Sunrise vs. Wings

I haven't seen Wings yet either. It's said to be quite good. Sunrise is exceptional. That film is among the most breathtaking I've ever seen.

If you have TCM, both Sunrise and Wings will air back-to-back in February '08. I know it's a very early heads up, but I'm going to try my best to tune in.

"Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

I haven't seen "Wings" in 15 years, but it's rather lightweight in comparison with "Sunrise". Totally different animals, though: "Wings" was an entertainment blockbuster, with laughs, melodrama, romance and action. Very well shot -- beautifully, in many places -- but "The Big Parade" is a greater artistic success, as far as war-and-message movies go, in my opinion.

Wings was like the modern day popcorn-crunching Hollywood Blockbuster. A visual treat, some edge of your seat moments, great fun. It was a war movie but not all that philosphical about like, say, All Quiet On The Western Front. It's just a straight-up action film.
Sunrise was an art film. And very extrordinary one. It's messages and themes are such that I can not think of a modern equivalent. It makes you feel good to be alive.

This movie has aged much better than Wings. Wings has some excellent stunt sequences and contains incredible scenes with thousands of extras and intricately coreographed airplane flights using footage with real live airplanes for almost all of the shots. The story, however, is a soapy melodrama that lags in parts and has actors mugging and overacting. It seems a bit naive and dated.

Both movies are quite different. Wings is the Grandad of the War/Action flicks, while "Sunrise" is more subtle and intimate.

Perhaps "Wings" might be more entertaining for certain people who has grown up watching summer blockbusters but IMO "Sunrise" is better.
Murnau was ahead of any director working in Hollywood at that time and IMO only challenged by Fritz Lang or Eisenstein as the best director of his time.

"Sunrise" wins for a nose.

I saw Wings a couple of weeks ago for the first time in 9 years. Nine years ago, I watched it over the period of two days due to work and school schedule. I found it remarkable. The first silent I had seen that wasn't a comedy. The first silent that actually made me feel something other than amusement. The ending was the part that stuck with me the most.

This last time I saw Wings straight through. I found it rather........ long. A little much. I found Wings to have too many title cards. The fighting scenes were also long, but I understand why. Filming areal maneuvers like that back then was something new. Some other scenes were just too long. Like the whole "bubbles" thing. It just went on and on. Even though he went from the restaurant, to the room, and there actually a point to all of that, I think they could have cut it down to half.

As for Sunrise, I don't think using the words "moved me" are right. Sunrise more than moved me. I couldn't believe how beautiful of a film it was. I still can't. For me, nothing about Sunrise changes the more I see it. It hasn't become boring, and it never seemed like too long or too much. I give Wings a 5 out of 10, but Sunrise a 10 out of 10!

Sunrise was NOT the co-Best Picture winner at the first Oscars. People and the Academy like to say that now, because Sunrise is considered one of the greatest films ever made and it elevates the Academy's miserable track record in selecting the year's "best" picture. If you look at the official Academy histories, their posters, and even Robert Osborne's book, the first winner was Wings. Artistic Quality was a consolation prize, though 2 of the year's 3 greatest films - Sunrise & The Crowd were nominated for that, not the big prize. The other eligible masterpeices were The General, Metropolis, The Wind, etc., but the Academy missed them all. Wings is a very fine film, with a superb supporting performance by Richard Arlen, but it pales in comparison to these latter day masterpieces. No surprise that the Academy rewarded inferior flash over ssuperior, more enduring subtlety, from Wings over The General, Sunrise and The Crowd, through the travesty of Crash over the great Brokeback Mountain, the Oscars truly suck. I won't even get started on their disgraceful politics. Anyhow, Wings is very worth watching, unlike so many Oscar bests (not just Crash, but the awful Greatest Show on Earth (over Singin' in the Rain, High Noon & Quiet Man) and Around the World in 80 Days (over The Searchers and Giant) and about 20 more of their 80 winners.

Wings deserves credit for its daring cinematography, as so much of the aerial shots were actually filmed in the air, and the cameras had to be worked by the actors/pilots. The Oscar for Best Production which it won, was considered to be THE award, and the Oscar for Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production was the first and only award of its kind.

I much prefer Sunrise to Wings, for it has much more depth and what seems to be more cinematic creativity for the time. I also enjoyed Metropolis, and to a lesser extent The General.

City Lights is still my favorite silent film.

The viewing of Sunrise tonight (twice) closes two lists out for me- imdb's top 250, that's right I've seen ALL of them (moreover, since it's changed so much since I started, I've seen about 275) and AFI's Top 100 movies, of which it is on the 2007 edition (I've seen all 119).

All I need now is to watch the very hard to find Cavalcade (in the mail), and I close out my list of every Oscar winning Best Picture. Not too bad, eh?

As far as overrated Oscar winners, we all have our choices. Forrest Gump was good, but not nearly as good as Shawshank or Pulp Fiction. I enjoyed Shakespeare in Love, but not more than Saving Private Ryan. I'm a big Lord of the Rings fan, and I think the first two were much better than A Beautiful Mind or Chicago. But really, everyone's tastes are so different, one wonders how you can really give an award for an art form. You might as well give an award for someone's favorite color.