Geeeez, this was the first time I saw it, tonight on AMC. After all the big buildup for it...what a huge letdown. And 3 hours of it. It would have been better
to edit it down to about an hour. There is so much stuff in it that is not needed and just makes it drag out so long. All the background stuff on the people just seems wasted. And the landing....very little suspense there at all. No wonder Wayne had to be talked into doing it.
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."--Dorothy Parker
shareI was a bit disappointed too--it was a huge hit when it came out, of course. Nobody had seen a film quite like this before, and there's a lot of scenes that work. However, it pales before the best of William Wellman's films--he needed a hit at this point in his career, though. And he got one with this. It's the first of a long line of other movies in this vein--none of which are much good, actually. Except for "Airplane!", of course. With Robert Stack.
;)
I'm sorry...did I read that comment right? It would have been better if they "...edit it down to about an hour."
Did "The Searchers" or "The Shootist" bore you too much also?
Pity.
I think you should cut the people who made the film a little slack. I read that in the earlier days of movies, screenwriters tried to include as much dialogue as possible from the original source (hokey as it may be). Cases in point, "Gone with the Wind" and "Ben Hur", which were lengthly novels. Back then it was considered sacrilegious to leave out important passages. Obviously, they were trying to make the film as faithful to the book as possible. I think we're all used to movies being made today with more efficient editing, resulting in shorter run times. I think the new "War of the Worlds" is a good example.
shareYou forget that 3 hours was WITH commercials---it is only a 2 1/4 hour movie. I saw it for the first time in 1954--thought it a good movie then and now too---it gave me goose bumps. You can't chop 8p these movies every 10 to 15 minutes and keep continuity. You have to remember also that this movie was done 51 years ago--air travel was in its infancy---and the film was nominated for several academy awards---including best supporting actor for Robert Stack. Flashbacks have been done for years----like The Man who shot Liberty Valance(1962)---Trouble Along the Way(1953). This was a film that was one of John Wayne's best non-westerns. It was a film for Spencer Tracy, but he begged out to do Bad Day at Black Rock. Wayne also had to step in for Robert Mitchum in Blood Alley. Considering neither role was written for him---he stepped up to the plate very well. I myself can't wait to get the DVD and see it as it was intended to be viewed. NO COMMERCIALS.
sharetick1946: "the film was nominated for several academy awards---including best supporting actor for Robert Stack."
William Wellman would receive a Best Director nomination, Elia Kazan would win for On The Waterfront.
Best Actor noms: Bogey for Caine Mutiny, Brando for Waterfront, Crosby for Country Girl, James Mason for Star Is Born and Dan O'Herlihy for Adventures of Robinson Crusoe.
Supporting Actor noms: Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden and Rod Steiger for Waterfront, Tom Tully for Caine Mutiny and Edmond O'Brien for Barefoot Contessa.
Jan Sterling and Claire Trevor were both nominated in the supporting category for High and Mighty. Eva Marie Saint won for Waterfront.
Robert Stack would receive a supporting nomination in 1956 for Written On The Wind. He lost to Anthony Quinn for Lust for Life.
I don't think the AMC television showing was very good, those commercials every few minutes really chopped the movie up. Continuity, suspense, the wole 9 yards were lost in this broadcast. The Matthew Modine comments were dull and another distraction from the film itself. AMC should be ashamed of itself for what it did to the movie. When you get a chance, watch the whole thing all the way through without the commercial interruptions, I think you'll enjoy it more. Did the landing sequence get cut? I seem to remember an orchestral cue each time the plane passed over a row of landing lights, and wasn't there a scene where people in Chinatown looked up at the plane coming in so low and slow? If they were there in the AMC showing, I somehow missed it.
shareMatthew Modine's comments were .. forgettable.
The fact is that AMC is not the channel it used to be.
AMC cut out the ending chorus singing the title tune. I woudln't doubt they may have selectively edited the film to fit into time constraints. A few seconds, here, a few seconds there. No one notices with a film that hasn't been seen publically since the 1970's... Which means an entire generation has passed from infancy into adulthood since it's last telecast.
However, this was as good as it gets for now, until the DVD is released in a few weeks.
Another fact is that this film was written and directed for an audience 50 years ago. Details such as character development and an actual storyline that doesn't involve sex and gratuitous violence weren't routinely part of films in 1954. That may dissapoint many younger viewers who are used to the chopped hamburger put out by Hollywood today.
The High And The Mighty was a sirloin steak compared to the 2005 verion of "War Of The Worlds".... a film that starred Tom Cruise. The 1953 version starred the Martians... and didn't highlight Gene Barry or Ann Robinson....
Turner Classic Movies is far superior in both the quality of films, and with Robert Osborne's commentaries.
In my HBO copy of the film, there was no chorus at the end, and I don't recall it from when I saw it in my youth. I have the soundtrack album, and the chorus is on that, but I think it was cut from the final cut.
shareTCM and Robert Osborne rule all. I haven't liked AMC much since they started showing commercials durings movies, it's rather annoying.
shareYes...there was another snippet I remember, too. Isn't there an external shot of the plane from the ground just clearing the radio range towers on Mt. San Bruno...as the engineer is counting out the radio altimeter?
That didn't make the AMC version, either.
Just shook my head about Matthew Modine thinking he'd be invited to sit with Wayne over "tequilla with ice chips." That conversation would have been rather short.
"High and the Mighty" is arguably regarded the first "disaster" film, and VERY few produced afterward were as good....the personality backgrounds and character studies were necessary to set the stage for what followed, since this was a movie about people in crisis--otherwise, all you'd have is a film about a DC-4 with a blown #1 engine....I'm not sure John Wayne had to necessarily be "talked" into doing the movie (remember, he was a co-producer)...the role of Dan Roman was originally earmarked for Spencer Tracy, who couldn't (or wouldn't) accept it...in retrospect, it's hard to imagine anyone else in that role...not sure Tracy would have done it justice...
shareWhoever played Dan Roman would have had to be a strong leading actor like Wayne. Maybe Chuck Heston, Gregory Peck, Kirk Douglas, or even Jimmy Stewart could have done it. Stewart did a good job in his roles as a pilot (or co-pilot). "Flight of the Phoenix" and "Strategic Air Command" come to mind.
shareI don't think anyone other than John Wayne could have slapped Robert Stack around in the cockpit and made it believeable.......
share Perhaps I saw a different movie than some of you. This was laughably awful. The long winded dialogue, the corny situations, the phoney predictable charcters, and, finally, John Wayne slapping Robert Stack are so bad it's entertaining.
I can see why the Airplane movies were based on this clunker.
I do intend to record this movie, at some time, and keep it for future viewing. I intend to show it to my grown up kids. I think they'll get a laugh out of it, as I did.
I suggest you watch "Airplane" then watch "The High and the Mighty" and then try not to laugh. It really is amusing.
I don't mean to offend those who like this movie, especially those who originally saw it in the theater. I know it was a hit back then and was enjoyed by many. Sometimes, movies and TV shows that seemed great so long ago, don't wear well over time. The true greats transcend time (Casablanca, Double Indemnity....etc). Unfortuately, this isn't one of those.
Airplane was actually not based on The High and the Mighty or Airport....in fact it was almost a scene for scene remake of a film called Zero Hour. I was astonished watching it a while back, Airplane really had pages and pages of the same dialogue! Thing is, the ultra serious, stolid dialogue was meant to be serious in the original film, whereas it was comedic in Airplane.
sharexcanadian1155: I'm not offended that you apply todays movie making standards to the old claasic movies and decide you don't like them.
You know...they used to make movies for adults back then. Now, they have to make 'em so a 12 year old can appreciate them.
Can you just imagine for a minute what it was like to fly from Honolulu to San Francisco, dodging the clouds and thunderstorms in an unpressurized DC-4 at 9000 feet for 10-11 hours? Now they do it in 5 hours at 39,000 feet. In 1954, only about 2% of Americans had ever taken a plane ride, let alone a trip like this. Now, everybody flies. No big deal. In 1954, it sure was!
You don't like the characters because they are too cliche'...well, this was one of the first air disaster movies so it's not Wellmann's fault if his picture is ripped off later to make a comedy. You know...Billy Wilder made "Stalag 17", a great picture which was ripped off later by "Hogan's Heroes." Doesn't make "Stalag 17" any less of a picture.
Didn't the flight attendant in the story, at least, give you a small amount of empathy? My wife thought she was great.
I might also add, for your information, that almost all the aviation vocabulary and flying sequences used in "The High and The Mighty" are completely authentic. Why? Because the screenplay was written by the legendary avaition writer Ernie Gann, whose credits include the great book "Fate Is the Hunter."
At the end of the picture, with the chief pilot standing with the guys as they stare at the twisted engine...nothing cliche' about that. That's what pilots do if they can get it safe on the ground.
"The High and the Mighty" is like looking thru the time tunnel...at an era long gone..and yet, a story about pilots nursing a broken bird to land safely, which isn't a cliche'...still happens today. Without any comedy.
Just my opinion.
.
CmdrCody
>"The High and the Mighty" is like looking thru the time tunnel...at an era long >gone..and yet, a story about pilots nursing a broken bird to land safely, which >isn't a cliche'...still happens today. Without any comedy.
>Just my opinion.
I have to agree with you. I first saw this movie in the mid fifties, in a theater, our small town theater had just installed a stereo "surround sound" and Cinemascope screen. When I saw it the other night those opening scenes with the DC4 flying through the clouds and that soaring music was really a thrill...I had not expected to be transported back over 50 years...but I was for a few minutes. Flying THROUGH the clouds is something that few people today will experience, with jetliners flying over 40 thousand feet above the clouds. Such a beautiful and dramatic vista for those opening credit shots.
It really was a time capsule, films do not use such background music anymore. Then the music gave you an escape, enhanced the scene so that you felt something really special was taking place. The other scenes, no security at all in the airport, in all the picture was of an era, America between wars when the future seemed limitless...then just a hint of trouble on the horizon, with the disgruntled rocket scientist berating his colleagues with destroying the Hawaii envirnoment with their guided missles and working to blow up the world..
I also remember asking my dad what was happening when the plane engine was backfiring on the landing approach and he told me the engine was "missing" (misfiring)
Well put, Blaine!!! Hear...hear!!! For the old movies, three cheers!!!
shareCmdrCody; I really appreciate your comments. Although I don't agree with all of your sentiments, I think you hit the nail on the head in some places. In fact, I started a subject thread yesterday in an effort to gain a better understanding of some aviation questions and the historical nature of this film, but my post seems to have been mostly overlooked. (if interested, see "Trying to look past things to give Credit").
So, just to be clear, I looked at this film on its own merits. Yes, there are obviously things that triggered a connection to other movies, but for a real movie enthusiast, I think it helps to see the movie in its own right first.
Anyway, my main points of interests are:
1) the true "cause" of the plane's problem
2) the details around the cabin pressure
3) and the way the film chose to handle the gun incident
First, what was the cause of the "problem"? The first indication of a problem is recognized by the flight attendant in the aft section of the cockpit. This problem seems to be an unusual vibration which she notices when sees her reflection shake in an aluminum-faced cabinet. At the exact same time she registers this anomaly, the co-pilot, John Wayne's character Dan Roman, also seemingly senses the vibration, but since the rest of the crew doesn't acknowledge it, he doesn't remark about it. Then, later into the flight, a strong shudder occurs in the tail section of the plane and Wayne goes back to investigate, but sees nothing noticeable. As an aside, that was cool to see the pulley system that operates the tail wings. Still later, the pilot, Robert Stack, is resting in the rear of the cockpit and notices that the engines are "out of phase". Again, after the pilots look at the instruments, they dispute there is anything wrong and Stack is muted. Finally, a passenger unbelievably discharges a gun inside the cabin and one of the engines catches on fire. The lost engine then ultimately is the "problem" for the remainder of the film. Based on the outcome of the film, I somewhat suspect that all of these early symptoms, with the exception of the gunfire, are nothing more then red-herrings meant to forebode a problem. As far as the gun discharging, that one has me completely puzzled. Again, the way the film shows it, it seems that the gun's discharge and the fire on Engine #1 are complete coincidental timing and are not cause-and-effect. However, I just can't believe that a gunshot inside a cabin didn't cause some problem.
Second, what about cabin pressure? This is definitely an aviation question, but it wasn't explained in the film. In all of the later airplane disaster films, the planes have pressurized cabins. I'm assuming that pressurized cabins became essential for jumbo jets to reach altitudes of somewhere around 20,000 ft. Since the plane in this film is not a jumbo jet, I seem to recall that they mention they are at 9,000 ft. So, at 9,000 ft, if you open a plane's exit door or shoot a hole through the hull, you won't get sucked out?
Third, isn't the whole storyline with the gun and lack of security completely unbelievable? Like someone else stated in their user comments, I can accept someone boarding a plane with a handgun in 1954. In fact, I can still pretty much buy that premise even post-9/11. However, I can't believe, even in 1954, that there are no consequences to shooting a gun in an airplane. I mean, regardless of how innane the shooter's reasons are, he endangered the entire airplane and he's scarcely detained while onboard, he's never reported to the ground, the authorities are never notified, and there is no one waiting at the airport to arrest him (he skips off to make a phone call to his wife). That subplot is so unbelievable that it seems intenionally planned by the filmmakers as a means to draw attention to security concerns at the time. I mean, if I were around at that time, after seeing that film, I think I'd have made damn sure no one was armed otherwise I wouldn't board the plane. It almost seems like it was the Wild, Wild West-era of aviation which seems shocking to me given that WWII had just ended, the Cold War was in motion, and the Korean War was about to start. And, I would have to say that if they intentionally chose to take such a serious safety issue and present it as camp and slapstick, well, that's just grossly morbid. As a side note, the National Transportation Safety Board wasn't established until Lyndon Johnson's administration in 1967...17 yrs after this film. Oh, and here's another connection. In the famous Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", the gun onboard is taken from a US Marshal, I believe. In other words, it wasn't just a concealed weapong carried onboard by a passenger in his coat pocket. And, in that TZ episode, EVERYONE responds to a lunatic brandishing a gun around with appropriate force.
And, getting to your comment about the characters' stories, I think the movie was seminal in laying down the formula for getting backstories introduced. That bit of dialogue between the clerk and the flight attendant during the boarding procedure was pretty riveting and essential. I think the first film I recall which attempted to introduce so many characters' stories was maybe "Poseidon Adventure" which is like 20 yrs after this film.
So, all in all, I can appreciate the movie, but...I have those lingering questions.
To cptpepper67:
The aircraft in the movie is a DC-4, which is UNpressurized.
cptpepper67: Yeah, you're right about the guy, Mr. Agnew, "packing heat" on the airplane, going wild and shooting up the place. That incident was completely forgotten by everybody in the flightcrew. Even the passenger who it was pointed at didn't give it a thought...he was more scared about crashing, I guess. Not realistic at all, in that regard. The flight crew would have taken the "roscoe" away from our trigger-happy friend and locked it up in the cockpit, probably.
Cabin pressure: on the DC-4, none. The crew was required (as today) to operate below 10,000 feet with passengers on board since there wasn't any continuous supplemnetal oxygen via masks and no pressuriztion. Emergency O2 masks (that drop from the overheads) are not required so long as the pressurized aircraft stays below 25,000 feet. While continuous-use O2 masks would have allowed for high cruise altitude, it would have been mighty uncomfortable for a 11-12 hour trip. Pressurized commercial aircraft (DC-6 and the rest) were just around the corner. As far as discharging a pistol, one round, even at a window, on a large plane today, the "Goldfinger" effect (being sucked out the window) probably wouldn't happen. Nowadays, a bullet wouldn't probably go all through the fuselage of a large plane but if a window did shatter and if that hole wasn't plugged somehow, the crew would have to descend to below 10,000 feet. They would probably descend and land anyways at the nearest airport for a gunshot incident but positive control of the aircraft by the pilots wouldn't be an issue.
You're right about the cops...the crew would have called ahead to have 'em meet the airplane to have a "chat" with Mr. Agnew, just like the airline called ahead for the emergency equipment to be standing by.
Very good comment on your part.
Because they were operating at 9000 feet, the pilots would have been constantly "ducking and weaving" around the clouds, especially the convective (T-storm) clouds, to try to keep it smooth as possible. These bumps are experienced by passengers today but only for the first and last 10 minutes of the flight...not 11-12 hours of it. Imagine.
As far as I can see in the movie, the gunshot was fired down and to the left into the floor. In an unpressurized aircraft, it wouldn't effect the #1 engine at all or probably anything else unless it severed a control cable. So, the propeller coming off and the engine twisting in it's mounts was co-incidental to the drama in the cabin.
Now, as far as identification of the "problem" early-on by separate crewmembers...I liked that part. In fact, it's quite realistic. Even today's jet aircraft have funny vibrations, even noises, while at cruise that the crew pick-up at their positions in the airplane. They could come from a variety of sources: the engines, hydrallic pumps, cooling fans or aerodynamic surfaces. The Captain has hopefully briefed the crew as they start their trip together to let him/her know of funny, sounds, smells or vibrations...with thousands of hours in the air, the cabin crew has an informed opinion on these things. It's up to the Captain to judge on the significance of unusual occurances like that and can always consult with his maintenance people on the ground at any time via his second radio, to consult on just such things. Now, he can type in messages on a keypad and send questions almost like e-mail from the cockpit to "Maintenance Control" in addition to talking to them directly. Also, on the very newest aircraft, maintenance people can monitor the engine and other information of their aircraft in flight from their desks, real time, via digital radio link-up using AIRINC. Also, the aircraft systems now are monitored by computers on board so that overnight maintenance can be alerted to problems creeping in using a routine download of the day's flying.
However, with that being said, a subtle, intermittant vibration like the alert Dan Roman and the flight attendant (with only 4 months on the job) detected may go unmentioned at first because it was so subtle and perhaps, a single event. One of those things 99% of the time end up being unimportant and impossible for the mechanic to track down once on the ground.
One other item...today's jet engines have vibration meters in the cockpit and can be monitored by the crew. But in most cases, high vibration indication alone is not grounds for shutting down an engine in flight.
Hope this helps.
CmdrCody: Wow, that is some really great insight. Thank you for taking the time to explain those points. You have my admiration for being in the industry.
I knew the plane was unpressurized or, perhaps I should say 'less pressurized', but I doubt the simple air traveler either today or then would know the physical differences between 9,000 ft and 20,000 ft. Since I am kind of a details-oriented guy, every now and again I'll pick-up on a detail and store it away as fact until something comes along to contradict it. For example, in the movie "Airforce One", there is a key scene where the president has a plan to parachute the hostages off the plane, but in order for it to work, they need to be below 15,000 ft and drop to a certain number of nautical knots (200?). So, in order to fool the terrorists, the vice president's staff instructs the inflight refueling crew of those speed/altitude requirements (which leads me to believe that refueling probably can occur at higher altitudes). So, anyway, if by some chance I had the misfortune to see a cheesy movie where some hero-type decides he's going to parachute at 25,000 ft, I'd have to say it would register in my brain as BULLS*** (not that I use movies as my source of all "facts".)
Anyway, your description about the need for the O2 masks is great. That explains why the cockpit crew didn't need to wear masks. It also explains why in some war movies, such as "Twelve O'Clock High", the pilots do wear masks in order to be on a high-altitude bombing run.
<<Now, as far as identification of the "problem" early-on by separate crewmembers...I liked that part.>> I liked that part as well. To me, I thought it gave some subtle and complex insight into Wayne's character right off the bat. On one hand, he's kind of figuratively "flying below the clouds" himself: he makes a mental note of the vibration, but not needlessly alarming anyone, either, and then putting everyone at ease with his whistling (or I should say "lip-synched whistling"). I also liked how their was that whole decision-making dialogue among the crew regarding whether or not they should report an emergency after the shudder is felt.
In my opinion, though, the film was inconsistent in how it presented the crew's attention to detail. I mean, on the one hand, the crew is right on top of so many things like how to handle the shudder, the economizing of the fuel, the probability of surviving a water-ditch, etc., but then no one raises a finger to report the gun incident or the earlier "non-catastrophic" problems they experienced. They just finish their day and walk off like it was pretty uneventful. It just seemed choppy in places and that's where I've got to apply some demerits. Some of the film seems like obvious stylizing and I can go along with that. For example, the cartoonish way they flashback for some of the backstories. Or, the decision to avoid any heavy special effects for the landing and approach. I don't think the film would gain much if they did a lot of exterior shots. I find it more suspenseful that they keep the action to the cockpit, the cabin, the tower, and that Italian radio operator.
Btw, this incident eerily is reminiscent of a real story that took place in August, 2001, I think. It was a flight from Canada to Spain, I think, and the plane lost all power and had to glide. The crew was faced with either bracing for a water-ditch or trying to make it to a US airforce base stationed on an island. Miraculously, they made a safe landing at the base. I saw some of this story on either Dateline or 20/20 or one of those news programs last week, but I missed where they said what the cause of the problem was.
cptpepper67: Yeah...you refer to the AirTransat Airbus A330 that was enroute to Madrid from Montreal, Yes, it did run out of fuel completely. Yes, they did fly it "deadstick" to a successful landing in the Azores. Here's some back-round on that one...
The flight was an overnight run and was proceeding normally. Everything was fine until the crew started receiving multiple "fault" messages on their central console...problems that were unrelated and not indicated by the engine instruments. Very unusual. The crew called their Maintenance Control back in Montreal on their second radio to get advice on the multiple problems. What the crew didn't and couldn't know was that inside one of the engine cowlings, a fuel line had parted and was gushing jet fuel on sensors which produced the "fault" messages.
The Captain, in the meantime, didn't like these mysterious "faults" and after talking with company headquarters in Montreal, elected to head for the nearest suitable airfield which was in the Azores. That airfield was still well over 100 miles away from their position. Remember, at this point, everything on the airplane is running fine, but the Captain didn't like the looks of things and decided to get it on the ground ASAP. By this time, the crew had also noticed the fuel imbalance starting in their tanks but thought initially that it, too, was possibly an in-accurate "fault" reading. The fuel gauges are digital.
Well, after some more time, it became clear to the crew that there was a fuel leak and they couldn't stop it. When the engines flamed out, they were still 80 to 90 miles away from the airfield but still at 37,000 feet. The Captain began to glide the big airplane. An automatic backup system called the "RAT" or Ram Air Turbine popped out from the belly of the airplane and began to spin in the slipstream. A very cool little gadget. As it spun up in the wind, it produced backup hydrallic and electrical power to run the airplane.
And so, because they had already turned to the island to land before they flamed out, the crew had "geometry" with them. It was possible for them to make the island and not ditch. They could glide approximately 3 to 4 miles for every 1000 feet of altitude lost gliding. In fact, when landing was certain, the Captain had to increase his rate of descent slightly as to not overshoot his landing point. The crew worked well together during a stressful situation and got it on the ground successfully. Upon landing, the crew heated up the brakes pretty good getting the aircraft stopped since they were coming in flaps "up" (much higher approach speed) which caused all the tires to deflate after she stopped. And yeah, after everyone was off the airplane, the crew did stand around, looking up at their aircraft and thanked their lucky stars or the Lord Almighty. No comedy.
The source of the leak and the reason behind it was studied and understood by everyone in the industry and has become a case history for training purposes.
The date of the incident was September 8th, 2001....3 days before the Al Qaeda attack on America.
Thanks for reading my remarks.
Don't let a reasonable scene in a movie convince you that you've learned all there is to know. While the scene in "Air Force One" in which the plan is to parachute out at 15,000 feet & 200 knots is reasonable (but a bit on the speedy side!), it is not a typical jump altitude or speed. And, a jump from 25,000 ft isn't fiction. I dropped most of the paratroopers in my career from between 800 & 1200 ft, at a speed of around 135 kts. More than once I dropped some from 25,000 ft, the max altitude for an unpressurized USAF airplane. Pressurized aircraft have to be depressurized before you can open the doors at altitude. Speed up there was pretty slow, but probably still around 200 kts true airspeed.
shareYeah the dialogue is cheesy, and at times (ie Wayne staggering out of the wrecked aircraft and clutching the burning teddy bear)its laughably melodramatic,
but this movie has style and charm, unlike most of today's effects-laden "blockbusters" that are forgotten the weekend after they're released.
High and Mighty is far more fun than anything Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay will ever cook up.
[deleted]
<<jpseacadets wrote:>>
One more thing nobody noticed about the landing: that the red approach
lights resembled a cross. I got this right away, especially when the Duke
says "Now I lay me down to sleep..." at this very point in the movie. A prayer
for the saved! Nobody ever mentions this. Wayne was playing a flawed character
in this (as was Jan Sterling, David Brian and Sidney Blackmer) and not his
typical always-the-strong type.
Actually, I don't think this is as overlooked as you might think. The way that scene was framed, it seems obvious that Wellman wanted to make the inference that "The Big Man" was also in that cockpit. Wayne's remark just emphasized it. Also, this wasn't lost on the producer's of "Airplane!" who clearly made reference to this scene in their filmed landing approach. They managed to take it a step further with the dashboard Jesus.
the only REDEEMING factor in this movie is the presence of john wayne. robert stack gives his usual mono tone wooden marianette performance, the rest of the "block buster" cast is high on "bust", low on "block".
it would have been so much better with more wayne........the ending is anti-climactic, silly, and a fitting end to this turkey.
could you imagine had spencer tracy taken the role?????
it would have stunk all the way around then!
the wayne family was doing fans a favor by keeping this one buried!
bodoe: Wow...you shouldn't sugar coat your opinions like that and leave doubt in our minds on how you feel...
You're so certain that flying airplanes in those days wasn't at all like it was portrayed in THATM. What do you think it would look like if you were flying for 14 hours at 9000 feet from Honolulu to Frisco and a motor came off the mountings?
I think director Wellmann wanted Robert Stack to be mono-tone and wooden..it was how the character was portrayed in the book.
It's your privilege not to like the movie.
I guess I just like old movies.
share