Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

C. Willson For those interested in the history of aviation, the artful integration of old Navy footage of the Los Angeles airship (a German-built Zeppelin which was the 4th aircraft to cross the Atlantic), including footage of the experimental underside mooring mast used for docking an airplane in flight, and the Lakehurst field and hangar, all offer a wonderful slice of history. This footage, and the parts of the film which show the interior of this airship and its mock-ups and use, are wonderful, and many other elements provide a wonderful view of what the world looks like through a 1931 lens. It is interesting to see how some things (parts of the Navy ships), do not look all that dated, while other elements are radically different. This alone makes this film a very worthwhile, and trumps all the issues and complaints below. For many, this alone makes it worthy of a 9 out of 10, although for those without this interest, it is more like a 6.At the story level, there are a lot of holes. There is an inconsistent and totally unbelievable romance kludged on, with a Fay Wray performance that doesn't work, and will leave you scratching your head. This part is a 1 or 2 out of 10. Like other scripts which take a little bit of current technology and try to extrapolate to spin out a story without really understanding the technology, some parts seems pretty silly today, but this was the view from 1931. The writing seems to be oblivious to the service ceiling of the craft, and the limitations imposed by the large surface area and low speed of the craft when exposed to winds, especially as channeled by terrain. However, in the era shortly before the end of serious airship use, they were losing them at an alarming rate, and the Los Angeles was one of the few that survived to be decommissioned and disassembled.**** SPOILERS BELOW **** The plot has issues. Bravado and personal agendas trump planning on important expeditions and military (Navy) ops (a failing shared with Capra's 1929 "Flight", also starring Holt and Graves, which stretched bravado and credulity even further). Here we are to believe that "Frisky", upon successfully reaching the South Pole, but having dropped most critical supplies to lighten the load, decides to chance a landing on an unknown surface, in an area where no rescue would be possible (per their orders). We are then given scenes at the South Pole which do not represent conditions at the pole. (My uncle was at Byrd Station, and it gets pretty cold there, with average summer temps close to -30C, and it appears that the north and south hemispheres are both in summer, so we are also left to wonder if they understood they are reversed south of the equator.) When a rescue does come, instead of sending people down the rescue lines, they parachute in from a very low altitude for dramatic effect, but then get pulled back in by the lines. Okay, you get to see cool parachuting footage from 1931, so I guess its okay. Overall, a great slice of history with contemporary use of (now) archival footage, but the plot and romance drag the ratings down.

Scott_Mercer Okay, I know, they are not blimps. They are Zeppelins. "Airships" was the preferred term by the U.S. Navy.This is a very exciting action film for 1931. Apparently made with quite a high budget. I saw model shots, large sound stages filling in for Antartica, thousands of extras, real airships, and a gigantic ticker tape parade shot on location in New York City. All of these things cost much money. The U.S. Navy's use of airships was so brief that this film also marks one of the few stories about this chapter in our military history.This film proves that Capra was also adept at high intensity action directing (for 1931) as well his usual character-driven morality plays that he became so well-known for.The one thing that is the most striking to me about (some) early talking pictures, of which this is one, is that they have hardly any music score. This is true here, and only adds to the isolated feeling in the scenes of the doomed expedition struggling to escape from the frozen tundra. Plenty of sound effects in the scenes of the doomed Pensacola going down, but no music. In fact, the film even uses a few silent film style narration cards.Anyway, in spite of this film dating from 1931, it has aged really well and doesn't seem too dated at all. A nice action/adventure film. The print they showed on TCM on television was in very good shape, even the sound was strong in most places. Yes, the love story seemed tacked on, but there are thousands of films in the history of Hollywood that could have survived artistically with their romantic subplots (probably inserted at the insistence of cigar-chewing studio bosses to get "the female market") jettisoned. In any case, this movie is quite entertaining and Worth checking out.

tedg Here's the sequence that led to this in my life: I read about the Scott disaster, an amazing story. Then last night I saw the 1958 film of it, an extraordinary story and an interesting film. For those who don't know the story it is of a British expedition to be the first to the south pole. They were beaten by a month by a Norweigian explorer, and on the return lost their lives. They made extraordinary errors, but they were loved by the Brits because, well because they were so heroically aristocratic and gentlemanly in their bearing. This story was huge, just huge.It was huge enough to serve as the basis for this film, which I saw following the 58 UK film. That film showed the sleds as pulled by humans, as cooking with certain pots, as the sleds with odometer wheels, as certain surely genuine clothing. It shows a man dying of wounds after being pulled in exhaustion; another knowing his fate was sealed and going off into the cold to die in sacrifice. We have all that here.This is three films in one, two of them palatable. I usually get annoyed at Capra, but this is before he developed his sugary world for us.One film is of a crew wrecked at the south pole and having to recreate the doomed Scott voyage, in evocation of that great adventure. Keep in mind that this was only 20 years before (and its over 75 years since this film!)Another is an equally amazing adventure sequence. The story here is that the top dirigible pilot and top plane pilot ("Frisky") are buddies. They plan a joint trip to the pole. The sequences that have these two flying are still darned impressive today, three quarters of a century later. The flying cameras are great. The flying balloons are shown with convincing reality. If all we had were the shots of the real facility and its devices and sailors, this would be worth it. The third story grows to take over the thing. Its the story of Frisky's wife, played by Fay Wray a couple years before "King Kong." She's upset that Frisky is away so much doing his stunts. The dirigible pilot is his best friend and in love with her. While Frisky is on his way to the pole, she plans to divorce Frisky and marry his buddy. Naturally Frisky is saved by his buddy making a dangerous flight over Antartica, and he generously arranges to hide the affair, knowing that Fay has discovered her "love" for her husband. All this is rather horrible in every dimension.But see it for the other two components. Darn worthwhile.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

1250man Aside from featuring Fay Wray BEFORE she became famous in King Kong, the movie has value as historical record, because of the scenes of the U.S. Navy's dirigible, LOS ANGELES. The LOS ANGELES served a dual role in the film, first as the fictional PENSACOLA, destroyed in a storm at sea, and then as her real self. The loss of the PENSACOLA is prescient in a way, because her successors, the very real AKRON and MACON, which had yet to enter service when the movie was made, were subsequently both lost at sea in storms, bringing an end to rigid airships in the U.S. Navy. A predecessor, the SHENANDOAH was lost in 1928 in a storm over Ohio.When this movie was made, only the LOS ANGELES was in service. The movie shows excellent closeup film of the ship mooring at Lakehurst N.J. as well as her experimental trapeze which allowed an aircraft to moor to the ship while in flight. This feature was incorporated in AKRON and MACON, along with a hanger to stow the planes aboard. These two, the biggest in USN service at 800 feet could each carry 3-4 planes. The planes could be "captured" on the trapeze, brought inside and then launched from their trapeze. An amazing sight to see!