John Darrow | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘John Darrow’

The Money Was On The Screen

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Ben Lyon, Europe, General Comments, Germany, Hollywood, Howard Hughes, James Hall, Jean Harlow, John Darrow, London, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Monte Rutledge, Movie Reviews, Oxford, Reviews, Roy Rutledge, Royal Flying Corps, The Avaiator, World War I, YouTube.com on June 11, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Hell’s Angels” (1930) — movie review
Today’s review is for the early aviation war epic “Hell’s Angels”, directed by Howard Hughes and starring Ben Lyon as Monte Rutledge, the charming, woman‑chasing younger brother whose carefree (and cowardly) attitude masks a streak of loyalty for his brother; James Hall as Roy Rutledge, the more serious, principled older brother whose sense of duty keeps pulling him into danger; Jean Harlow as Helen, the flirtatious and unpredictable love interest whose behavior complicates the brothers’ already strained relationship; and John Darrow as Karl, the German friend from Oxford whose return to Germany and later death in the bombing of London underline how the war tears apart personal loyalties and friendships. There is also a large supporting cast of British officers, German pilots, and squadron mates who fill out the story of rivalry, honor, and sacrifice in the skies over World War I Europe. The film mixes melodrama on the ground with large‑scale aerial combat sequences which (even today) feel surprisingly real / accurate.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film. I’d heard about “Hell’s Angels” mostly as “that insanely expensive Howard Hughes aviation movie” from watching the Hughes biopic “The Avaiator” (review here) and as the film which made Jean Harlow a star. Released in 1930 after an infamously long and chaotic production, the movie was one of the most expensive films ever made at the time. It received no Academy Award nominations (the Oscars were still finding their footing), but historically it’s significant for its groundbreaking (and brilliant) aerial photography and for pushing technical boundaries in ways few films of the era attempted. The film did have the highest grossing attendance of the year and Hughes clearly spent his production money in the air giving the people what they wanted to see. Hughes’ obsession with realism led to dangerous stunts, multiple pilot injuries, and at least one fatality during production. The film is remembered today as a landmark in aviation cinema and as a key moment in Harlow’s rise to fame.

Plot: The story follows two British brothers, Roy and Monte Rutledge, who attend Oxford and fall into a rivalry over women — especially Helen, whose flirtations complicate their relationship. When World War I breaks out, both brothers join the Royal Flying Corps. Roy is earnest and dutiful; Monte is reluctant but eventually follows. The film shifts between melodrama on the ground (romantic entanglements, betrayals, and moral choices) and large‑scale aerial combat sequences. The brothers fly dangerous missions, including a nighttime bombing raid and a massive dogfight against German fighters. A captured German officer (a friend from Oxford) refuses to betray his country, adding another layer of conflict. The story builds toward a final mission behind enemy lines, where Roy and Monte must make a life‑or‑death decision that tests their loyalty, courage, and brotherhood. The ending is tragic, with sacrifice framed as both noble and inevitable in wartime.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Mostly; uneven but interesting; spectacular for its time; several; mostly yes.

Any good? Mostly. “Hell’s Angels” is a strange mix of early‑talkie melodrama and jaw‑dropping aerial action. The ground scenes feel dated — stiff acting, awkward dialogue, and pacing issues — but the flying sequences are genuinely impressive. The film tries to balance romance, rivalry, and war, and while the story is uneven, the ambition is undeniable. The emotional beats land better than I expected, and the final act has surprising weight. It’s not a great movie overall, but it’s an important one, and parts of it still work remarkably well.

Acting: The acting is a mixed bag. Ben Lyon and James Hall are serviceable as the brothers — Lyon brings charm, Hall brings earnestness — but both performances feel very “early 1930s.” Jean Harlow, at just 18, is the standout: playful, bold, and already showing the screen presence that would make her a star. Some supporting roles are wooden, especially in the early dialogue scenes, but that’s typical of the transitional sound era. The emotional moments between the brothers in the final act are surprisingly effective, even if the delivery is occasionally theatrical (overly melodramatic).

Filming / FX: This is where the movie shines. The aerial sequences are extraordinary — real planes, real stunts, real danger. Hughes filmed dogfights with dozens of aircraft, using daring camera angles and long takes that still look impressive almost a century later. The nighttime bombing raid is atmospheric, and the massive dogfight is chaotic in a good way. The ground scenes are more static, with early‑sound limitations, but the flying footage more than makes up for it. For 1930, the aerial filming is groundbreaking / spectacular!

Problems: Several. The pacing is uneven, especially in the first hour. The melodrama feels dated, and some scenes drag. The acting can be stiff, and the dialogue occasionally clunky. The tonal shifts (from light romance to heavy war drama) don’t always blend smoothly. The film’s length (well over two hours) feels excessive. None of these issues ruin the film, but they make it feel like two different movies stitched together. What REALLY almost completely ruined the viewing experience for me was watching the film on YouTube. There were commercial interruptions practically EVERY three minutes. Most were two ads with the first being 10 seconds and the second letting “skip” after 5 seconds. Also, there were two sets of ads which repeated over and over again. One set the first hour and the second during the second hour. Streaming films on YouTube is AGONIZINGLY painful!!

Did I enjoy the film? Mostly yes. The flying sequences alone make it worth watching. They’re exciting, dangerous, and visually impressive. The melodrama is hit‑or‑miss (mostly miss), but Harlow adds spark, and the brothers’ story has enough emotional pull to keep things moving. The final act is strong and the ending is reasonably memorable. It’s not a film I’d revisit often (and NEVER again on YouTube), but I’m glad I finally saw it. It’s a fascinating piece of early Hollywood history.

Final Recommendation: Moderate recommendation. “Hell’s Angels” is historically significant, visually groundbreaking, and ambitious in ways few early‑sound films dared to be. The aerial photography alone earns it a place in cinema history, and Jean Harlow’s performance is a bonus. The melodrama is dated, and the pacing uneven, but the film’s technical achievements and wartime themes make it worth watching — especially for fans of aviation history, early Hollywood epics, or classic film milestones. It’s not perfect, but it’s important, and parts of it are still thrilling today. Miss this film if you HAVE to watch it on YouTube. Otherwise, it’s not a bad movie. The aerial fight easily makes this no lower than a moderate recommendation – no matter how much else may be wrong with the film.

.
Click here (11 June) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.