Nonureva Really Surprised!

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

verbusen This is a decent British made (but very biased) film probably an 8 or 9 for an aviation enthusiast from Europe. I'm giving it a 6 although I could have rated it less. I watched it on Turner Classic Movies (USA version) because it was described as a comedy drama featuring Laurence Olivier so that sounded interesting to me. Thinking it was a feature film I was surprised that it was actually a second feature documentary. Laurence Olivier plays one balloonist from the 18th century so with a total time of around 70 minutes and dozens of aviators featured his screen time is about 1 minute long and he plays an Italian! That is probably the highlight of the film actually. It gets pretty boring and actually disappointing when they get to the climatic Wright Brothers who have no actors playing them with lines and their screen time is about 30 seconds. The reenactment did look nice though. Much more time is given to the English Channel crossing (go figure). Then after WWI they skip the round the world flight by the US Army in 1924 and instead talk about a bunch of, you guessed it, European and British Commonwealth aviators. A very very brief mention is given to Lindberg, Earhart, and Wiley Post, probably because they were just too big at the time to be ignored. It finishes with what seems to be a lot of filler material about sea planes which could have easily been shortened, before getting back on track and showing some innovative new planes. It's possible that this was a big infomercial FOR the Imperial Airways Flying Boat business! 6 of 10 may be too generous but the footage of early helicopters and other pioneering planes (auto-car!) and the reenactments will make an aviation buff glad they watched. One thing I figured out in reflection shortly after I finished this is that the British were nurturing ties with the Italians showing a lot of their participation in the air races of the 20's and 30's and definitely could care less about the Americans who had Doolittle (of Raid On Tokyo fame) win the Snyder Cup for 3 years but is never mentioned. I cannot imagine a non aviation buff viewer of 2014 finishing this film. Also, the version I watched had Churchill in it so I probably watched a re-release version and not the one from 1936 unless they were being very prophetic because Churchill was in politics then but not the Prime Minister.

bkoganbing Some of the other reviewers answered certain questions I had about this film. Certainly what I saw today was not the original production of Conquest Of The Air. What apparently this film tried to be was the first docudrama ever done. If someone can recall an earlier one I'll stand corrected. That additional newsreel footage of Winston Churchill who was probably First Lord of the Admiralty when it was shot indicates a second World War had begun which promised and delivered to be more terrible than the last.Taking the story of man's fascination of flying back to ancient mythological days, Conquest Of The Air shows a patient building block like achievement of man trying to get off the ground and travel like the birds. For earlier times they're recreated with players and sets the most prominent being Laurence Olivier. As an educational film Conquest Of The Air is informative, but as entertainment it falls far short of the mark.

MartinHafer NOTE: While the release date on IMDb says it's 1936, there is a problem with this date. The film version I saw went up to 1938. Perhaps more material was added and I watched a re-release. Or, what's more likely is that the 1936 date is an error."Conquest of the Air" is a strange film in that there is a lot to admire and a lot to dislike. On the plus side, it's a nice and rather comprehensive review of the history of flight--with a strong emphasis on the botched attempts to fly from the middle ages up to about 1800. There also is a nice bit about ballooning and dirigibles. So, historically speaking, it's a nice educational overview. HOWEVER, while I admire the film in recreating so many nice tableaux, the narration is dreadfully boring and the film often comes off as an awful educational film--the sort they used to bore kids with in the good old days. Surely this could have been made in a more interesting fashion--this coming from a guy who LOVES airplanes and historical films. In addition, there were some curious omissions--such as the deaths of many of the famous people (such as Wilbur Wright during one of his flights). Worth seeing if you adore planes and balloons but not for the easily bored.By the way, I think if the film had featured less aviators and spent more time on the most important the overall film would have been more interesting and far less episodic.

suchenwi What? In 74 years after this film was released, no one has commented on it? So let me be the first :) This is a quite amazing documentary about human flight. The prehistoric part, starting from Icarus, is a bit repetitive - brave winged men crashing from some high place. But once the story comes to the Montgolfiere brothers, Lilienthal, the Wright brothers, Blériot, Zeppelin.. it reaches new heights, so to speak.I was surprised that this film is from 1936.. it felt like coming out of the middle of WWII which started in 1938. But that means it's even more prophetic.Highly recommended to friends of aviation history :) It is available for free streaming or download at archive.org.