blitzebill I've seen this film many times and never get tired of it.One principal reason is for the flying sequences. 1938 and in a major Hollywood movie we're seeing some of the future of American aviation for WW II: The Seversky P-35, a potential template for the P-47, and an early B-17, and some distance shots of other aircraft like PBYs, etc.The air races in Cleveland work decent too, and generally look good despite the sometimes crude special effects. Of course these races become a crucial part of the plot.Another reason is the snappy dialog among the principals: Gable, Loy and Tracy as listed in the opening credits. A good love story and fine friendship between pilot and mechanic always makes for good film viewing. All three do some good honest acting.And if that weren't enough, the cinematography and special shots of aircraft and flying are pretty spiffy too.A recommended classic all around.P.S. notice the inclusion of the typical superstitions of pilots and their crews. In this case, Gunner's chewing gum on the aircraft for good luck.

mjimih I noticed this movie surfing around on TV and caught a glimpse of racing planes. My mom is from this era, married a test pilot(just after the war), who drank. So I asked her to watch it with me because she used to work for TWA in 1945 running weather data to the pilots. Amazingly neither of us had seen it before. We had a great time because this film has great acting (and lots of fast planes). It's no wonder they grabbed Clark for Gone With The Wind right after this film. He nails all his demanding scenes.very well. Their are moments of pure psychology in this one just like a lot of them from this period imo. Myrna Loy is pleasantly reserved and unpretentious and showed a wide range of acting. The script is quite clever, so it must of been easier for the actors to really act, and it shows. It's not hard to get absorbed in these characters. Spencer too, he's a pretty cool cookie here. During an exciting plane race, my mom asked how they filmed some of the plane stunts! I have no idea :-) very exciting indeed. Have fun.

hcoursen The flying shots are often very good, particularly since they look to have been taken from another aircraft. The planes are antique, even by late 30s standards. The sleekest fighter resembles a P-36, already obsolete (vs. the Zero and the Me 109). The B-17 is the early model sans tail gun. Loy is an improbable farm girl and her conflict with the flamboyant Gable (in love with the wild blue dress yonder) is unconvincing compared to the witty interchanges with Powell in the Thinman films. Tracey, without a great part, shows how good he is. He just raises an eyebrow or lowers a lip -- no wonder Gable envied his acting! But watch this one as part of a "history of flight" course -- not necessarily how it was done back then but how it was depicted. And there is some truth to the mythology that inter-war flying in this country was done by a bunch of loners, rogues, and madmen. We were only a few years from the more mechanized approach to turning out pilots in great and necessary quanities, in schools where "training" was really done.

jpheifer-1 First of all, I am not a critic. This is just a visceral reaction to the movie.It starts out as a fun screwball comedy and then gets really deep. Halfway through I was still wondering where this movie was going. And after it got deep, most of the time I had no idea what the characters were talking about. Of course, by the context I knew they were talking about life, death and love, but what they were really trying to say wasn't clear. On one hand, I would think that this movie was quite a surprise to '30s audiences expecting a "Clark Gable movie," but on the other hand, '30s audiences weren't a bunch of innocents. They'd been through a lot of crap, so maybe this movie spoke to them.On the positive side, is there anything lovelier to look at than Clark Gable? Especially a young (about 37 years old) Gable. It's also fun to see Lionel Barrymore as a nice guy. Whoda thunk it?