For an aircraft enthusiast like me, this movie was a "must-see". How often do you get this: a title that refers directly to its subject, the B-52 strategic bomber. For those who are familiar with the facts, I don't have to explain the incredible story and (historical) importance of this airplane. You, like me - we are happy with any shot on film of the "BUFF". And you will see plenty of those. So, we tend to apologize the director for some funny moves, f.i., why do we see Bitomski in his own documentary? We are forgiving, because we get almost two hours of nothing but B-52. So we forgive the director also for his choice to let the SAC-artist talk for what seems like endlessly. He annoys us, yes he does, but we have patience. More Stratofortress is about to come. Therefore, we forgive the director for the info-shots too. They always come too late or too early. And not only do they come at the wrong moment, they are hardly readable as well. The text is on the far left side of the screen, and only visible for a very short moment.
But the enthusiast won't really care about all this, for the B-52 passes by in virtually all aspects: development, X-stage, crashes during peace, crashes during war, SAC, past-present-future, Cold War, Vietnam and Gulf-War, weapons, crew, nose-art, spare parts trade, demolition. You name it, Bitomski's got it. But if it was all there, and it really was!, why did I leave the cinema just a little disappointed after viewing? I still don't know to day. "B-52" has a bit of Herzog's "Little Dieter wants...", but it's also lightyears away from it. You think, being an aircraft enthusiast, you can digest just anything that has to do with planes. And you can. But, like in any movie, there is the director who is also able -or not- to touch your soul. Mr. Bitomski, please forgive me, but your "B-52" did not really touch my soul. Was there, perhaps, simply too much talking?
1 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?