Film

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours 11 Minutes

Name: Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours 11 Minutes
Genre: Comedy
Released: 1965
Cast: Stuart Whitman, Sarah Miles, James Fox, Alberto Sordi, Robert Morley

Comedy
Car-chase action
Light-hearted

A splendid 1965 international comedy about a London-to-Paris air race with an enormous ensemble cast playing pilots from every nation. It's a spectacular adventure filmed on genuine locations, built around elaborate set pieces and sight gags rather than snappy dialogue. Gloriously earnest and generous, made when Hollywood still believed in movies as events.

TMDb rating

3.4

Should you watch it?

Watch it if you love long, lavishly silly set pieces where elaborate machines fall apart with deadpan dignity, and you enjoy an ensemble of grand egos bickering across the countryside.

Skip it if you want a tight, brisk comedy; at well over two hours, its gags are spread thin and its slapstick often lingers long after the joke has landed.

What it asks of you: Settle in for a leisurely two and a quarter hours, with a gentle rhythm that builds through many small mishaps rather than rushing toward a single punchline.

Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.

If you liked this

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World1963

An all-star comedy disaster built entirely on chase sequences and physical comedy, with the same spirit of pure spectacle and ensemble chaos. Slapstick mechanics executed at feature length with real joy.

But It's nearly three hours long and the humour is obvious, often landing with a thud. If you need subtlety or contemporary irony, this will feel ancient.

The Great Race1965

Blake Edwards directing Jack Lemmon in a globe-trotting adventure with elaborate stunts, elaborate jokes, and elaborate sets. Same era, same faith in physical comedy as the main event.

But It's extremely long and the tone wobbles between sentimental and silly. Some sequences feel stranded between what Edwards wanted and what the studios would allow.

Singin' in the Rain1952

Another ensemble adventure built on the joy of performing and showing off. Technical spectacle married to genuine entertainment, with a cast that delights in every frame.

But It's a musical, and if that word makes you reach for your phone, nothing here will convince you otherwise. The plot barely exists beneath the set pieces.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours 11 Minutes

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T.1953

Both films trust the audience to follow them into a constructed world built on spectacular production design rather than emotional realism, but this one abandons coherence entirely—same faith in cinema as spectacle, none of the plot anchoring.

A Theodor Geisel fever dream about a boy trapped in a surreal concert hall, built entirely on elaborate set design and the logic of dreams rather than plot. Strange, colourful, committed to pure visual imagination.

But It's genuinely weird and will feel wrong if you're expecting a normal film. The narrative doesn't follow sense; it follows fever logic. Some people find that liberating; others find it annoying.

The Italian Job1969

A caper film with international flavour, clever setups, and a cast having visible fun being charming and brilliant. Lighter and tighter than the flying film, but the same pleasure in execution.

But It's much more cynical and much less earnest. If you want the sincere investment in spectacle rather than winking knowingness, you'll feel the distance.

Around the World in 80 Days1956

An enormous international production built as a series of attractions and locations, with a sprawling cast and the attitude that cinema should feel like an event and an adventure.

But It's episodic and can feel baggy; the plot exists mainly to ferry you between spectacles. Modern editing would cut forty minutes, and not all of them unnecessary.

The Grand Budapest Hotel2014

A meticulously constructed caper with a multinational cast, visual gags that reward close attention, and the same sense that filmmaking is a craft worth showing off.

But It's mannered and controlled to the point of artificiality. If you want spontaneity or real danger, this is too composed and too aware of its own brilliance.

Breakfast at Tiffany's1961

A romantic adventure across Europe with enormous charisma and charm, built on the appeal of its cast and the glamour of international locations. Light, fast, deeply pleasurable.

But It's dated in ways that jar—racial caricatures and attitudes toward women that feel ugly now. The pleasure requires overlooking some real problems.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail1975

British ensemble comedy with a cast executing madness at feature length, built on absurdist logic and the faith that an audience will follow you anywhere if you commit hard enough.

But Sketch comedy structure means it scatters in all directions; some bits land harder than others. If you prefer narrative coherence to gag density, the ADHD structure will exhaust you.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang1968

A family adventure with elaborate set pieces, international locations, and genuine craft in the execution. The same era's faith that cinema could be spectacle and charm at once.

But It's sentimental and occasionally cloying, and the tone ping-pongs between adventure and children's entertainment. The music will stick in your head whether you want it to or not.

Entrapment1999

Both are international adventures built on the pleasure of watching competent people execute elaborate plans across beautiful locations, but this one is a heist romance rather than a sports competition—same DNA, completely different mood.

A globe-trotting caper with actual stunts, genuine locations, and a cast enjoying being impossibly charming. It treats the heist like an elaborate game with the same pleasure in execution and the same aesthetic of glamorous competence.

But It's silly and knows it, and Ving Rhames makes some baffling choices as an actor. The romance undercuts the heist, and the ending is preposterous even for this kind of film.