Wordiezett So much average

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

bd64kcmo I never saw this, so I would be voting "neutral" (5), regretting if unable to opt out. However the "cartoon" reference was telling about directors who sacrifice the real thing for CGI. The whole dependency on CGI is utterly stupid, and it ruined what could have been a stellar "The Aviator" (2004), IMHO. That film took a real live airworthy Lockheed 1049G Constellation, in perfect flying order, flown all the way from Kansas City to Burbank, only to be replicated as the budding TWA. No flying scenes with the rare living airplane at all...NONE. I was pretty shocked despite DiCaprio's stellar acting ability, as well as the other players. A TERRIBLE loss indeed.

alexmbj I was excitedly surprised to see this movie about to start on PBS on a Saturday night. I settled in to watch a film about "Legends of Flight", but then had to force myself to remain watching until the finish.In addition to there being little film but plenty of computer generated animation, the movie seemed to be hardly about aircraft at all. Repeatedly, there were more images of cartoon birds and bees and animated nuts and bolts than images of aircraft, either real or computer generated.From the title, I assumed I was going to view a great film about aircraft and powered flight, but instead found this movie supremely disappointing. If you're a CGI fan, you might have a look. If you're an airplane buff, don't be fooled by the title. Pass this one by.

blythe-patrick This film is nothing more than an advertisement for Boeing. I was hoping to learn about the 787 and the Airbus A380, but this film only made casual reference to the A380, and it was a clear attempt to advertise for Boeing. More than that, we learn only little about the 787. The story is difficult to follow, the acting scenes are boring and insulting to the viewer, and the CGI graphics are ridiculous. Boeing feels threatened by Airbus, and rightly so, Airbus, at the moment, builds better airplanes. I think Boeing's executives would be much better off trying to develop better airplanes rather than attempting act in propaganda films.

Richard Hardy I'm an aviation nut, a real airplane aficionado, and a student pilot. So, naturally, I'm looking forward to this IMAX film with great expectations. And, because of my addiction to airplanes and anything airplane related, probably had a higher level of expectation than normal. I'm an IMAX card holder so I watched this at a pre-screening event and didn't pay anything to see it. And going into the movie, I really wanted to like this film, because it's about airplanes, it's IMAX, it's Canadian. Unfortunately, it really failed to deliver on anything except two or three great scenes involving the 787 Dreamliner and a Harrier Jet. The rest of the film involved some mildly interesting shots of the Boeing manufacturing facility, but that was it. By far my biggest complaint about this film is that Stephen Low relied far, far, far too heavily on computer-generated birds and airplanes. Why do some directors insist on replacing perfectly good objects in real life (birds, airplanes) with computer graphics? One scene involved a bi-plane that actually looked real . . . until the thing did a barrel roll in a most unnatural way. You have to see it to know what I mean. Why? Why do this? Why make entire scenes look like something out of Flight Simulator X? And why keep using CAD-style birds and bees? Not to mention one painful scene involving a "fly-through" of a computer rendering that looks like Tron on acid.IMAX directors also have to get rid of the cheese factor. For example, why does Low set up the people in the film to "act"? He films them supposedly working away in one scene in a boardroom discussing something, but you can tell from their dialogue that they're acting. And really poorly acting. If this is a documentary type film, which it is, why have goofy acting segments? Another example of cheese: trying to work in (computer generated) fighter jets flying 20 feet from a Canadian warship. Not gonna happen!Finally, the film is entitled "Legends of Flight" but I can't figure out what the "legend" is. What legend? Low could've started with the legend of Icarus and the dreams of Da Vinci, but he doesn't. The entire "legend" is the manufacture of one airplane. The story is barely coherent with unrelated scenes jammed together. All in all, a wasted opportunity. The only 10% of this film that I enjoyed was the widescreen shots of the A380 and the 787.