I watched 'Wings of the Navy' (1939) on TCM Today. I wouldn't say it was a great film, it was entertaining and fun to see a VERY young John Payne and Olivia de Havilland in action. Olivia de Havilland was quite a talented beauty. She was at her peak in those years (1930s through the 40s) IMO. John Payne looked even younger than his 27 years at the time. I notice a marked improvement in his performance 8 years later in 'Miracle on 34th Street' (1947). In this movie he did little more than wear a uniform well and deliver his lines appropriately. George Brent was good in it as John Payne's older brother. He always could do the dignified characters well. I'd rate this a 4 out of 10 stars. I was just reading this about the movie at the IMDb: " 'Lux Radio Theater' broadcast a 60 minute radio adaptation of the movie on October 7, 1940 with George Brent, John Payne and Olivia de Havilland reprising their film roles." I find it interesting how many old films had the original cast do radio versions too. BTW - I enjoyed the footage of the early flying boat aircraft...especially the larger two engine models.

WINGS OF THE NAVY is a typical service picture of the time. It features parallel stories of a young Naval Aviator (John Payne) training and his eventual involvement with his Brothers' (George Brent) fiancé (Olivia De Havilland). It will come to nobodies surprise that this triangle will end in favor of the younger and better looking Payne with De Havilland. Brent no doubt retiring back to Bette Davis. The rest of the films cast is rounded out by standard WARNER BROTHERS contract players.The real Stars' are the Planes and training facilities of the U.S. Navy. It is quite evident that the U.S.N. was deeply committed to the expansion of its air arm. This film focusing primarily on training, then the PBY Catalina Flying Boat, one of the most successful aircraft of its type, many still flying today. The prime striking arm of the U.S.N. the Aircraft Carriers are largely ignored.Seeing this film a American no doubt felt that our Navy was ready for war. Others watching would not think so. Our future Allies' Great Britain and Soviet Russia were already flying the more advanced Fighters, Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire and Polikarpov I-16 respectively. Future enemy Imperial Japan featured the likes of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero (I.J.N.) and Nakajima Ki-43 (I.J.A.), Nazi Germany their Messerschmitt BF-109 (Me-109). Even the Italians looked more impressive with their Reggiane Re.2000.In the film our most advanced (experimental) Fighter is one of character George Brents' design. It is a Bi-Plane, looking more suitable for WWI then the coming conflict. No wonder Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany seeing films like this had such a low opinions of our war fighting capabilities. Fortunetly like a iceberg the unseen was far more impressive then what could easily be observed. They would find this out in less then a year once war commenced. Much to their chagrin.

I am biased, as are all film reviewers. There are certain types of films we are naturally more positively predisposed to, and this is one of them for me. I love history and aviation and so it's not at all surprising that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Heck, there were a lot of very similar movies in the 1930s and 1940s--films about young cadets trying to make it through flight school, bombardier school, etc. After a while, they tend to blend a bit together in my head and I am sure that the average viewer would get tired of the genre pretty quickly. But if you also consider that this film was made by Warner Brothers (who made a lot of similar films) and stars some wonderful actors that I truly enjoy watching (George Brent, Olivia DeHavilland, John Payne and Frank McHugh), it's natural that I should like it. But, on the other hand, will you? Well, if you love this type of film, you are sure to be impressed. If you have not, then you probably will find that the film is a tad contrived and clichéd--particularly regarding the romantic triangle in the film. But considering how marvelously done the flying sequences are (exceptional for the time), the consistency of the writing and acting and the overall fun of the film, I think the average person would still probably give this movie a score of 6. I myself give it an 8 but realize that a good compromise between non-aviation/old movie lovers/history teachers and nuts like me is a score of 7.

While the training exercises are realistic enough in WINGS OF THE NAVY, filmed on location at actual training grounds in Pensacola and San Diego, its story is strictly formula stuff with a love triangle between two brothers (George Brent, John Payne) in love with the same girl (Olivia de Havilland) holding the action sequences together.This is almost like a B&W version of PEARL HARBOR--but lacking the punch of the PEARL HARBOR war scenes. It's a dated aviation drama, with a love story against the background of preparations for war. However, none of the characters have any real depth and there's the usual clumsy comedy attempts of Frank McHugh which become irritating after awhile.The chief players are pleasant enough and it's interesting to see how the sea planes operated in San Diego--but the script is strictly off the Warner assembly line. Olivia de Havilland is pretty as a picture as the heroine but given little to do while Brent and Payne share most of the spotlight. The training scenes give us an interesting look at the air force equipment of 1939--and I'm sure it encouraged many young men to enlist two years before World War II broke out.