The Aeronauts
for some peril and thematic elements.
Reviewed by: Sharon Black —first time reviewer
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Better than Average |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | • Adults • Young-Adults • Teens • Mature Preteens |
| Genre: | Action Adventure Fictionalized-History IMAX |
| Length: | 1 hr. 40 min. |
| Year of Release: | 2019 |
| USA Release: |
August 30, 2019 (festival) December 6, 2019 (limited theatrical release) December 20, 2019 (Netflix) |
Year 1862 in Victorian England
Scientific researcher risking his life for the betterment of mankind
Gas balloons used in the service of science
Breaking records
Fight for survival—physically and emotionally
The Politically Correct agenda behind changing a lead character from a man into a woman
Learn about the real 2 people involved in the actual historical flight—one a Christian scholar and the other a man (not a woman) as depicted.
Attempting to accurately predict the weather
WEATHER EXTREMES—What are some weather extremes on Earth? Answer
STORMS—Does God control the weather? Does He send deadly storms? Answer
Snow in the Bible
| Featuring |
Felicity Jones … Amelia Wren Eddie Redmayne … James Glaisher Himesh Patel … John Trew Phoebe Fox … Antonia Tim McInnerny … Airy Rebecca Front … Aunt Frances Tom Courtenay … Arthur Glaisher See all » |
| Director |
Tom Harper |
| Producer |
Amazon Studios Mandeville Films See all » |
| Distributor |
This movie is based on true events, but not totally factual about the real persons involved. The story is set in 1862 England. It opens on a street scene with much excitement as we enter a carnival atmosphere with a crowd of 10,000 people who have come to witness the launch of a hot air balloon advertised to be England’s answer to France’s hot air balloon altitude record of 23, 000 feet.
James Glaisher portrayed by Eddie Redmayne is seen preparing to participate in the launch as part of his scientific study of meteorology when in enters Amelia Wren played by Felicity Jones and her parachuting dog Posey in full carnival regalia and flare, and so begins a great adventure with much risk involved.
As the story progresses, we learn through flashbacks of the personal tragedy and resistance to the flight and the meteorological inquiry from family and the scientific community that these 2 characters must overcome.
As they begin the flight, the danger starts when they fly into a storm and narrowly escape disaster. The flight itself reveals breathtaking scenery and the miracles of Creation in our atmosphere. As they ascend higher, the flight becomes more dangerous, and we see that Glaisher is ill prepared for the conditions. During a series of heart-stopping moments, we see the courage of these 2 individuals and a friendship and trust develop.
Creation scientist and author Dr. Henry M. Morris noted that James Glaisher was “a CONVINCED BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIAN,” A CREATIONIST who “was one of the signers of the famous Declaration of 1864, affirming this belief in response to the tide of Darwinism then sweeping the country.” Sadly, the film seems to present him as somewhat of a Humanist.
Pioneering English meteorologist Dr. James Glaisher—also an aeronaut and astronomer (born 1809, died 1903)—was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and President of the Royal Meteorological Society from 1867 to 1868. A lunar crater is named after him.
This venturesome Victorian man of science made 28 balloon ascents for scientific purposes. He wrote well and often, including his book Travels in the Air (1871) which has recently been republished as The Aeronauts: Travels in the Air with an introduction by Professor Liz Bentley, Chief Executive at the Royal Meteorological Society.
In reality Glaisher’s co-pilot was a man, usually HENRY TRACEY COXWELL, grandson of Rev. Charles Coxwell, and one of the world’s foremost balloonists—a man of great bravery and competency.
This movie omits Coxwell entirely and replaces him with a fictional female daredevil, supposedly “a composite of real-life female balloonists” including Sophie Blanchard, a French aeronaut who was the first woman to work as a professional balloonist between 1804 and her death in 1819, when she launched fireworks in the basket that ignited the gas in her balloon and crashed it on the roof of a house—where she fell to her death.
Keith Moore, Head of Library at the Royal Society (Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge), recently said, “It’s a great shame that Henry isn’t portrayed because he performed very well and saved the life of a leading scientist.”
There are many other ways in which the story was changed, as well.
This movie is very refreshing in that there is much less inappropriate language and no romantic component. There is one discreet scene when Amelia changes her clothing. The costumes, street and university scenes appear authentic and help draw viewers into the exciting story.
- Violence: Moderate— consists of intense scenes involving ballooning
- Profane language: • “d*mn” (1)
- Nudity: Minor
- Vulgar/Crude language: None
- Sex: None
- Drugs/Alcohol: None
- Occult: None
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
What’s left is just another example of Hollywood’s PC gender pushing histrionics. The real-life male hero of this actual ballooning duo has been replaced by a fictional, ultra-modern, female ‘role’ model. Laughably ‘modern’ Hollywood! Given all the real-life, deserving women the scientific world has had throughout history; why not make a movie about one of these—instead of adding a fictional one to our recorded history!
Some nice mock (CGI) aerial photography attempts to camouflage the obvious manipulative agenda pushing, and if seen on a large screen it will supply enough adrenalin rushes for those with a predisposition toward fear of heights or vertigo.
The editing style is another drawback—just when things look like getting exiting in the balloon, we are forced back to ground to be shown how difficult it was, in the lead-up, for this duo to get airborne—these don’t work well because we already know they won their battles—so it just serves to slow the whole thing down.
Performances are uniformly good, and of its type, even with all the clichés, it’s a good movie but could have been so much better (and more honest).
Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 5
PLEASE share your observations and insights to be posted here.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5