what I don't get. Sure, he has his moments, but by and large, if it weren't for him, everybody on that island would have died within a week. He can be annoying if he wants to be.
A lot of people don't like characters who are Boy Scouts, but I don't get why.
He's a hair dryer with only two settings.
I don't know what that means. I thought it sounded neat.
So what I'm getting from all this is I should do a post on Lost. 'Cause I don't know what anyone's talking about.
General question to Bill, Ed and BLH - Do you think the creators really know what they're doing with the story? What I mean is this. For years George Lucas assured us he had already written the whole saga and we should trust him. By the time we were barely into the second trilogy it was clear he was pulling stuff out of his ass.
So do think Abrams and the Lost Boys really know how it's going to end or is next season going to be a desperate attempt to tie up legions of loose ends and give us some bizarre surreal ending, like Quantum Leap did, as a way of covering up they really didn't know how to end it?
Or they could take a page from the Stephen King "I painted myself into a corner and don't know what to do" book and have everything blow up/burn down (The Shining, The Stand, Needful Things, Carrie, Firestarter, etc.).
Stephen King's wife: "What's the matter honey?"
King: "I can't figure out how to end this story."
Wife: "Have you thought of blowing everything up?"
King: "Eureka!"
General question to Bill, Ed and BLH - Do you think the creators really know what they're doing with the story?
Yes, I believe they do. NOW I believe they do, at least. I wasn't always so convinced, but I think it's pretty hard to believe otherwise at this stage. For a long time, the biggest complaint people had with the show was that it never moved forward, no questions were ever answered. Well, that's not the case anymore, and you can reall sense things coming to a head now. Whether the big finale will be worth it or not is something that keeps me up nights, but they do have a destination in mind.
I think it shows that the guys in charge didn't know exactly how long the show was going to last until the middle of season 3. During the first half of that season, it's apparent that the writers have no clear idea what they're going to do with these characters; and so they did absolutely nothing with them. A whole lot of wheel-spinning, that.
Since that point, however, and especially during these last two seasons, the show really has seemed to be heading towards some pre-destined location. It's felt like a circuit closing.
And, without saying too much, I don't think the structure that the show has taken on lately would work very well if the writers didn't have a clear idea of where the pieces fit in the overall picture. So, whatever, I believe them.
So can I just skip season 3 and still follow the story?
Oh and by the way, the three of you have me incredibly psyched now for this show. How much do DVRs cost these days? Maybe I can watch seasons 1-5 on DVD and record next season to watch without commercials or time constraints.
I think that *now* they do know exactly where they're going, and have known since at least the middle of season 3. I think it's very obvious at this point that they have a clear grasp on their storytelling. Before that, the show sometimes seemed to be wandering semi-randomly and doing a lot of the kind of filler that you see on TV shows when they want to keep things from moving too fast. Starting with the second half of Season 3, however, the show picked up momentum substantially, and has been moving at a fast and very satisfying pace ever since.
Personally, I think that before that point, they had some ideas about where they were going, but nothing firm, and since they didn't know how long the show would last, there was a lot of time-wasting and unnecessary diversions. Once they set an end date, the increased sense of purpose was readily apparent. They started telling very different kinds of stories almost immediately after announcing the hard six-season timeline.
Also Greg, while there are undeniably weak stretches in Season 2 and the early episodes of Season 3, I think you really do have to watch the whole show to get the most out of it. It's not the kind of show where you can just skip things and still get everything. Some things that were tiresome at the time they originally aired have even turned out to tie into later seasons in interesting ways.
And anyway, after some initial stumbling, Season 3 got *really* good and even features a few of the series' best episodes. Stretches of Season 2 could probably be skipped safely with less damage to the overall experience: that's certainly the weakest season as a whole. Even there, I at least found a lot to enjoy about those episodes.
Personally, I think that before that point, they had some ideas about where they were going, but nothing firm, and since they didn't know how long the show would last, there was a lot of time-wasting and unnecessary diversions.
There was a lot of padding, but I think that's entirely due to the fact that the network was forcing them to run the show for a couple of seasons longer than they wanted, and not necessarily because they didn't know where they were going with the story. I'm not saying they had the WHOLE thing planned out, because I don't think any show like this ever does, but they had an end point. But once they hit that season 3 cliffhanger (which is still one of the greatest cliffangers I've ever seen), there was no looking back, and they were able to start telling the story at the pace they always wanted to.
Just to get back to O'Quinn -- look at the last couple of Locke-centric episodes (and many others throughout the run of the series). If he'd given that performance in a feature film, it would probably be hailed as one of the best performances of the year. As it stands, maybe he'll get an Emmy out of it. But I think he probably views Locke as the role of a lifetime regardless, so he's not sweating it. But God, is he fantastic on this show.
I don't know how much DVRs cost. I'll ask the wife.
If he'd given that performance in a feature film, it would probably be hailed as one of the best performances of the year.
I of course haven't seen the show but I don't doubt that statement for a moment. Like I said, one of the most underappreciated actors working. After The Stepfather he should have landed one juicy feature role after another. Hollywood can be very stupid sometimes.
I was very pleased to O'Quinn win an Emmy for LOST a couple of years ago-- I've only seen a handful of episodes, but he was very good on them. And I kind of took it as a career award for decades of overlooked, excellent character work on TV.
I was upset at the time that Gerald McRaney was overlooked in the same category. That was a hell of a performance.
Anyone ever see O'Quinn as the multiple personalities murderer on L.A. Law, where at the end he becomes the protective mother ala Norman Bates? Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!
Well, Guiding Light is ending.
I'll start watching immediately.
Stick with it. It gets really good around season 34.
Post a Comment