The 1957 cars are just -- well -- swell! Natalie Wood gets to drive a creamy yellow Ford convertible and Efron Zimbalist has a snazzy scarlet sports model. Why it could turn you green with envy -- seafoam green.The rest of the movie is a disappointment. Nothing seems quite right; it's all a little cockeyed. The plot: Zimbalist is an Air Force officer and Malden is the best flight engineer that ever existed. Malden is devoted to the USAF but his family, especially his daughter, Wood, want him to retire and take a job where he'll wear a suit and tie and "be somebody important." Well, there's a conflict right there.On top of that, Zimbalist has a reputation as a ladies' man and becomes seriously interested in Natalie Wood -- as who wouldn't? -- and Malden dislikes Zimbalist intensely and does everything but move mountains to end the romance, even though it's as innocent a romance as 1957 demanded.I don't know exactly what went wrong. The USAF/CEO problem is hackneyed. I mean, after all, that was a sub plot in just about every military movie John Wayne ever made -- career versus marriage and a settled existence. I should add that the settled existence as represented here is utterly bourgeois and materialistic, a spiritless void of apricot carpets and sparkling kitchens. Yukk.The Zimbalist/Malden conflict is botched from the beginning. In Korea, years earlier, Zimbalist endangered the field by insisting that his F-86 be repaired at night, requiring the turning on of lights and consequently "visitors" from the other side. After Zimbalist's take off, a crewman is killed by strafing. Throughout the movie, for six years, Malden believes (mistakenly) that Zimbalist forced the take off because of a hot date in Tokyo. So Malden certainly doesn't want a guy like Zimbalist courting his daughter, probably uttering hoarse, goaty cries while humping her in the back seat of his crimson convertible. The problem with this plot is that the movie shows us Malden as disliking Zimbalist BEFORE the lethal event. And the clumsy writing gives us no reason for the animus.The acting is as dull as the furniture except for Malden. Malden overacts. Every word is shouted. If he's supposed to be nervous, we watch a manic episode. The direction is careless. At the end, with Malden in a hospital bed, Natalie Wood must apologize to him for being bratty and demanding. It's her scene, and it's a long one. And the director, Gordon Douglas, doesn't allow her to build up to sobs. The whole SCENE has her in a torrent of remorseful tears, making the episode not just tedious but embarrassing.The scenes of flight are pedestrian. No sense is given of life within that thin aluminum tube at 40,000 feet. We don't get a sense of the layout. The flight deck is a mock up as are the other two sets. Leonard Rosenman's score matches the quality of the film itself -- lacking courage, vigor, and veracity.Despite these weaknesses, I'm sure the production had the eager cooperation of both Boeing and the USAF. It's practically a recruitment film.

I didn't really know what to expect when I started watching this but I am glad I made the decision to do that.Karl Maiden plays an experienced Air Force crew chief who's job it is to keep the planes flying. He has spent some 20 years in the air force when he gets an offer to work for a company for multiple times his current salary. His late teens/early 20s daughter is very vocal about him taking up this offer and his wife is leaning towards that as well. So he decides to put in his resignation papers with the Air Force but they take some time to go through.At the same time major changes are taking place on the base he is stationed at. An old acquaintance, a man who Maiden's character is not too fond of due to past events, becomes a senior officer at this base and the unit is chosen to become the first one in the US Air Force to take delivery of the new B-52 bombers which they must now get to know. Everybody wishes for him to stay and help out with the new planes and he decides to do that until his resignation papers are processed. During this time, quite a few things happen, both in his personal/family life as well as some adventures with the new planes.What I liked about this film is that the drama isn't forced or too overbearing. It is more down to earth, if even to say realistic and something one can relate to. Another huge bonus is that the film had the full cooperation of the Air Force so there are no miniatures or painted backdrops. All the planes are real (quite surprising that they'd feature America's latest achievement in aerial weaponry in a film as much as this) and the sets are actual air bases. Its a pleasure to watch all this big hardware moving around.If you like films about the air force with a bit of personal drama thrown in, this is quite good.

Disappointing compared to for example The Hunters and rather in the manner of the made for TV programming sponsored by large corporations in the 1950's and '60's seamlessly wholesome, moderate and reassuringly affirmative of worthy values - of patriotism, of the decency of the military, of family, of duty and of hard work being its own reward. The aerial photography lacked the supreme vividness of The Hunters. Also the B52 was not as photogenic or exciting as the F86 - similarly Karl Malden compared to The Hunters star hero Robert Mitchum. Nevertheless the script called on Malden to do what he does supremely well - play the decent simple unglamourous man. The two women play very conventional roles - supportive nice looking wife, pretty, innocent and well-behaved daughter. Other women are simply described as "blonds" or "brunettes" - enough said. The greatest object of passion was the new B52 - the "biggest, fastest, highest flying, longest range bomber in the world" - passion which in movie terms sounds cheesy but in reality the chance of working on the best, the latest, fastest, most advanced etc etc is the lure which captures and retains the most skilled designers and engineers worldwide.

Gives great Airplane, and great Natalie Wood. Plot? Historical accuracy (in the "how the USAF worked" sense)? Naaaa. But: So what? Is it less accurate than Alfie, Goldfinger, Hamlet, Spider Man, Fahrenheit 9/11? Certainly not. Fact is, you can watch it with the sound off and lose very little. A lot of it looks like my childhood on USAF AFBs here and there. But just for the record, it takes a professional screenwriter to create and amplify the significance of the hypothetical "enlisted vs. officer" conflict. Only a Martinet(who rarely makes it past 1Lt)or a damn fool idiot (~academy puke...many of whom learn better) fails to understand that all airplanes fly not on Bernoulli's equation or jet fuel, but on sweat. Guess who's? Ask any combat pilot.Eagerly awaiting a DVD release...my off-HBO VHS is about worn-out (same for Strategic Air Command...just bought two copies of The Hunters DVD just to emphasize flyover country interest).