Ranking Aviation Films - /tv/ (#212815328) [Archived: 583 hours ago]

Anonymous
7/17/2025, 5:06:28 PM No.212815328
x1080
x1080
md5: b54000ee85cd0d94b55d146f338cd76f🔍
Greetings /tv/ I assembled this lost and wanted to know what I could add to it.

>Battle of Britain *****
>Airplane! *****
>Reach for the Sky *****
>Blue Thunder ****
>633 Squadron ****
>The Dambusters ****
>Les Chevaliers du Ciel ****
>Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines ****
>Чepнaя aкyлa ***
>Iron Eagle ***
>Iron Eagle 2 ***
>Flight of the Intruder ***
>Tora Tora Tora ***
>Airport ***
>Black Sunday ***
>Airport 1979 **
>Memphis Belle 1990 **
>Firefox **
>Top Gun **
>Iron Eagle 3 **
>Iron Eagle 4 **
>Behind Enemy Lines **
>Air Force One *
>Stealth *
>Interceptor - 0 stars
Replies: >>212815437 >>212815655 >>212818814 >>212820721 >>212820740 >>212823758
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 5:10:14 PM No.212815437
>>212815328 (OP)
>Iron Eagle over Top Gun
this man is a retard
Replies: >>212815618
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 5:16:08 PM No.212815618
>>212815437
Look, the film has better action because the stunt pilot who did both films (the same guy) was given more autonomy to do his stunts in Iron Eagle. What the director's did in Top Gun ultimately killed him, so actually a lot of the actual flying content that was planned was tossed out and is kind of the reason why the whole romance subplot is as padded out.

I just expected more action from an action film. It has a good start and a good ending, but a lot of the stuff in the middle could have been cut out and it would have made no difference to the story, that is why the rankings are what they are. I have not seen the second one and it just looks like a better film from the commercials, so maybe I will watch that over the weekend.
Replies: >>212815849
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 5:17:22 PM No.212815655
>>212815328 (OP)
>Flight of the Intruder

Hell yeah
Replies: >>212816771
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 5:23:59 PM No.212815849
>>212815618
you articulated yourself well enough about your stance that it's excusable
deffo recommend Maverick when you get a chance to watch it if you like planes
Replies: >>212816771
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 5:54:32 PM No.212816771
>>212815655
I need to rewatch, the book is even better in my opinion, though.
>>212815849
Thanks. You should check out Les Chevaliers du Ciel, it is what I hoped the first Top Gun film would be in a lot of ways, plus the camera work is top notch, especially in the scene where they use the Alps as a backdrop. Still there is a romance subplot, but honestly I am fine with films having those.
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 7:02:01 PM No.212818814
>>212815328 (OP)
Have you seen any of the John Wayne ones? They range from great to summer of his worst roles.
Replies: >>212820644
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 8:09:08 PM No.212820644
>>212818814
I have not, but I have just added that to my list, thank you.
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 8:10:56 PM No.212820693
Twelve O'Clock High (1949) is a great one

Also Memphis Belle at **? How so my dude
Replies: >>212822480
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 8:12:10 PM No.212820721
>>212815328 (OP)
Twelve o'clock High
Replies: >>212822480
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 8:12:48 PM No.212820740
>>212815328 (OP)
What about flight of the phoenix or con air?
Also
>Air force one
>1 star
Nani dafuq??? Why?
Replies: >>212822480
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 9:14:12 PM No.212822480
>>212820693
>>212820721
Thank you both.

Concerning Memphis Belle, the acting was not that good, it at the very least it conflicted with the expected attitude I had, maybe that is because I have seen hours of old newsreels from the War, but I can see why a lot of people like it. You should watch the original Memphis Belle newsreel.
>>212820740
I forgot that I saw the first Flight of the Phoenix. That was a good film (I will call it ****), I have not seen its remake or Con Air.

For Air Force One, it was the action sequence, specifically the initial assault that ruined it for me, as it is questionable as to why there was no decompression on board after that point. It also would have made things more interesting as the oxygen on board an aircraft is only about 15 minutes worth and trying to have the terrorists (who have never flown an aircraft before) do a steep descent could have also been interesting. It is just something that I could not believe, which also turned into a missed opportunity from a director's standpoint.

Also the air-to-air rescue bit while not entirely far-fetched (a similar system called the Fulton Skyhook exists and was even featured in Thunderball), but the scene would have made more sense if it occurred at a lower speed. Before you ask about the speed, feasibly it was about 350 mph, whereas a C-130 is maxed out at 360 mph on a good day with the ramp retracted. I do not know how sick a scene could be improved, but the action on its own is great, but that is all that it has going for it. Would I watch it again? Sure, but it is not a "quality" film and I do not mean it as in it having a deep meaning, it just needs to be believable. Even fantasy and superhero films try doing this with varying degrees of success.
Replies: >>212822520
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 9:15:16 PM No.212822520
>>212822480
Also sorry for the long winded response, but it was just those things that really bothered me.
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 9:49:25 PM No.212823758
>>212815328 (OP)
>Snakes on a plane *****
Replies: >>212824645
Anonymous
7/17/2025, 10:13:05 PM No.212824645
>>212823758
Kek.