HURRICANE film - first impressions

Profile picture for user DazDaMan

Member for

16 years 5 months

Posts: 18,309

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.

Attachments
Original post
Profile picture for user One of the Few

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 271

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!.

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 52

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 .

Profile picture for user TEXANTOMCAT

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 4,561

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

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 52

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.

Member for

8 years 10 months

Posts: 39

That Stampe had an air start

Member for

8 years 10 months

Posts: 39

That Stampe had an air start.

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 409

Only the Renault engine;or you run out of air.... or airspeed...

Profile picture for user adrian_gray

Member for

20 years

Posts: 2,966

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

Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 5,853

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'

Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 9,664

"....more engaging than 'Dunkirk' "

That's setting the bar fairly low (for most of Dunkirk).

Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 5,853

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 !

Profile picture for user The Blue Max

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 2,106

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.

Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 5,853

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.

Member for

15 years

Posts: 5,196

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.

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

6 years 11 months

Posts: 3,389

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.

Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 5,853

@ 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.