Two young men, one rich, one middle class, who are in love with the same woman, become fighter pilots in World War I.Two young men, one rich, one middle class, who are in love with the same woman, become fighter pilots in World War I.Two young men, one rich, one middle class, who are in love with the same woman, become fighter pilots in World War I.
- Won 2 Oscars
- 9 wins & 1 nomination total
Charles 'Buddy' Rogers
- Jack Powell
- (as Charles Rogers)
Charles Barton
- Soldier Flirting with Mary
- (uncredited)
Thomas Carr
- Aviator
- (uncredited)
Thomas Carrigan
- Undetermined Role
- (uncredited)
Margery Chapin
- Peasant Woman
- (uncredited)
Andy Clark
- Undetermined Role
- (uncredited)
Best Picture Winners by Year
Best Picture Winners by Year
See the complete list of Best Picture winners. For fun, use the "sort order" function to rank by IMDb rating and other criteria.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWas lost for decades until a copy was discovered languishing in the Cinematheque Francaise film archive in Paris, France.
- GoofsThe film is set during the years 1917-1918, but most of the female civilian clothes and hairstyles are contemporary with the late 1920s, particularly the clothes worn by Clara Bow in the home sequences and in the Folies Bergère sequence. Bow and almost all the other female characters have bobbed hair, common in 1927 but almost non-existent during World War One.
- Quotes
Sergeant in Mervale: Hey, if youse guys need kissin' *I'll* kiss you - wit' a gun-butt!
- Alternate versionsSome showings have trimmed Clara Bow's brief topless scene.
- ConnectionsEdited into The Eagle and the Hawk (1933)
- SoundtracksThe Star Spangled Banner
(credited on 2012 restored score only)
Written by John Stafford Smith & Francis Scott Key
Featured review
This entertaining and occasionally impressive movie is still well worth seeing in spite of its flaws. The combat scenes alone make the rest of it worth watching, and Clara Bow gives a very good performance. She has plenty of energy as always, and here she makes her character especially sympathetic. But it has its weaknesses, too. The story is contrived and full of obvious holes, and except for Bow most of the acting is rather routine (Buddy Rogers is as likable as ever, but no more).
The highlights of "Wings" come in the battle scenes, and they are awfully impressive. Done without computers or other such advantages, they are exciting and are usually completely realistic. The aerial dogfight scenes are especially dazzling. This part of the movie is not shallow stuff, either, since it has a good balance between the thrilling and the horrifying. If the main story-line had been better, this could have worked very well as a classic film about the realities of war and its effects on the young persons who must carry the heaviest load in a war.
But unfortunately, it has the story that it has, which could easily have been better. It is far too heavy-handed, and is also riddled with unlikely coincidences, implausible developments, strange decisions by the characters, and many other such holes. If you can somehow look past all these problems, then it produces some moving and emotional moments, but such moments are too often undone by the contrived ways that they are set up. It's just the kind of mess that has often impressed the individuals who vote for well-known awards, but a movie with such strengths deserved to have a much better plot.
Nevertheless, it is still well worth watching for its strengths, and not just because it is the answer to some trivia questions. Just in case there are any modern movie fans who have accidentally wandered into the silents section of the database, please don't think that this is the best of what silent cinema has to offer, just because it won an arbitrary award. There are many silent film masterpieces that are vastly better than this. But it's good entertainment, and has some portions that were made with great skill.
The highlights of "Wings" come in the battle scenes, and they are awfully impressive. Done without computers or other such advantages, they are exciting and are usually completely realistic. The aerial dogfight scenes are especially dazzling. This part of the movie is not shallow stuff, either, since it has a good balance between the thrilling and the horrifying. If the main story-line had been better, this could have worked very well as a classic film about the realities of war and its effects on the young persons who must carry the heaviest load in a war.
But unfortunately, it has the story that it has, which could easily have been better. It is far too heavy-handed, and is also riddled with unlikely coincidences, implausible developments, strange decisions by the characters, and many other such holes. If you can somehow look past all these problems, then it produces some moving and emotional moments, but such moments are too often undone by the contrived ways that they are set up. It's just the kind of mess that has often impressed the individuals who vote for well-known awards, but a movie with such strengths deserved to have a much better plot.
Nevertheless, it is still well worth watching for its strengths, and not just because it is the answer to some trivia questions. Just in case there are any modern movie fans who have accidentally wandered into the silents section of the database, please don't think that this is the best of what silent cinema has to offer, just because it won an arbitrary award. There are many silent film masterpieces that are vastly better than this. But it's good entertainment, and has some portions that were made with great skill.
- Snow Leopard
- Mar 28, 2002
- Permalink
- How long is Wings?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $2,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $1,684
- Runtime2 hours 24 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content