Read the forum code of contact
By: - 22nd October 2018 at 23:27 Permalink
I have to disagree, the film is a very hackneyed and cliched portrayal of the English during WWII. The CGI is terrible, and i just cannot believe that any serving RAF pilots, English or Polish would be at dispersal in their civvy clothes. The use of Hurricanes with Night/White undersurfaces is wrong for the period in question as well. It would seem that historical accuracy was not even contemplated when making the film!.
By: - 23rd October 2018 at 22:43 Permalink
A good story let down by some awful CGI. Iwan Rheon was very good I thought as Zumbach. Overall, not that bad if you choose to ignore the meager budget and poor FX .
By: - 24th October 2018 at 14:33 Permalink
I too thought Rheon was excellent and there wasnt as much Brit-bashing as I thought there would be. Most of the CGI was awful but some of it I thought was pretty clever - eg the Hurri on finals on fire- yes I know they just CGI'd the real thing landing but I thought it was fairly effective. WW wasnt a bad choice for a location either. Bottom line, historic aviation made a few quid out of it and it may get someone interested in aviation history. I'm not going to slam it because the aeroplane had the wrong coloured undersides. Sure, not perfect but better than another superhero movie!
I thought the Stampe escape (if you ignore the wrong aeroplane and the fact that he didnt swing the prop) was fun!
TT
By: - 24th October 2018 at 23:31 Permalink
I liked that several real life incidents from the Battle of Britain period were incorporated into the story , a couple re-created on screen for the first time. I won't say what those are, only that, to my knowledge, at least one of them was attributed to a pilot from another famous Hurricane squadron. I also thought the full size replica aircraft, the BF109s in particular, looked great.
By: - 25th October 2018 at 10:58 Permalink
That Stampe had an air start
By: - 25th October 2018 at 10:59 Permalink
That Stampe had an air start.
By: - 25th October 2018 at 11:26 Permalink
Only the Renault engine;or you run out of air.... or airspeed...
By: - 25th October 2018 at 19:23 Permalink
Just imagine the fuss in these parts if someone released a film about the Battle of Britain where the bombers and fighters had the wrong engines and the Spitfires were all the wrong marks, and had the wrong squadron codes. There'd be people queuing up to takie potshots at it.
Adrian
By: - 28th November 2018 at 21:18 Permalink
We really enjoyed the film - we had a laugh at the CGI stuff and do not worry about how accurate starting the engine on the Stampe - since he actually escaped from France via a boat.
But other than a few changes to the story (which we always expect with a 'true' story) we really enjoyed it - much more engaging than 'Dunkirk'
By: - 29th November 2018 at 00:37 Permalink
"....more engaging than 'Dunkirk' "
That's setting the bar fairly low (for most of Dunkirk).
By: - 29th November 2018 at 09:56 Permalink
That's setting the bar fairly low (for most of Dunkirk).
No argument there J - LOL
We found Dunkirk really boring,we did not engage with the story or any of the 'actors' - one of the worst war films I have ever seen !
By: - 29th November 2018 at 10:11 Permalink
Stampe in Question has a Renault 4P03 with an air start so you don't need to swing it, I fetched it from White Waltham after filming ;) Not that I've seen the film.
By: - 29th November 2018 at 10:24 Permalink
Stampe in Question has a Renault 4P03 with an air start so you don't need to swing it, I fetched it from White Waltham after filming
Nice little job :)
But as I posted earlier - nobody should worry about the aircraft/engine being correct - Zumbach escaped from france by Boat - the Airborne escape in the film was obviously seen as being more exciting.
Just rechecking in 'Wings of war' by Jan Zumbach - Before daybreak on 18 june 1940 they were ready to sail from Bordeaux to Plymouth in the Polish Collier Kmicic II - they than had a 4 day voyage to Plymouth.
JZ and his friends had wanted to grab an aircraft to escape but all A/C with enough fuel to reach England were either already 'booked' or under guard by the French.
By: - 29th November 2018 at 18:06 Permalink
My gosh, sometimes Aviation enthusiasts drive me to distraction! There cannot be many subjects where fans moan so much about films and documentaries that could benefit them and promote their interests. I refrained from bastardising a Churchill quote. All aviation films have inaccuracies. I like Reach For The Sky but the story is good and makes up for it. I feel that many of you would prefer these films and dox were not made.
Posts: 3,652
By: - 29th November 2018 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 30th November 2018 at 16:30
Hi All,
It's a shame with inaccuracies that not only infect films but an array of documentaries as the correct info is available. If researchers bothered to do a proper job instead of accepting generic shots of whatever (Documentaries) as an example or failing to go to the source direct (If possible) as another. If the film director and others don't really know what is fact then the researcher should be on hand with the correct info to input.
The actors can only work to they're given direction the same can be said for the making of whatever film I imagine ? In period pieces with the plethora of material that is available on a wide array of platforms let alone reading material, Aviation specialists, Historic aircraft operators and repairers etc.etc.etc. surrounding world wars ( In this particular case WWII Aviation ) I blame the researchers fully for not bothering to do they're job properly,
I suppose you could also hold those with the money accountable to a certain degree as the budget is a limiting factor to what can be spent on proper research ? I can imagine the purse holders thinking along the lines of saying " that'll do nobody will notice A/B or C " , forgetting they're prospective audience for the most will have some knowledge of the subject matter and that is what most complaints are based on aren't they ? Surely you would want the film spot on not a mish-mash of this may or may not have happened or this or that may be the correct paint scheme etc.etc.etc. ?
To me it's simple do the research get that correct then as long as you budget accordingly you can work within that framework....;)
Geoff.
By: - 29th November 2018 at 21:03 Permalink
@ Rocketeer - I was not complaining so much about Dunkirk and its inaccuracies but more because I thought it was a badly made film - I can live with inaccuracy as long as the film story and direction is good.
I was happy to live with the couple of 'Artistic Licence' changes in Hurricane because I thought it was an extremely well made film.
Posts: 18,353
By: DazDaMan - 22nd October 2018 at 20:24
OK , so I finally managed to watch this tonight (pre-ordered on DVD before the film's limited run in the cinema).
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"81w1wdd0VIL._SL1500_.jpg","data-attachmentid":3838770}[/ATTACH]
My opinion? It's actually not that bad!
The actors do a reasonable job, with Game of Thrones star Iwan Rheon being the main Polish character, Jan Zumbach, while Dark Blue World star Krystof Hadek plays Josef Frantisek. My only complaint is that the WAAF characters seem a bit of an add-on, and one of them has a storyline that seems to go nowhere in the course of the film.
Sure, the lack of budget is a bit obvious at times, and one or two of the flying sequences could have done with a few more quid spent on them, but for the most part it's a pretty enjoyable film.
Loved the used of a Taifun camera platform, too!
Think Angels One-Five more than Battle of Britain and you might enjoy it.
A definite 3.5 out of 5.