Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

gkitmach I will not provide a complete review as others have done.I am most impressed with the video footage of the early Wright aircraft flying. This is an excellent story of the Wrights and not soon to be recreated since many of the scenes were shot using a series of replicas of the Wright's gliders and aircraft and some were built and flown with the help of NASA. NASA released some of the details in the 1970s. Some of the replicas were tested in NASA wind tunnels. This film is the only place you can go for historically accurate video footage of Wright aircraft flying. This is a historically important film and should be reproduced on DVD.A couple other notes; other have said that Michael Moriarty's portrayal of Wilbur Wright was 'wooden' or less than an award winning portrayal. Based on my extensive readings of Wilbur, the damage to his teeth and jaw during hockey games, his quiet and introspective nature, I am not at all certain that the portrayal is inaccurate at all. He was said to be stoic, quiet, and rarely smiled. I would like to see more on the accuracy of the portrayals of Alexander Graham Bell and Glen Curtis.

ebubier A nice little TV movie. Entertaining and informative, but hardly accurate or complete.I didn't even know of the existence of this film until I stumbled on it today on TV (Aug. 2009). Apparently this is the only dramatic film (i.e., non documentary) - excluding the Peanuts cartoon - that tells the Wright Brothers' story. I saw the whole thing from beginning to end. Overall a pretty good made-for-TV movie. I've thought for years that the Wright Brothers' story would make a fabulous major Hollywood film. It's such a great story. Unfortunately, this film omits many of the most interest parts of the story, the little bits that make their story incredibly interesting and "human", two brothers, and Charlie Taylor, working virtually alone invent the world's first flying machine.Having read several dozen books on the Wright Brothers, including their own "Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright" and having attended the 100 years of Flight celebration in Kitty Hawk I'm pretty familiar with the actual history of Brothers' achievement, and what a story it is.As ccthemovieman-1 said, the film does have a "dream-like" visual quality to it. Soft focus abounds. Many of the actual Wright photographs are recreated within the story which gives the film a nice authenticity and subconscious familiarity (we've all seen many of these iconic images in our youth, but may not remember them.All the high points of their story are told. All the players are there; Lilienthal, Langley, Chanute, The Tate family. However, Charlie Taylor, the builder of their engine, is conspicuously absent. Glenn Curtis and Alexander Graham Bell are portrayed as a team of thieves and rogues.What's missing are the events that make the Wrights' story uniquely interesting: the arduous boat trip across to Kitty hawk, the first public display of flight in Dayton that the brothers may have flubbed intentionally to keep the press at bay, Gleanings in Bee Culture, the excitement of the initial French display of their plane in 1908, the feud with the Smithsonian, and so many more trivial moments that add spice and flavor to this uniquely American tale.There are some historical inaccuracies, as you'd expect, but overall the story is mostly true and relatively complete with a nod to the basic science of flight.I am curious. Did the filmmakers build real replicas of the Wright's machines or were they models? All the shots of actual flight look to have mannequins as pilots.Definitely worth seeing, this movie is obviously two things, a product of the 70's and a made-for-TV movie, with all that that implies, both positive and negative.This story needs to be told again - and with a much bigger budget. 15 years ago I would have cast Ralph Fiennes and Tom Hanks. The most interesting book, and most film-able, methinks, is One Day at Kitty Hawk, which as of today, Aug 2009, is listed here at IMDb as "in development" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213650/ . Let's hope it's a great movie.

ccthemovieman-1 Here's another film that still hasn't come out on DVD that I would love to see in that format. Few people, I gather, have seen this in any format since my review is only the third on this website even though the movie was made almost 30 years ago. It's not a great movie but it has a dream-like look and feel to it, which is why a good DVD transfer could give it justice. It's a nice, clean movie with no profanity or blood and an interesting story of the Wright Brothers struggling to build their first airplane and then keep their famous plans and ideas from being stolen by others. There is a lot of justified paranoia in here.On the odd side, if I didn't know it was Michael Morarity, I would have thought this was some rookie actor who couldn't put any inflection into his lines, but maybe his "Wilbur Wright" character is supposed to be this ultra-key. Nonetheless, Moriarty sounded very wooden. The movie also drags a bit here and there, which might be one reason it's difficult to find and still not out on DVD. I'm still glad I own the VHS because, overall, it's a nice film and a worthy addition to any collection.NOTE: I've been told Wilbur Wright was a very low-key guy, so Morarity acted that way on purpose.

robbla1981 definitely a film worth seeing, though a little hokey and "movie cliché" in places (particularly specific lines of narration and dialogue). The visual aspects of the film, particularly the scenes featuring the characters flying the gliders are absolutely breathtaking, though the scene featuring the famous first powered flight is cut short for some reason as the plane is lifting off.Because the film was made in the late 1970s, there are few visual effects shots (aside from the scene depicting Orville's crash, which is clearly a model). Consequently, many of the flying scenes feature real actors in very accurately designed prop gliders. This adds a sense of realism and gives the film a better sense of credibility.I saw it as a young kid, and was inspired to learn more about the Wright Brothers and airplanes. Hopefully someone reading this will show it to their kid and they will have the same experience.