How come this isn't a classic?

Interesting angle. But if that was the case, then why is the Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind still popular? This movie is not afforded what I call the "American nostalgic machine" for whatever the reason. I mean why the hell was Hell's Angels never shown on TV?

But here is another angle:

Given the budget at 4 million and the realism of the aerial scenes, the movie is a technical masterpiece. The cinematography and the special effects are very impressive for 1930. The coloring of the dinner scene and in other effects frames are also impressive for the time.

Even the story is quite engaging but cliche.

Sadly, the biggest reason that this movie is not a classic is that most of the acting in this movie is just not "classic" worthy.

Alot of the movie has a "slient" feel to it and it seems the actors are still getting used to being heard. Even Miss Harlow (who happens to be a fave of my Dad, and is very, very sexy) seems to struggle to find the right "tone" of Helen. I couldn't help but snicker at the scene when Roy or Monty discovers her with the Air Corp Captain and she screams at him in a half-drunken tirade.

Perhaps the sound technology just wasn't great then. Perhaps its my ears.

But overall I feel instead of thinking this movie a classic - think of it more as a pioneering movie - way ahead of its time in the "blockbuster" sense.

Just like the man who made it, come to think of it. =)

[deleted]

Same here.

So....you've described just about every 1930 vintage movie. 1930 audiences didn't have a problem with it. To them--it was all new and exciting. With possibly the exception of "All Quiet On The Western Front"...what 1930 movie still holds up to today's standards? And even in that gem of a movie--modern audiences will still laugh at some of the acting.
Pierce

Your comment is 8 yrs old-I suspect you watched a bootleg copy.
Look for it on TCM and you'll have a different movie.
This movie would be considerd what the kids say-O.G. " original" the first of its kind

Hi MDavout!

I know that it has been 8 years since your post, but I have to agree with you. To be honest, overall, I didn’t really care much for Hell’s Angels and I saw it only a couple months ago. Having seen The Aviator, I thought that it would be interesting to see the movie that was so acclaimed in The Aviator. Really, I didn’t get the hype. The acting and dialogue were atrocious, the story was bland, and the accents were so dreadful.

It is a shame that no time was taken to work on the accents for the English characters at least, given how ridiculous it was to hear “bloody” thrown in by one of the brothers, who was obviously played by an American. I almost found that part hysterical, if you ask me. If you are going to do accents, foreign accents in particular, you have to DO THEM RIGHT. If they knew that they were going to have problems with the accents to begin with, they should have just rewritten the script and made them American expatriates or something.

The film at times was a chore to sit through and some parts could have been edited and cut down to a more satisfactory running time. The movie, I feel, didn't need to be that long. Less is more, I think. I could have really cared less for any of the characters, really.

Jean Harlow wasn’t really that attractive. I swear there were better looking women back in that era than Jean Harlow whose face to me, reminds me of a clown.

After watching this movie, it is a good thing Hughes stuck with aviation and didn't make too many pictures to begin with.

Cast Away...It's like Forrest Gump, but on an island. - Bridesmaids

It really is a kick ass movie. I watched after The Aviator just to see if the air battles were that amazing. They were. What this most reminded me of in spectical is Michael Bay. There is a scene where a pilot kamikazis a zeplin. The burning zeplin falls from the sky filling the whole screen as our two heros dive for their lives. Bloody amazing. The scene in the zeplin where the crew jump ti their deaths so the zeplin can loose weight and climb is really harrowing. And when they drop bombs you know it isnt a special effect. You know that they have just dropped a bloody huge bomb. Pretty amazing stuff. I was far more impressed after that film than I thought I would be

You watched it, you cant un-watch it! - Futurama

I got to see for the first time off a projector like the kind they used to have at high schools. I was learning to fly and our flying club, of whom I was by far the youngest, screened it one evening after everyone had landed. Obviously it was available as a small frame black and white print. It was a great setting for the company of pilots, but we were watching a small portable roll-up screen. I've seen it on TV since, and the story line is so artificial and the acting so superficial that it is almost unwatchable. The flying scenes are of course fun to watch. (Kind of like "Titannic")

What makes a film a classic? In one sense you can pass an overall definition: "Something that people will always want to watch". This probably refers to an engaging story line, well acted, either timeless or so well focused in its own world that it draws the spectator in.

So "Hell's Angels" is a niche classic. It appeals because of its link with Howard Hughes and the story of its making. It appeals because of its great flying sequences which are one of a kind. I think for most people it does NOT appeal on its story line, which I think would always have been kind of hokey.

Remember that scene in Citizen Caine where the opera ends with the horrible performance by the wife of our main guy, in an opera house he had built for her? The audience is silent until Caine stands and single handedly starts the applause. And drags everyone along. I picture opening night of "Hells Angels" the same way.

rado above "hated the ending" and that might be part of the problem for classic status - the ending is very uncompromising indeed. Roy loves his brother, he has seen him make the effort against character of going on the dangerous mission, but when it comes to it he is a coward and a wrong un - so Roy has to shoot his own brother. Roy is himself executed moments later. Roy has done the right thing by the men going over the top later in the day, but at great cost.

The aerial battle scenes are rightly praised - they are truly spectacular. The bombs are clearly real bombs and no doubt the great war did look like that. When we see a truck blown 20 feet into the air it brings to life the devastating destruction.

The Zeppelin section is remarkable in many ways. At one moment it looks like a dreamscape, at another like a liner on the ocean. We are reminded how new and strange and terrible aerial warfare was.

When I first saw this I fell asleep after about 20 minutes and then didn't want to finish it for a long time. I knew it got better, what I didn't know until watching it through tonight is just how much better.