The concerns of dean-harmse and sascha-17 are my concerns - well said. The 21st century anti-war dogma is counter to what I have studied; von Richthofen's own writings and the scholarship of others have shaped my understanding of "the Red Baron" that was not depicted in this film. The physicality of Matthias Schweighöfer belied the "presence" of Manfred von Richthofen; the substitution of the relationship between von Richthofen and Boelcke with the love interest (eegadz) was a myopic decision; the omission of the final battle was a dramatic blunder. This could have been a great bildungsroman (dare I say, künstlerroman) had they focused on the development of von Richthofen as both a combat pilot and a propaganda instrument (and I use "propaganda instrument" in the non-pejorative sense). I suppose that even when you are making a 15,000,000 dollar movie, mistakes are made. Mark Twain, when discussing the art of story telling, humbly posits, "I don't claim to know to tell a good story; I only claim to know HOW a good story OUGHT to be told" (Twain, "How to Tell a Story"). This was the wrong story to tell and could not be told well. I hope someone will tell The Red Baron story as it ought to be told - I hope that person is an existentialist and does not pervert von Richthofen with the presentism that is so prevalent in this film version.
At least the Albatros D.iii looked the part.
At least the Albatros D.iii looked the part.