The Shepherd

The Shepherd recalls & commemorates the pilots who helped and "shepherded" home shot-up aircraft during World War II.

I didn't like it.

It's corny, predictable and shallow. Not quite sure why Disney has wasted its time on this?

It looks quite good. Visually it's convincing. But the story doesn't complete its most important arc. No spoilers.

Obviously a ghost story, but why bother?

John Travolta is probably behind all this, but despite his enthusiasm for flying, this isn't any kind of showcase for him or his production skills.

Can't be bothered to write more about this so.......£&....................

Ignore the negative reviews, someone with an axe to grind is trying to sink the ratings on this excellent short. My wife and I took a chance on this and loved every minute. Well acted, well directed, good story, not predictable, and best of all I was left feeling something inside, something good and uplifting. I would explain in more detail but I don't want to spoil the plot.

If you want to watch something that inspires and intrigues without vulgar language and violence and explosions, this is it.

I do have my own axe to grind with Disney in some ways-they have lost their way, and they insist of forcing people to watch the bad parts of some garbage they now distribute by denying access to VidAngel. BUT this short is beautiful and worth the watch. Make more of THIS, Disney.

"Stand with anyone who stands right. Stand with them while they are right, and walk away when they are wrong." - Abraham Lincoln.

From a common sense point of view, the movie doesn't make much sense to me.

1. Secondary compass is a standard device for a pilot since forever.

2. Electrical failure doesn't equate to conpass failure. Especially in the pre-digital era, the compas and altimeter would still work with the engine off and now power. Same with speed meter. They were purely mechanical devices based on earth's magnetic field, pitot tube (dynamic/static pressures), air density/pressure/temperature. Fuel gauge also used to by purely mechanical back then, and that one seemed to work till the very end.

3. The behaviour of the pilot doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like he never went through any common sense training. If you have any sort of issues with the plane's controls early in your trip, you don't push forward for your destination, you get back and land.

4. If you have compass and altimeter failure and see a cloud front, you avoid it at all costs.

5. Basic training also covers (to this day) star and sun nativation. Yes, if you know the time and date, you can easily determine with good precision the cardinal points and navigate to land. It doesn't make any sense that he starts doing "triangle formation" over the see when he still had plenty of fuel. You find land at all costs and try to find an empty field or road or something. Given the full moon he had during that night, it should have been really easy. It absolutely doesn't make any sense to ditch over water with land km away.

6. Also, the way he tried to "save fuel" didn't make much sense to me either. If you want to maximise endurance, you basically have to fly at minimum power which still keeps you in the air while gliding the plane. Each plane has a different maximum endurance envelope/settings and it's a combination of engine settings, flight controls settings, altitude and speed - no "triangle formation" required.

7. Overall - absolute rubbish. The entire movie doesn't hold water from a technical point of view. The existence of ghosts is more believable to me than that pilots' behaviour.

The story is fine, but unremarkable.

What I found distracting was the subpar CGI. The plane looks like a plastic model during the exterior shots, an effect exxagerated by the studio lights shining all over it.

Similarly, you can easily discern the studio accent lighting in the eyes of the pilot, and on the surface of the cockpit cowling.

I never believed for an instant that the wayward pilot was actually in an aircraft. The monochromatic acting by Radcliffe was probably influenced by the fact that he was sitting in a mockup in a studio somewhere. The flat delivery of his lines merely underscored the low budget feel of this short.

Even the fog at the end looked like it was being generated just out of sight of the camera, and then being gently blown across the scene.

Travolta's appearance was probably filmed in a day... more likely just a couple of hours. He's... there... and that's all that can be said of him.

Found this while browsing Disney Plus and decided to give it a try, particularly as it's directed by Iain Softley who doesn't get nearly as much credit and recognition as he deserves (does anyone remember the excellent K-PAX for example?).

The movie draws us steadily into the story and maintains a mostly quiet and thoughtful atmosphere yet with some tension when required.

Not only did I enjoy the story but the visuals too - I am going to assume that the outside views of the aircraft when flying were CGI and not physical models with CGI 'enhancements', etc and, if so, they were very well created with a good sense of realism.

In summary: I enjoyed it a lot - despite the relatively short running time it never felt rushed.

Recommended.