Wings (1927) User Reviews

A great epic silent film

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 3 May 2023]

The first movie to win the Best Picture Oscar was this terrific WW1 aviation epic from Paramount Pictures and director William Wellman. Charles "Buddy" Rogers stars as Jack Powell, a small town guy who quickly joins up for the Air Corps when the US enters World War One. He's joined by David Armstrong (Richard Arlen), the town rich kid. Both Jack and David are in love with Sylvia Lewis (Jobyna Ralston), although Sylvia only feels the same about David. Top-billed Clara Bow is Mary Preston, Jack's girl-next-door who is secretly in love with him, so much so that she joins the ambulance corps in order to get sent overseas, too. Someone should have pointed out to her just how big France is. Jack and David become close friends in the crucible of war, but life is often short for a fighter pilot.

The aerial photography is truly incredible, and is the real highlight, although the ground warfare scenes are huge in scope and well-choreographed. The performances are all very good. Rogers and Arlen have a real bromance, and both exude star power. Cooper made quite a splash in an early, very small role. Bow is fun, but her scenes almost seem to be from a different movie. The movie also won an Oscar for Best Engineering Effects, a precursor to the special effects award. While this doesn't quite rise to the epic heights of The Big Parade, this is very good, and makes a good companion piece with that film in their depiction of "the Great War". Recommended.

a little dated here and there, but overall a great film

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 28 June 2005]

In many ways, I enjoyed this film more than the more expensive HELL'S ANGELS (which Howard Hughes RE-SHOT after its initial completion in order to make it a sound picture)--even though it was a silent film. That's because for a silent movie, it's nearly as good as you're going to find, whereas the primitive sound of Hell's Angels and less engaging plot left me feeling a bit flat--though its flying sequence were clearly better and more spectacular than those in WINGS.

Clara Bow is excellent as the sweet lead of the film whose two friends go off to war. This is a far better showcase of her talents than the equally famous movie "IT" (which did NOT age as well).

Richard Arlen and Buddy Rogers also did fine jobs in the movie, though special recognition must also be given to the cinematography--the movie is just beautiful in spots and the aerial sequences are amazing for 1927! The only down side? Occasionally, there are melodramatic lapses in the pacing--such as the drinking scene where they talk about BUBBLES incessantly. This seems to be due mostly to the style of the day, and for what it was, it was a brilliant picture. I can easily see why it got the first Best Picture award.

Dated, true...but entertaining

[poikkeus · 7/10 · 2 May 2010]

You could justifiably criticize WINGS lesser moments: the naive, "gee-whiz" dialog...the less than comedic "champagne" sequence in Paris...any of the romantic scenes...the idealized view of military life.... But as light entertainment, WINGS manages to hold its own, despite the passage of years. The battle scenes, easily the highlight of the film, may not have the intensity of later films, but the narrative is clear and precise. And this was not meant to be the last word in documentary accuracy: it's an adventure film tinged with romance, with engaging aerial fight scenes that capture your attention whenever they occur.

And personally, I felt that the music from the Wurlitzer organ tied together the film's various themes, musical and narrative, quite tidily.

A Stunning Achievement

[drednm · 21 October 2007]

Famous of course for winning the first Oscar for best film, WINGS is also one hell of a good film. Spectacular aerial photography highlights the terrific performances of the three leads: Clara Bow, Buddy Rogers, and Richard Arlen. Director William Wellman creates a solid and moving anti-war statement as he shows us the brutality and stupidity of war, its waste of youth, and its power to destroy the lives of all involved.

The film starts with star-crossed lovers in a small town in America. Bow loves Rogers but he loves Jobyna Ralston. Ralston loves Arlen and he loves her but through a mistake, Arlen thinks she loves Rogers. Then the boys go off to war. The outgoing Rogers thinks the war will be an adventure; the shy Arlen goes off, leaving his devastated parents who cannot express their emotions. Bow soon goes off to be an ambulance driver. Ralston stays homes and waits.

The story follows the rivalry and growing friendship of the boys as they head for war. The story ends in yet another bitter mistake. The viewer is as emotionally drained by the end of this film as the parents were at the beginning.

El Brendel provides some comedy relief. Roscoe Karns has a small part. Henry B. Walthall and Julia Swayne Gordon are the parents. And Gary Cooper has one brief scene with Rogers and Arlen. The scene in which he turns and flashes that famous smile as he exits the tent supposedly made him a star.

Clara Bow is solid as the spirited home-town girl who chases Rogers to no avail. She's gorgeous here and she is even moreso in the Paris scene where the matron lets her borrow a snappy and dazzling dress. Few women in film history have been able to be so sexually charismatic as Clara Bow. She's also a good actress.

Richard Arlen and Buddy Rogers give their best performances here. Each takes turns as the center of attention as they become men during the grueling war. Their flight scenes are incredibly well done. Arlen's flight scene as he races toward the American lines is amazing.

Jobyna Ralston has a rare memorable film not working with Harold Lloyd. And Henry B. Walthall is quietly grand as the crippled father.

Wellman's direction and the camera work of Harry Perry are beyond perfection. The aerial battles are breathtaking as are the scenes where they blow up the German blimps. There's also one astounding scene in the beginning of the film where Ralston and Arlen are in a swing. The camera is mounted in a stationary position in front of the actors so we see the scene as though we are in the swing with them. Then suddenly in the background we see Rogers in his jalopy pulling up in the street. The swing stops and Ralston gets out and runs to Rogers (in the background) while we see the close-up of Arlen as he twists in the swing seat and turns to watch them. It's an amazing scene and all one shot.

This film is a must see.

Deserves DVD release!

[jfmcmahan · 10/10 · 23 June 2004]

I was fortunate to view this film at the Academy of Motion Pictures' Diamond celebration screening series for all the Best Picture winners last year. A newly restored print in pristine condition was beautifully paired with a live performance of the musical score by an eleven-piece ensemble. As a relative novice to silent era films I was struck by the acting, aerial stunt work, sophisticated camera work and great storytelling. As I was watching I couldn't help but think that this 1927 film has so much more to offer than many contemporary attempts at the war/action genre.

As the trend for releasing forgotten classics on DVD continues, I make a very loud plea to add Wings to the list. This masterful bit of film-making history deserves a much wider audience.

I Am Very Impressed With This Amazing Awarded Epic

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 19 February 2006]

In 1917, Jack Powell (Charles 'Buddy' Rogers) is a young man with passion for cars. His next door neighbor is Mary Preston (Clara Bow), who is in deep love for him, but Jack does not notice her. Jack indeed loves Sylvia Lewis (Jobyna Ralston), but she is in love with the rich David Armstrong (Richard Arlen). When USA enters in World War I, Jack and David join the Air Force to fight in France and become pals. Mary joins the Women's Motor Corp, trying to be close to Jack. But it is war, and a tragedy happen between the two friends.

I am very impressed with this amazing awarded epic. "Wings" was recently released on DVD by the Brazilian distributor Continental, and in spite of the Japanese subtitles along the story, it was a worthwhile shopping. The story is fantastic, and the air sequences are awesome. I would like to have an idea of the cost of this ahead of time production, with these anthological battles in the air. I can not imagine how these shootings were achieved, in such angles, considering the cinema technology of 1927. The story raises an anti-war flag with the tragic end, and has realistic sequences that are impressive even in the present days. As a curiosity, Gary Cooper, in the role of Cadet White, has a very short participation, due to his affair with the famous actress Clara Bow. "Wings" is a highly recommended movie, even for audiences that do not like silent movies. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Asas" ("Wings")

Remains really well made and impressive!!

[secondtake · 7/10 · 2 September 2012]

Wings (1927)

An epic WWI movie that uses all the classic approaches to a war film and has a lot of great battle footage. It's a tale of rivalry over a girl, of fighting for country (and against the Germans), and of facing death. There are several scenes that make death really gruesome--blood spurting from a pilot's mouth, or a man crushed under a tank--that took me by surprise. I didn't know that such a mainstream American film would go there.

"Wings" is in a way exactly what American movies would look like thereafter--not just war movies, but all of them. By that I don't mean directors studied this movie and it was the inspiration from here on. But just that the story line, the romance, and even the filming, adventurous but straight on, with more attention to characters and plot than visual effect, all of this would be how films would be made for decades. Including many more by the director, William Wellman, who is one of handful of truly expert but never quite daring and inventive directors of classic Hollywood.

To back this up neatly, compare this film to the other film that jointly won Best Picture this year (the first year the Oscars were given, and the only year when the best picture category had two separate parts). That is Murnau's "Sunrise." Never mind which is better ("Sunrise," easily by most accounts). Notice how this film is utterly conservative and "conventional" in its approach to the art of making movies. It's superbly well done, but well within the rules of the time. Yes, there are moments of inspiration, including some double-exposed stock where a scene takes play in the sky over another scene on the ground. But "Sunrise" shows the lyrical art of the camera, and of editing, and of a less literal kind of storytelling. "Wings" is probably much easier to watch for most people--that's the idea. But "Sunrise" is far more engaging and complex, begging you to watch it twice. I doubt anyone needs to see "Wings" a second time.

But then, I have to admit the acting makes more sense in this film. The naturalism of the three leads helps you get emotionally involved. The most famous by far is the woman, Paramount's biggest star, Clara Bow. She doesn't get a huge role (the men do the fighting and flying) but at least when she's there she's a treat. The flying is actually done by the actors, and many of the people involved were veterans (including Wellman, who was a WWI pilot himself).

It's pretty exciting to find this so exciting all these years later. Give it a look. It's been restored really well (there's even a new Blu-Ray release). And it looks great. Don't expect anything new from the story or the filmmaking, but just expect a really well made high drama affair.

Blockbuster, 1927 style

[gbill-74877 · 9/10 · 29 April 2020]

Loved this one. It's a blockbuster 1927 style with fantastic war footage, both in the air and on the ground. Clara Bow is a delight, and while her role is on the small side, she lights up the screen every time she appears. Both leading men (Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen) are great, full of screen presence and in Arlen's case especially, conveying the trauma of war with his eyes. Director William A. Wellman spares no expense in the grand scenes with all those extras, but also demonstrates sophisticated camera work, with different types of angles, tracking shots, and one early on in a swing, giving the film a feeling of being ahead of its time. The shots in Paris, including at a nightclub, are fantastic. It was also unafraid to show two male friends in a tender embrace at a critical moment.

The two men are actually rivals for a woman other than Bow (Jobyna Ralston) and hate each other's guts initially, but form a friendship during basic training. It would have been easy for the film to make the guy from an affluent background (Arlen) a jerk, but we see him lovingly say goodbye to his parents and then later demonstrate his courage and honor, an aspect I liked. On the other hand, the film mostly moves along plot lines you can see coming, and there are lots of things you'll have to forgive about it. The plot points that have their lives intertwining once the war starts are highly contrived, and the film stretches on at points, such as all the bubbles in the Paris nightclub or in the war footage at the end. For me, these were not issues, as happy as I was with what I was seeing.

My biggest concern was that the film was going to understate the horror of war or in some way glamorize it, and maybe it does that a little bit, but the final half hour or so certainly doesn't. Countless men die horrible deaths, randomly, and while the film proudly shows the Allied side as victorious, the way Arlen's character dies hints (possibly unintentionally) at the fact that, at a higher level, all men are brothers. The film holds nothing back in showing us parental devastation at learning that their son has been killed, demonstrating the true human cost to war. I also appreciated its depiction of Americans of German descent, showing them as just as patriotic as anyone else despite suspicions against them, and in its depiction of Germans, with one of their aerial aces showing uncommon mercy during a battle scene (even though that's also pretty contrived).

It's all a bit melodramatic and something I would not like as much in a modern film, but to see all this in 1927 was impressive to me, and very enjoyable.

Has the distinctive honor of being the first Best Picture winner ever

[cricketbat · 7/10 · 31 October 2018]

Wings has the distinctive honor of being the first Best Picture winner ever. It deserves that award. This is an impressive film. Long before the days of green screens or CGI, the aerial stunts and war scenes are realistic and they're absolutely remarkable. This film also has some genuinely good acting and some emotionally charged moments. Wings is well worth a watch.

A classic of the silent age - great, gritty WW1 aviation drama

[grantss · 9/10 · 20 January 2017]

Two young men from the same town but different social classes end up as fighter pilots in WW1. Jack Preston is a keen auto mechanic, building and modifying cars. David Armstrong comes from a wealthy family. They are both in love with the same woman, Sylvia. Her heart belongs to David but she doesn't let Jack know and plays along with his infatuation. Meanwhile, Jack's neighbour, Mary, is deeply in love with him but he just views her as a friend. WW1 interrupts the romantic entanglements as Jack and David enlist in the US Army Air Service (Air Service of the AEF at the time). They are initially bitter enemies, due to them both vying for Sylvia's affections. Over time, however, they become very good friends. They are both posted to the same fighter squadron in France, where being a fighter pilot means every day could easily be your last.

Incredibly gritty and accurate war drama, especially for its time. Doesn't glamorize war at all and shows the dangers and bloodshed very well. Helped by some superb action scenes. With no CGI available, the staging of the dogfights and massive land battles must have been a huge undertaking. It is worthwhile in the end as the action scenes are incredibly realistic and engaging.

Solid, emotional plot that ties everything up rather well. While this is almost as much a romantic drama as a war drama, the movie doesn't overdo the schmaltz.

Great work Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen as Jack and David, respectively. Clara Bow shows why she was THE actress of the late 1920s, giving a wonderful performance as Mary. Incredibly gorgeous, while absolutely nailing the free-spirited, self-reliant tomboyishness of Mary.

The cast also includes Gary Cooper in a minor role.

The nuances of silent movies do take a bit of getting used to, initially. You keep expecting to see captions for dialogue, but often none come. This is because, other than for important or scene- setting dialogue, the director leaves it to the viewer to figure out what was being said. The performances are much more physically expressive than what we would expect today, to convey what is being said and what is going on.

Wings won the first ever Best Picture Oscar, in 1929. Technically the award was shared, as in that year (and that year only) Best Picture was split into two categories, Best Picture, Production and Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production.

Dated yet impressive

[garciarohe-55649 · 7/10 · 8 September 2019]

Wings is not only the first film to win the academy award for best picture, but it's also a extremely well crafted movie, especially for it's time. The arial cinematography and the acting by the main leads is what kept me invested throughout. With that said, the editing and some of the acting felt extremely out of place. While some actors seemed to be giving their all to this project, others we're acting extremely over the top, and it simply didn't fit. The accompanying track that seemingly played on loop throughout the movie also started to get annoying after a while. In the end, this movie is a technical marvel of it's time, but you can't help but look at it and see how dated it is. If you don't like silent films, stay away from this one. But If you simply want to see what film was like almost a century ago, this would be a perfect place to start. Also, the message that war is stupid and that sending our youth to their impending death, is pretty nuanced for it's time, and I have to commend it for that.

"A mighty maelstrom"

[Steffi_P · 9/10 · 21 November 2011]

It was 1927, Lindbergh had just crossed the Atlantic and the American public had all temporarily gone "plane crazy". It was also the pinnacle of an era (that began with the earliest epics and lasted until the Great Depression) when special effects meant doing everything for real, no matter how gargantuan the task. In practise this tended to mean building things and then, one way or another, blowing them up. In the case of Wings, the first in a series of popular aviation movies, this means everything from rural villages to gas-filled airships. The fact that very little here is faked lends the pictures of this time an exciting realism that has rarely been equalled since.

Director William Wellman was a good choice for a movie about aerial combat, having been a flyer himself during the war. Whether or not his knowledge was of practical use, he certainly retained a love of speed and action which informs his style behind the camera, keeping the motion of the picture going. Sometimes this is for the benefit of the story – such as the attention-grabbing introductions of Charles Rogers rolling over to look at the sky or Clara Bow peeping through her washing line. Other times, it seems simply to keep up the spirit of manly go-getting; for example when El Brendel shows of his Stars and Stripes tattoo, he doesn't simply role up his sleeve, he leaps to his feet and knocks over the chair. For the scenes in Paris, Wellman always keeps lots of movement going on in the background even though the action itself is more sedate. And despite the almost constant pace, he is still able to make certain moments stand out, displaying a really imaginative approach at times. He shoots the Gotha bomber from below and in shadow, making it look like a monster emerging from its lair.

Wings sees notorious floozy Clara Bow in one of her few screen appearances that does not revolve around her sexuality (although that does get a brief look-in). Nevertheless her vivacious personality stands out, and she makes an eye-catching and likable heroine, very much in contrast to the more traditional-looking Jobyna Ralston, who plays the "other" girl. The lead men, Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen, don't seem exactly amazing when considered individually and yet the rapport between them becomes intensely apparent, and it is they who bring poignancy to some of the later scenes. While little of the acting is exceptionally good, none of it is exceptionally bad either, with a tendency towards understatement that was rare in silent movies. Even Rogers's bubble-obsessed drunk act isn't too cringeworthy. By the way, Gary Cooper fans should be wary, as Wings is sometimes touted as a Cooper movie, although he was just a bit player at the time and his appearance here is only slightly longer than that of Clara Bow's breasts.

Although it's long been difficult to see a copy of, Wings is still well-known among buffs for being the Academy Awards' first Best Picture. At the time however the award was called "Outstanding Production", which actually seems like the more fitting term. Back then, the Oscars were very even-handed, with few pictures being awarded or even considered for more than one. Wings does not contain the best performances, the best writing or the best anything. It is however a picture that is most impressive as a complete package. It is ultimately one of the crowning achievements of silent era movie production.

Wings still soars...but not so high

[DPMay · 6/10 · 5 January 2016]

Obviously films made almost a century ago are going to look dated but even so, Wings has not aged particularly well. Certain silent films such as Greed, The Crowd, The Gold Rush, Nosferatu, Safety Last or The Wind are just as effective nowadays as they were when they were first released.

The big draw towards Wings back in the Nineteen-Twenties was for its spectacular and innovative depiction of air combat during World War I and for the time these scenes were handled well and largely 'done for real' when there wasn't CGI technology to fall back on. When viewed now, however, the air battles seem overlong and unspectacular, and the constant interruption with descriptive captions hardly helps either. The problem is that they've just been bettered so many times since. Wings couldn't, and doesn't, compare well with something like, say, Pearl Harbor (2001), a modern equivalent in many respects.

Luckily, Wings has more going for it than just aerial duels and I found that its strengths lay in its human drama rather than the action scenes as it sports a good cast on top of their game with a plot centred around two friends who are both love rivals for the same girl, a situation complicated further by another girl whose love for one of the protagonists is unrequited.

Here and there are some moments of great innovation with the camera and even some unexpected turns of the plot - for example, and most unusually for a war movie of the time, the enemy is not portrayed as wholly evil.

Although Wings is essentially a serious film, there are some comedy sequences along the way which I found tedious and unfunny (much involving El Brendel's character). The business with the champagne bubbles extended way past the point of interest. And yet other moments are strangely absent: What happened to Jobyna Ralston's character at the end?

A triumph in its day, Wings is still very watchable, but there are other films from the same period which can still offer a much richer viewing experience.

Not a Bad Movie, If You Can Get Past the Bubbles

[disinterested_spectator · 5/10 · 7 December 2014]

Except for Clara Bow, I did not recognize the main actors in this movie, but that is not unusual for a silent film. So when I saw Gary Cooper, I was stunned, especially when it turned out that he only had a bit part. It is hard to believe that the producer of this movie did not immediately see his star quality. As for the two principal male characters in the film, the one named Dave is obviously doomed. The sad farewell to his parents is the first clue. Then he tells his friend Jack that he thinks the next mission will be his last, and asks him to see that his parents get his medal. Finally, he forgets the teddy bear that is his good luck charm. I'd call them clichés, but for all I know, this may be the first movie in which they occurred.

The only serious flaw is a scene in Paris where Jack starts seeing bubbles. It goes on way too long, almost as if the director was so excited by this gimmick that he just could not get enough. There are plenty of action sequences to make up for this, however, much of it quite graphic, including a pilot spitting up blood, and another with blood spurting from his chest, something normally not seen in movies until the 1960s.

And, of course, no WWI movie would be complete without men climbing out of their trenches, charging the German lines, and being slaughtered by machine-gun fire. In one scene, a soldier who has been blinded carries another soldier who cannot walk. Together, they continue to move toward the Germans along with the others. I don't know what they thought they would do when they got there, except die, which is what they did. I guess we are supposed to admire their dedication.

Stunning aerial photography, truly moving

[nancyesl · 15 February 2014]

David's expressions, when he is saying good-by to his family, are absolutely wrenching. The only one who overacts is Clara Bow, but she's supposed to be the bubbly, irrepressible girl-next-door, so I give her a pass.

(Was the yellow colorization added to flames then or recently? I found it distracting.)

The uniforms are perfectly detailed too, perhaps because the actual war was so recently in people's memories. Modern movie-makers have gotten very careless about uniform details, I think because they assume no one will notice.

Wonderful scene in the Folies Bergere -- note the female couple at one table in the opening clip -- nothing is new under the sun.

Beautifully digitalized restoration,astonishingly crisp. What a national treasure!

Still holds up after all these years

[thepolyblog · 10/10 · 6 December 2019]

Plot Two men from the same hometown and in love with the same girl go off to war and become fighter pilots.

What I Liked This movie was the first movie to win an Oscar for Best Picture -- in 1929! -- and so I wanted to see how it held up. Surprisingly well for a silent picture. I was totally blown away by how good the aerial combat shots were. I was expecting some hokey special effects, but for filming in the 1920s, they did a great job. The two men are Buddy Rogers and Richard Arlen, and while they are okay, it is a secondary girl from back home (not the Juliet to the two Romeos but a second Juliet in love with the hero) who steals the picture. Clara Bow plays a rough-and-tumble girl who goes to France, drives for the motor pool, does a lot of support work. She's brash, happy go lucky most of the time, and great at mooning towards the unsuspecting lovestruck hero.

What I Didn't Like There's a twist in the tale that is a bit hard to believe that pits the two fighters against each other, and some of the ending is a bit sentimental, but for a first Oscar winner, it holds up.

Stands up rather well!

[JohnHowardReid · 8/10 · 25 October 2017]

Copyright 5 January 1929 by Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation. Presented by Adolph Zukor and Jesse L. Lasky. New York opening of silent version at the Criterion: 12 August 1927. Sound effects and musical score (Movietone) version released 5 January 1929. Originally released in color tints. Portions of the film utilized Magnascope. Sound version is 13 reels, 12,267 feet, 136 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Two aviators are in love with the same girl.

NOTES: Academy Award, Best Picture (defeating The Last Command, The Racket, Seventh Heaven and The Way of All Flesh). Academy Award, Special Engineering Effects, Roy Pomeroy (defeating The Jazz Singer and The Private Life of Helen of Troy).

Despite its Academy Award for Best Picture, Wings did not even place in The Film Daily poll of U.S. film critics for the Ten Best Pictures of the year.

Negative cost: around $2 million. Location filming near San Antonio, Texas.

COMMENT: The madness of war graphically depicted in a $2 million production (the movie would cost at least forty times as much to reproduce today) that grabs all the senses and fully engages mind, heart and soul, "Wings" is perhaps Wellman's finest achievement. Not only is the action staged for real, using a truly staggering number of men and machines, but the story itself comes over with a dramatic urgency, a romantic poignancy, an almost horrifying sensitivity that is only slightly dissipated by the current 2017 prints that fail to incorporate either the red and blue laboratory tints or the big- picture MagnaScope dimensions of the original. (It's also a shame that Zamecnik's specially commissioned music score is not used but instead replaced with a new Wurlitzer score composed and performed by Gaylord Carter).

Contemporary reviewers praised Clara Bow's lively performance but today her over-the-top vivacity seems just a little too forced for comfort. In a cameo role that lasts only a few minutes, it's Gary Cooper (already endowed with his familiar mannerisms) who shines super- bright. Charles "Buddy" Rogers comes over person-ably enough as the hero and really distinguishes himself in a counting bubbles scene in the Folies Bergere. Richard Arlen seems a bit gloomy as "the other man" but contrasts well enough with the continuously effervescent Rogers.

Other roles, aside from Jobyna Ralston's attractive "other girl" (much is made of her in the plot, but she virtually disappears from the action itself and doesn't even figure in the climax), are comparatively small. For a moment there, it looks like El Brendel has been hired for comedy relief, but even he is wiped out for such an extraordinarily long stretch, it comes as a surprise when he suddenly pops back briefly at the climax.

It is the small roles that often make the greatest atmospheric impression: callous Von Hartmann playing himself, Zalla Zarana as the sympathetic attendant who helps Bow into the spangled dress, vampy Arlette Marchal as the zesty Celeste, the slightly menacing Henry B. Walthall as the crippled Armstrong, Wellman's serene-faced wife and daughter as the mother and child at the crash site, and Wellman himself playing the dying soldier who exclaims, "Them buzzards are some good after all!"

Technically, the picture stands up rather well, though long shots are so often employed that you really need the movie's original big- screen MagnaScope to present the numerous aerial dog-fights at their hideously terrifying best. Fortunately, the more intimate moments, such as the Folies Bergere scenes (where Wellman gets into stride with a rapid tracking shot that seems impossible to stage) still glow with a nervously compelling wartime vitality.

A Great Film that has Aged Remarkably Well

[Raptorclaw155 · 7/10 · 22 February 2020]

As probably many others have been, I am surprised with how well this film has aged over almost a century. I've since seen a few silent films and have gotten used to, and have even grown to expect, some elements of stage acting being featured in them, and maybe bits of what some might say is overacting, due to the fact that the films have no sound. Despite that, this film still feels, more like a modern film and I was surprised to have experienced that. It's probably what makes these performances by all the actors feel exceptional as, indeed, they all are.

The cinematography is quite impressive in some spots, especially for its time. Although I'll admit I don't know exactly how difficult it was to film some of the more complex shots, I was still impressed by the swing scene in the beginning since I don't believe any of the modern films I've seen have shots quite like that. I was especially impressed with that, as well as, of course, the aerial combat scenes.

I will admit some of the drama felt a bit forced. There's a near-constant one-sided competition for Sylvia between Jack and David and while it seems that they end up leaving that behind early on, they get into one of those early, third-act fights where it becomes a tad bit predictable afterwards. It seems contrived because it's what the plot is asking for.

Also, I can't help but feel that the bubbles sequence existed in this film because they figured out how to do the special effects for bubbles and wanted to get the most out of it they possibly could. I don't think it's a stain on the film like it might be for some, but it definitely had me wondering why else they would put so much emphasis on it.

I have to say that some of the physical comedy in this film had me laughing, especially the comedy around Herman Schwimpf, whether it's that joke with him and the American flag tattoo on his arm or any of the multiple times he get hit and falls down. Maybe it's just the kid in me, but physical comedy has rarely been something I found particularly funny until this film came along. Not sure what it is but it's great.

After reading about this film, it doesn't surprise me that this is an early example of a Hollywood studio brokering a deal with the military for additional funds because the military sees it as a good recruitment tool. Indeed, this film does paint military life to be ideal with such things as saying that Jack left America as a boy and came back as a man- suggesting that men are made by being the survivors of an incredibly destructive war and becoming a hero because of it. Of course, in historical context, this attitude makes sense coming from Americans. I reckon a European perspective would have a more cynical and grim outlook but that's besides the point.

This film has the distinction of being a film that is part-recruitment tool for the military and still having its own merit as an aesthetic work of art that it still stands firm in spite of the former. It's a well-made film and one that I think is still worth seeing nearly 93 years later.

Off We Go.....................!

[bsmith5552 · 8/10 · 23 July 2018]

"Wings" has the distinction of being the first movie to win the "Best Picture" Oscar. Many people don't rate it as high as I have, but I fully enjoyed it. I must admit that the story line away from the action scenes, is a little lame at times.

Clara Bow who was at the top of her game at the time, heads up the cast. She plays Mary Preston who is in love with neighbor Jack Powell (Charles "Buddy" Rogers) who likes to work on cars instead. Jack along with poor little rich kid David Armstrong (Richard Arlen) are both in love with Sylvia Lewis (Jobyna Ralston) whom I assume is also a socialite. Guess who Sylia loves?

When the U,S. enters WWI in 1917, the boys sign up for the Army Air Corps and are shipped out to France along with the film's comedy relief Herman Schwimph (Ed Brendel). Before leaving, Sylvia, who loves David, gives Jack her picture unwittingly, giving him a false impression.

In France, Jack and David don't at first, get along due to their rivalry but become fast friends once the fighting starts. The two become ace pilots eventually winning a decoration from the French Government for their heroics. Mary, meanwhile has joined the Women's Corps driving a Red Cross truck in, you guessed it, France.

After the intermission, we rejoin Jack and David for some fun and merriment in Paris. This is where the story gets a little ridiculous. Jack and Lt. Cameron (Roscoe Karns) are whooping it up amid "the bubbles" when , you guessed it again, Mary shows up. David is too drunk to recognize her so she dresses up in a flapper dress and takes him up to a room in a hotel. Unknown to Jack is the fact that he has been recalled to duty. As Mary is changing to her uniform, two MPs arrive and catch her with her pants down and assume the worst. She is sent back home as a result.

And this is where the real action begins. Jack and David are mowing down the German planes when David is shot down and goes into hiding. Jack assumes that he has been killed. Jack soldiers on. Later David still very much alive, manages to steal a German plane and heads for the American lines. As luck would have it, Jack spots the German plane unaware that it is David at the controls and...............................................................................

The aerial photography is simply amazing. The dogfights are realistically shown as are the ground war sequences. You have to remember that there were no computers back then so that these sequences were actually shot as you see them. The crashes and various explosions are as real as has ever been shown on the screen.

Clara Bow was probably brought on board for her box office appeal because her role is definitely subordinate to that of Rogers and Arlen and the battle scenes. Rogers would go on to marry Mary Pickford in 1937 even though he was many years younger than she. They stayed married until Mary's death in 1979. Richard Arlen had been in movies since the early 20s. He would go on to a lengthy career at Paramount and keep working until his death in 1976.

Watch for a young Gary Cooper in a brief role of Cadet White the doomed pilot, Henry B. Walthall as David's father and Hedda Hopper as Jack's mother.

A true classic!

If man was meant to fly . . .

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 7 February 2011]

Watching a silent 1927 movie and flying an airplane have something in common. They both take a little getting used to. This is a pretty good movie about the US Air Service in World War I.

(Kids, that means 1918. The airplanes are so old they're funny. They have two wings and they're not bent backwards. You'll laugh. But, on the plus side, they don't serve peanut snacks, so your Mom doesn't have to worry about allergies.) Rogers and Arlen have grown up together and are best friends, though they happen to be in love with the same girl, Clara Bow. Arlen thinks she loves him, but she really loves Rogers, but Bow and Rogers keep it a secret from Arlen because they don't want to hurt his feelings or something and meanwhile -- the viewer pendiculates.

The movie gets off the ground when the two buddies get to jab their elbows in each others' ribs while going through flight training. There's something a little odd about that friendship, by the way. I see no reason to get into it too deeply but when one dies in the other's arms and they're confessing their mutual adoration I thought they were going to have one last great big French kiss. There IS a kiss but it's on the cheek, an expression of comradeship, and after all this is France. Of course, the director, William Wellman, might be willing to tackle such an unusual homoerotic theme but it would never be allowed on the screen. A highly stereotypical ethnic -- Herman Schrimpf -- yes, but not the love that dare not speak its name.

I don't want to give the ending away. That's not usually the case but here the resolution of the plot is both important and ironic. What isn't surprising is the climax of the love affair. The minute that I saw these two rivals for the girl's hand march off to war, I wondered which of them would be the survivor.

It is, as I say, a pretty good movie. The affair with Bow is handled tactfully and doesn't take up an inordinate amount of time. It's a long movie, though, and one scene could have been condensed or even eliminated without too much trouble. I refer to the longish scene in the café in Paris where Rogers gets loaded and carries on about the champagne bubbles he's hallucinating. It seems like an excuse for an exercise in contemporary photographic legerdemain -- all those bubbles coming out of nowhere and floating towards the ceiling.

Willaim Wellman was quite a character, full of "thumos", as the Greeks would have called it. A spirited youngster from an aristocratic Boston background he wound up flying in combat in the Lafayette Squadron in France, winning the Croix de Guerre, so he knows whereof he directs. And the air combat scenes are very good indeed. And some aerial shots give us panoramic displays of the battlefield itself, full of zig-zagging trenches, craters, and lines of barbed wire. I don't know how much money the movie cost but it must have been more than my own salary. Or yours. The acting is unexceptional, hemmed in as it is by the strictures of silent film making. At one point, I'm reasonably certain, an angry Rogers looks into the camera and clearly says, "Bastards!" Wellman would easily have been capable of that.

He was always more of a craftsman than an artist but he tackled some startling subjects, as in "Wild Boys Of The Road," and sometimes produced some truly sensitive and underplayed work, as in, "The Story of G. I. Joe." Nice job here.

what a surprise!

[jimel98 · 10/10 · 12 July 2014]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Say, is it just me or does the capitalization police around here get a little carried away? Just curious.

historically accurate dogfights

[plounzzzz · 7/10 · 22 January 2017]

The film is set during WW1 and follows around the early inception of the US Air Force. The technology at the time to film a movie while flying is what fascinates me about this film. The film follows around Jack and David on their endeavor as pilots. At the time, flying was a dangerous yet adventurous act, let alone to film a movie while doing so. The scenes with the dogfights were my favorite parts of the movie and were probably some of the best re-enacted war scenes even comparable to today's films. As a history guru myself, I was surprised to see how accurate they were. The story line is portrayed intensely for a silent film. Wings is my favorite silent film so far.

Beautifully done

[carleeee · 9/10 · 22 August 2012]

With no audio (talking-wise) the visuals had to be strong and engaging to make up for this and the film did not disappoint! With not a hair out of place, Jack and David head off to World War I to train as fighter pilots and dislike each other intensely until they bond while beating the crap out of each other during basic training and become best of friends.

The much-hailed world's first on-screen male-male kiss was more bromance than romance, the world was not quite ready for Brokeback Mountain back then. The aerial dog fight scenes were tremendously well done; if they didn't film real flight aerobatics they certainly made it convincing. The special effects with Jack's drunken bubble hallucinations were hysterical as well!

Casting Charles 'Buddy'Rogers as Jack and "It Girl" of the day Clara Bow as the beautiful Mary was bound to create chemistry. Both had winning smiles, and Clara Bow particularly has excellent screen presence and expression. The film showed both the camaraderie and horrors of war...though was light-hearted more often than not, which was perhaps unrealistic but not every war film needs to be depressing.

It really was a wonderful film. It covers action,humour, friendship, romance…and you can watch it on mute at 3am without bemusing your neighbours and house mates!

An intriguing silent film

[Sfmooreman97 · 7/10 · 25 January 2017]

Set in a WWI setting the first thing I noticed about this film was the amazingly shot flight scenes, they capture what it must have felt like to fly these planes so perfectly it completely immerses you into the time period. The acting on the other hand was a slightly over shadowed by these visuals. The acting was a bit over the top but like I've seen with other silent movies, like Charlie Chaplin's The Circus, this is necessary in order to better portray the emotions of the characters and the overall mood of the scene. However the way the comedy mixes with the dark tone of a war setting is also very well done. With today's standards in movies I'm constantly surprised with how these silent films can make me laugh and feel amazed all in one.

Not my cup of tea...

[ayreno · 2/10 · 9 March 2016]

I am in no way, shape, or form a fan of silent films. I am, however, a sucker for a good romance. A couple parts dragged on and on and the bubbles scene was incredibly lame. I did, however, enjoy the chemistry between the two guys; I 'felt' their friendship. After watching, I looked a little further into this movie, and I was incredibly surprised to find out that this was the very first Oscar winner for Best Picture...mainly surprised, because up until this class, I had never heard of this movie before. I will give this movie some credit, though. For its time period, the "special effects" this movie contained were pretty amazing, considering the equipment they had. I also somewhat like how, with movies like this, what you see really is what you get. Everything you're watching is so raw and original, and oftentimes during the viewing of this, I forgot to keep that in mind.