Interesteg What makes it different from others?

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Wizard-8 Roger Corman is usually immediately associated with exploitive movies made for B studios, but there were a few times when he worked for major Hollywood studios, "Von Richthofen and Brown" being one example. Additional interest is that this movie is one of the few times Corman made a serious movie - there's no exploitive tone to be found here. So how are the end results? Well, with a major studio bankrolling the production, the look of the movie is pretty well done. There's no signs of cost-cutting or missing details. Also, the aerial sequences are excellent, exciting and breath-taking. However, Corman was working with an inadequate script. Though the various actors in the cast do a professional job, the screenplay simply doesn't get into the heads of Von Richthofen or Brown (or anyone else for that matter.) We don't really learn what's driving them or what they are really thinking. While I wouldn't say that this is a terrible movie despite that fatal flaw, I would only recommend the movie to Roger Corman fans who are intrigued about the idea of him making a serious movie on an A-level budget.

Michael_Elliott Von Richthofen and Brown (1971) ** (out of 4) John Phillip Law plays Baron Manfred von Richthofen and Don Stroud plays Roy Brown, the famous dog fighters of WW1 who would eventually meet in the air. This Corman production takes a look at the two men's lives leading up to that day in the air. This is a rather strange film because on one hand it's easy to recommend to people because the stuff in the air is downright brilliant yet on the other hand, everything on the ground is a complete bore. This would turn out to be Corman's final film as director for nearly two decades so it's an interesting film to go out on. For the most part he handles the material quite well but I can't help but wish he had spent a few more dollars on the screenplay and delivered a more interesting story. I must admit that my mind kept wondering around and losing focus because everything that happens on the group is just downright boring and at times it's hard to figure out what's going on. History buffs say the film isn't that true to reality but I can live with that. I do wish that Corman had done something more because what we get just isn't enough to work as a bio flick or as any type of human drama. What does work are the amazing aerial shots that are quite thrilling. Apparently all of the aerial things were filmed over a two week period and they are so well made that they certainly make you feel as if you're up there in the air fighting yourself. The cinematography that captures all of this is exceptional as well. The violence is quite bloody throughout but it's realistic. Both actors turn in decent performances but they can only work with what they got. In the end, action fans might want to check this one out for the amazing battle scenes but history buffs will probably be upset with the film.

trevor_k Hidden numerology shows up to a heavy degree in shows like the M*A*S*H TV series, 12 O'Clock High, and various movies, but this one is my favorite.What you have to figure out is what the Baron is referring to when he exclaims "I have 30 men fighting for their lives".Cross reference that to the recent picture "Aviator" where the Howard Hughes character has 24 cameras for his "Hells Angels" WWI combat picture, but needs 2 more for a total of 26.It all makes sense if you are good at counting cycles...but sounds like gibberish otherwise.Anyway, this picture may seem inaccurate historically, or even boring, but it's the "numbers" game that's the most appealing.I attended a lecture by 'Doors' drummer John Densmore a few years ago where he couldn't figure out why the "Doors" movie was so historically inaccurate. Again, look for the numbers.Rather than complaining about details and the production values, the real fun in Richthofen and Brown is the 'hidden' wisdom...and you'll find it if you look carefully.

rps-2 The flying sequences alone make this a film well worth seeing. They are much like those in The Battle Of Britain except, of course, the aircraft are of World War I vintage. It's also encouraging that Roy Brown was portrayed as a Canadian (which he was) rather than an American. The man had some very rough edges and these are portrayed in the film. (In one unrelated incident, he almost got court martialed for buzzing Picadilly Circus.) In other words Brown was not shown as some sort of handsome Hollywood knight of the sky but a very rough, arrogant, unsophisticated and even unpleasant individual. Good! Thats how it was. Better by half than most war films of its era.