Everyone's familiar with the Hindenburg disaster. "Oh the humanity" (cried out by radio reporter Herbert Morrison as he reported on the crash live) has entered our vocabulary when horrible things happen (or when flightless turkeys are dropped from a helicopter, as in WKRP in Cincinnati.) In any event, no one really knows why the Hindenburg crashed. The most widely accepted hypothesis is an electrical spark caused by a buildup of static electricity. This movie goes in a different direction. It emphasizes the sabotage theory - a theory rejected by both German and American investigators, but nevertheless tailor made for conspiracy enthusiasts and movie making.The movie's pretty well done. It has a feel of authenticity to it. I know about the Hindenburg disaster, but I never really had a sense of what the Hindenburg was like for its passengers. The movie gives us a pretty good sense of what it would be like to be a passenger on such an airship. It's not as luxurious as an ocean liner, apparently, but it would have been a pretty exciting voyage. I liked the sets, and the bit of a picture we get of how the airship flew. That was all well done.There's a large cast of characters in this, headed by George C. Scott playing Col. Ritter, a Luftwaffe intelligence officer who's assigned as head of security for the ship. The sabotage angle is played up with that character, plus a Gestapo agent who's both helping him and watching him, in that delightful fashion Nazi Germany had. Both suspect sabotage; both are looking. As is normal with this kind of movie, there are all sorts of possible suspects on board the ship, and no particular reason to suspect one above any other. In that sense, the movie lost a bit of an opportunity to create more suspense by giving away the identity of the saboteur maybe half way through. Ritter turned out to be anti-Nazi enough to be willing to let the sabotage happen, as long as it didn't endanger the passengers. In the end, the real tension comes from the fact that the Hindenburg's landing at a Naval Air Station in New Jersey was delayed, meaning that the bomb would go off before the passengers disembarked, unless Ritter could stop it - which, of course, he couldn't.The movie has a good cast. Aside from Scott, there's Ann Bancroft and Burgess Meredith and Charles Durning among others. There's even a bit of humour thrown in as a pianist and acrobat on board put on a show for the passengers and crew that turns out to be a shot at the Nazis, poking fun at Hitler and the party with a song called "There's A Lot To Be Said For The Fuhrer." In the end, the portrayal of the fire and crash of the airship is extremely dramatic and well done."The Hindenburg" is an interesting movie. It's highly speculative, but if you're interested in the sabotage theory, this presents at least one plausible sabotage scenario to consider. (6/10)

Just like another beautifully mounted, expensive, silly flop, The Hindenburg reminds me a lot of "Heavens Gate" made five years later. Just like Michael Ciminos film, Robert Wise was obsessed with recreating the era, props, models to exacting standards, unfortunately exacting standards were not used on the plots. Both films suffer with a poor script, which renders all their technical expertise and budget nearly worthless. Also, just like Heavens Gate, there are problems hearing important dialogue in the ships interior over the hum of the aircraft. In Heavens Gate is was the train station. Both films miniature plots can't hold up to the production, and seem silly, like watching a TV movie in IMAX. And really, would a sober minded character like George C Scott's neglect to factor in the possibility of a late landing?

I'll go against the consensus and say that I think this is a pretty decent film.I think it suffers from being called a disaster flick. There's a big difference. Most all the disaster flicks were fictional stories. There's some pretty good history here, although admittedly Hollywood has fictionalized it somewhat...but after all, it's not a documentary.So if it's not a disaster flick, what is it? Historical fiction. A very different genre with very different expectations.The special effects and sets here are awfully good for 1975. I give it very high marks in that category.In terms of the story, it's one version of what happened to cause the disaster. Is it the correct story? Who knows? And since it's not a documentary it has no responsibility to present alternate hypotheses.The cast is rather impressive. George C. Scott is good in a somewhat subdued performance as a Luftwaffe Colonel assigned as special security for the Hindenburg. I'm not much of a fan of Anne Bancroft...and after this film I'm still not a fan...but she does her job. I was glad to see Burgess Meredith, Richard Dysart, Robert Clary, and Charles Durning in the supporting cast.I do have two big criticisms of this film. The first has been mentioned by a couple of other reviewers. I wish the German characters had an accent so we could tell more about each character's nationality without having to work at making conclusions. They all sounded too American. Secondly, I don't think going to black and white for the conclusion was effective at all, although I imagine it saved them lots of money rather than trying to recreate the crash/explosion in color. Too bad colorization of newsreel film couldn't be done effectively in 1975.Nevertheless, I say give this movie a shot. I think you'll like it. It was a money-maker when it came out, so lots of people did like it back then. Perhaps its too historical to be exciting enough for some light weight audiences.

Pre-WWII Nazi Germany looms heavily as the back-story in this film about the final voyage of that giant luxury airship known as the Hindenburg. As in "Titanic" and other disaster movies, viewer knowledge of what lurks ahead in the plot propels the drama, a kind of foreboding anticipation. What all these disaster films have in common too is the equity that befalls characters. Wealth, status, and fame provide no security against fate. In "The Hindenburg", all the family jewels of The Countess (Anne Bancroft) count for nothing.One difference here is that the actual disaster takes only a couple of minutes to unfold. That presents a plot problem for the writers, who thus improvise a somewhat fictional account of the various passengers, and their relationship to Nazi politics. Dialogue and subtext thus trend a tad political at times; further, some scenes reek of soap opera melodrama, all of which is meant to pass time, en route to the main event. I have no problem with a sabotage theme, given that the cause of the disaster could, at least in theory, have been sabotage, though electrostatic discharge combined with hydrogen gas seems more plausible.My main problem concerns character ambiguity. Who exactly are these people, and what are their motives? I think the script could have done a better job of identifying them. On the other hand, maybe their Nazi affiliation was made vague, deliberately."The Hindenburg" is a big-budget film, with attention to detail in production design and period piece costumes. The film seems quite faithful to true-life replication. A mostly color cinematography is credible, though the widescreen projection is too severe. B&W newsreel footage at the end adds authenticity, though I didn't much care for the use of freeze-frame.Casting is acceptable, except for the annoying William Atherton. I especially liked sturdy Charles Durning in the role of Captain Pruss. Overall acting is average.A lot of viewers seem to find the pre-disaster plot and dialogue boring. That's unfortunate, as there is no way to create a feature length film that prolongs a tragedy that encompasses only a couple of minutes. Some script issues aside, this is an elegant movie, one that will appeal especially to viewers with a sense of history and genuine human drama.