WHAT? I love Stewart but the movie is a CARTOON of the book. It's cool to see his plane reconstructed and flown but outside of that it's goofy as hell and full of classic hollywood hyperbole. I mean, the final scene for instance where he's landing in France has him clutching his st christopher and crying out in desperation! It's CRAP. It's full of dumb goofy yuk yuk humor that would have made Lindbergh cringe and emphasizes stuff that non flying folks might think is dramatic while totally ignoring the really brilliant planning, execution, and drama of his accomplishment.
Yeah; Stewart himself had reservations, starting with a middle-aged guy playing the "Young Eagle."
But he stayed with it, out of a desire to be part of a big-screen tribute to Lindbergh's epic flight, which had been a huge inspiration to him to pursue flying in the first place.
The book, IMHO, is much more riveting, and I think even non-pilots might feel that way about it. You really can get a sense of how much of a struggle it was, and why Lindbergh felt it was worth it to try.
Me, I feel a sense of drama just looking at the course line for the over-water portion... a daunting bit of navigation in such a plane in those days!!
Back on topic: I'll most likely rent the Richtofen movie eventually; worth a look-see, I guess. I see from the trailer that it attempts to humanize the "Red Baron" a bit; could be very interesting if it is accurate.
But I won't expect flying footage on a par with
Blue Max, Waldo Pepper,etc... no matter how good CG stuff gets, it just can't compare with the real deal, IMHO. Even Hughes'
Hell's Angels, with all its clunkiness, excites me more, because these were almost-original aircraft being flown by some of the best pilots available, shot using never-before-attempted techniques. It's amazing stuff.
I'm simple-minded, so I'm mostly hoping to be entertained. Sometimes if you don't have exceedingly high expectations, you enjoy things more. 
