Wow, this is a REALLY bad movie!

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

"Chain Lightning" is one of the strangest Bogart films you can find. While I could easily envision Bogart playing a part like this in the 1930s before he was a star, by the late 1940s (when the film was made) he was a huge star--and for films that were absolutely nothing like this film! Instead of the world-weary and cool-talking hero, here he is a bit of an action star and plays a role intended for someone significantly younger. Seeing a 50 year-old guy playing a WWII bomber pilot is patently ridiculous--especially since Humphrey Bogart looks all of 50 in the film. He also looks a bit tired and lost--mostly because it's just not his sort of film and you wonder what the folks at Warner Brothers were thinking. I assume they simply stuck him in the movie because he was under contract and they had no other films for him at the time...and any one of several dozen younger actors at the studio could have made this film. Now am I saying it's a bad film? Not really--but it IS a badly miscast picture.The film begins in the present (1949) and then looks back at the flying career of Matt Brennan (Bogart). It picks up during WWII when he's a thrill-seeking bomber pilot who refuses to go home after he completes his tour of duty and then proceeds to the post-war period where he's rather lost. He's soon recruited to fly experimental aircraft--something that Matt is SO perfect for that it would seem like the welfare of the entire free world depends on him. Now you'd THINK in a country the size of the US that they would find a pilot who is less cagey and willing to go back into the cockpit and they have to practically beg or trick him into doing this! But soon Matt's flying all sorts of craft and he's also reunited with his old flame, Jo (Eleanor Parker). What's next? See the film.What follows is a fairly standard Warner Brothers movie--one that Alan Ladd would have done well with (as he was quite nice in "The McConnell Story") and which is modestly entertaining but nothing more. The romance and 'controversy' are strictly by the numbers and offer nothing new. Not a bad film but a strange one.

After all, Humphrey Bogart reminded Ingrid Bergman that they always had Paris in 1943's "Casablanca." In this 1950 film, he could have reminded Eleanor Parker that they always had London.Bogie is an ace-pilot here. As always, no one can talk to him because he's Bogie,plain and simple. Parker was the gal he romanced in England while both were in uniform during World War 11 but did not wed.Back in the states, Brennan (Bogart) goes to work for Raymond Massey, an airplane tycoon hellbent on getting his plane off the ground. Brennan gets the job from a friend, the latter later killed off when the plane he was experimenting with crashes. The plot becomes should Bogie test the fallen pal's plane.Massey is rather subdued here in his quest for publicity when Brennan tests his plane. Ditto for Parker. She had always been accused of over-acting, but that's not the case here.

I saw this movie when it first came out and jets were practically unheard of. Three years later I was in Korea with the 335th FIS, and the King then was the F-86. The original movie showed a needle nose designed to break the air at high speed as a diver points his hands to break the water, and the air intakes were on the sides. The F-86 had one big intake in front which was dangerous because one of my best friends, a mechanic, was accidentally sucked up the intake while chocking wheels on the run-up strip when the pilot hit the throttle at 100%. He was gone in the blink of an eye. Bogie's plane could fly up to 60,000 ft and top speed of about 1600 mph. General Dynamics must have used this movie for the development of the F-16, because there seems to be a lot of similarities. I took an interest in some of the comparisons after seeing the movie "Afterburn".

I first saw this in a theater when it first came out. I was 13 at the time, and knew nothing about piloting an aircraft. So I thought it was pretty keen. The next time I saw it, I was 49 years old and owned an aircraft. What a difference the years make! The story is simple: a pilot makes an epic flight in an experimental jet and sets a record.Spoilers ahead: One movie critic said that the flying footage was "uninspired." How charitable! They were awful! The shots of Bogie were all the same, a head shot in pilot gear, with only slightly more animation than a statue. All the views of him piloting use that same shot.As he flies the jet through the upper stratosphere, he encounters some sparklings outside the cockpit. He radios that he's flying through "meteor dust," with all the animation of pointing out that below and to the right was a famous landmark. And if the "meteor dust" was that prevalent, wouldn't he be concerned about what it might do to his engine? Understand: I like Bogart films. But this one would have been better if they'd cut the aviation sequences out.