Michael Rauser
Most about this film has been said already in other reviews, so it is not necessary to repeat. However I want to point out that the importance of the B-52 for lifting research planes like the X-15 was not mentioned at all. There was and perhaps there is no other plane available to transport a research aircraft to the stratosphere and launch it. By sacrificing some of the unnecessary lengthy footage on how to wreck a B-52 there would have been enough time to add this important aspect of the plane's career. I also did not like the small print of the titles because on a TV screen they are hardly recognizable.
GJL CologneMovie
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?
sirasb-2
Less a documentary about the B-52 than it is a documentary about filmmaker Hartmut Bitomsky learning about the B-52, this film disappointed me to no end. Made with an incredible amount of egotism, the director appears on camera throughout the film, even though he knows nothing about his subject. And then there is the pretentious, pretentious narration -- which sounds like what Mike Meyers character, Dieter, might say if Sprockets were doing a show about the B-52 -- spoken by a man...and a woman. This is a distracting and annoying device which serves more to say "look at what an interesting filmmaker I am!" than "here is some more information about the B-52."And speaking of subjects, Bitomsky gets interviews with some excellent ones, B-52 pilots, mechanics, etc. and then goes on to cut several of them off mid-sentence. Meanwhile, the conceptual artist who creates art installations out of B-52s rambles on for 15 minutes straight. Luckily, this was a good source of comic relief for the audience with whom I watched the film. I have no idea whether this was intentional.Bright spots in the pic were excellent camera work, and some great archival footage. Other than that, if you want to learn something about the B-52 bomber, you're probably better off watching the History Channel. If you want to learn about a filmmaker using a slightly unorthodox directing style whilst making a documentary about himself making a documentary about the B-52, see this movie.
