Hell's Angels

Audience Reviews

View All (96) audience reviews

Louisa E Wow! What a movie. I enjoyed the plot and pace of this movie; however, I missed a crucial plot point until near the end, which spoilt it a little for me - I didn't realise the Rutledges were brothers! I liked how Roy asked Helen for consent to kiss her (very modern and a good precept to follow), but then Helen didn't show that same consideration with Monte. I don't think Karl would have had that position in the Air Force in real life. It was interesting to see American understanding of German fanaticism pre-WWII. There were lots of things that they unknowingly foreshadowed about the war to come. There were some political stirrings that they wouldn't be able to show decades later in the Un-American activities decade of the '50s. And some of it was a bit raunchy. All-in-all, the plot was a bit ahead of its time. What lets this movie down was the acting. There was not a single actor, besides, maybe the man who played the German colonel, that I thought did a great job. I wanted to like Jean Harlow, but I found her acting annoying and unconvincing. It's a shame because this would have been a complete knock-out with realistic acting and a decent score. What I loved in this movie was the beautiful cinematography. The fades and lighting are superb. There were times you could see they had used the silent footage (the movie was made as a silent film, then remade into a talkie), which I thought was interesting. I loved the use of colour. It made the party seem more opulent, and the blue colour of the night versus the red of Zepplin burning was fabulous. There were great shots of bombs dropping, close-ups of the bolt cutters, and other great effects. One of the best movies of this Academy Awards. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 05/09/23 Full Review Blobbo X That it's pre-code is obvious. Jean Harlow was so natural and alluring in front of the camera - just 18 here in her film debut. Movie is fresh, even seminal, for 1930 and set the stage for many films to come. (Plus, how did Hawks get those planes to crash head-on together without killing anybody?) Rated 4.5/5 Stars •  Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars 01/18/23 Full Review brad h An average film. The aerial sequences are good but, except for Jean Harlow, everything on the ground is boring. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 03/30/23 Full Review Audience Member Originally shot as a silent film, they made it speaking which removed Greta Nissen and replaced her with Jean Harlow. Howard Hughes spared no expense and it produced a whopping $2.8 million cost which was unheard of at the time. Many of the stunts were designed by Hughes himself and in the final scene a stunt labeled too dangerous Hughes did himself resulting in a crash, skull fracture, and facial surgery. There is some color in the film which is the only colored picture of Harlow's career. In spite of all the difficulties in filming it is considered a landmark of early sound and color use, and of the epic action film genre. The flying scenes were excellent but the plot was mundane as were the characters. Hughes was praised for his hard work in filming aircraft sequences. The line "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?" is a top movie quote. This is cited by Stanley Kubrick as one of his 10 favorite films that influenced his career. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 02/08/23 Full Review Audience Member It was worse than I had expected. I could't force myself to watch as much as half of it, and I couldn't understand how a movie with such a stupid and unbelievable plot could ever have been made. i suppose I could go on with other criticisms, but the film is not worth the effort. It is terrible. It is not worth a minute of anyone's time, What's the point of going on? DO NOT INCLUDE THIS MOVIE ON YOUR LIST OF "CLASSIC FILMS" TO SEE. %^$^^&%!!!! Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 02/09/23 Full Review Michael G In 1930 I would have gone into this film with the same mindset that one would for a summer action blockbuster; Damn the acting and dialog/How did they do with special effects?! Clearly, Director Howard Hughes spent scant time concerned with acting or dialog; he was probably busy bedding Jean Harlow. What Hughes was REALLY there for was the flying. The attention paid to detail on the aircraft and the flying was superior to many offerings presented decades later. The cost overruns experienced in production are understandable; no one in the late 1920's could have envisioned the cost of something that had never been done before. Yes, the acting is bad to the point of being cartoonish (what was so special about Jean Harlow anyway?) though the blimp mass suicide was some really bizarre viewing. It was fun to see Hughes's commitment to the flight scenes but, wow, the acting was a big price to pay. Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 03/03/21 Full Review Read all reviews

Hell's Angels

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW