Want to See
Not Interested
Rate it ½ star
Rate it 1 star
Rate it 1½ stars
Rate it 2 stars
Rate it 2½ stars
Rate it 3 stars
Rate it 3½ stars
Rate it 4 stars
Rate it 4½ stars
Rate it 5 stars
Wings, the first feature film to win an Academy Award, tends to disappoint a little when seen today. Too much time is afforded the wheezy old plotline about two World War I aviators (Buddy Rogers, Richard Arlen) in love with the same woman (Jobyna Ralston), while the comedy relief of El Brendel is decidedly not to everyone's taste. But during the aerial "dogfight" sequences, the film is something else again: a grand-scale spectacular, the likes of which has never been duplicated, not even by more expensive efforts like Hell's Angels (1930) and The Blue Max (1965).… More

Available Online

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 97%

Critic Reviews from Rotten Tomatoes

"The audience gulped down the plot as conventional but reliable stuff, watched with waning interest while spinning, swerving, dodging planes grew into confused monotony against a background of unpicturesque ether."
‑ , TIME Magazine
"Long touted as a classic by cinema historians, and justifying almost every adjectival extravagance."
‑ , Time Out
"William Wellman's silent WW1 flying epic soars thrillingly while it's airborne, but on the ground it plods."
‑ Philip Kemp, Total Film
"...the last of the grand studio epics of the silent film era."
‑ Sean Axmaker, Parallax View
"its unadorned sense of realism sets Wings apart from so many special-effects-laden action movies today that exchange pixels for stuntmen and computer logarithms for physical reality"
‑ James Kendrick, Q Network Film Desk
"There not being so much of Clara Bow in the picture, or a straining for her to turn on that 'it' personality, she gives an all around corking performance."
‑ Sid Silverman, Variety
"This feature gives one an unforgettable idea of the existence of these daring fighters."
‑ Mordaunt Hall, New York Times
"A mixture of melodrama, sentimental romance and heavy-handed comedy, Wings was superbly choreographed with skilfully photographed stunt flying and aerial combat."
‑ Philip French, Observer [UK]
"The main reason to see 'Wings' is some of the most jaw dropping areal footage ever shot. Keep in mind, these folks didn't have CGIs."
‑ Dan Lybarger, KC Active
" big as they came in 1927, with a host of extras in the battle scenes and aerial footage that is often stunning."
‑ John J. Puccio, Movie Metropolis
"It won the first Academy Award for best picture back in 1927, establishing a tradition of silliness that hasn't been broken to this day, but there is some thrilling flying footage and impressively expensive spectacle."
‑ Dave Kehr, Chicago Reader
"Admittedly, this movie has not aged as well as many of its contemporaries, but it's not hard to understand why it was accorded the Oscar (a term that, by the way, had not yet been coined)."
‑ James Berardinelli, ReelViews
"Not a very unique, nor an especially artistic production, for sure, but it is one heck of an outstanding picture."
‑ Tim Brayton, Antagony & Ecstasy
"It's exactly the kind of movie the Academy still loves today."
‑ Josh Bell,
"The first Oscar winner for Best Picture was also the only silent film to win the Oscar."
‑ Dennis Schwartz, Ozus' World Movie Reviews
More reviews for Wings on Rotten Tomatoes