Battle of Britain (1969) Reviews

• A Historic event recreated with skill and wit.

  jlpicard1701E2003-07-10

  Perhaps not many new viewers of this gigantic recreation are aware of the fact that this movie was filmed almost 30 years after the actual events took place. The efforts to put History on screen were huge. Everything in this account of the facts, comes directly from those who were actually involved in it: from the British and German fighter aces to private Londoners, they all contributed to make this not just another "war movie", but rather a dramatized documentary with accurate precision. This by no means signifies that it is just that. The sky battles were very carefully choreographed, in accordance to rules of combat, which were followed in the 1940s. Some planes were flown by the same veterans, so that when you see a Messerschmitt Bf-109 followed by Spitfire Mk 1, you know it's for real. The technical efforts were immense and although the Messerschmitts have reworked engines and even the Heinkel He.111s have different aerials and engine specs, because they were updated by the Spanish Air Force for later use after World War Two, the difference is barely noticeable when one watches one of those spectacular aerial battles. On the whole, this is a history lesson about how a people, isolated from the rest of the world, and in a minority position, withstood the overwhelming crushing machine of the Axis: the Luftwaffe. More than a movie, this is a celebration to those brave people, both civilian and military, who did commit themselves against all odds, to resist and fight back a very aggressive and dangerous enemy. This, together with "The Longest Day", "Sink the Bismarck!", "Tora! Tora! Tora!" and "A Bridge Too Far" is one of those rare examples to make history come to life again and should be considered as didactic material for schools. An excellent multi-national cast and a skillful direction, make this a masterpiece of its genre.

• Holds Up Well

  bjones2002-01-21

  I recently reviewed this film after having not seen it since it was new. Being a 31 year military veteran I have a somewhat different frame of reference for watching films such as this. I look for things in a film many civilians never will. I don't think this one has ever been shown on TV in the US, at least not within a couple of decades, so it's certainly not overplayed here. Luckily, the tape I accessed was in excellent condition so it was crisp and new in appearance. It is still a very excellent film depicting one of Britain's most harrowing times and the unwavering heroism of those who fought so desperately to secure their victory. The film didn't enjoy many fine reviews when it was new as it was compared, as most war films are, to the plethora of fiction produced by the movie industry and REAL history usually comes off looking mundane by comparison. I have found this a similar oddity for many excellent films of war. This is one film that more than adequately stands the test of time and I would absolutely love to see a wide-screen DVD version of it offered. Although it helps to have an understanding of war in general, and in particular the second world war and the actual battle of britain, one can be ignorant of those facts and still come away well entertained. It is a wonderfully produced film, acted with talent and grace by a cast of performers who are now legendary. The sets, costumes and musical score are wonderful and perfectly compliment the cinematography. If I can find a copy I am going to add it to my library.

• A good film, unfortunately for Hollywood, WW2 started in 1939!

  jmb32222002-03-05

  This film does have its flaws, but is still a great film. It had to be made when it did (sic) if only because the Spanish Air Force still had their Merlin engined Hispano HA-1109 and HA-1112 "Me 109s" and Casa C.2111 "111s" flying in 1968! It's good that some "stars" do not have big roles. Michael Caine whilst being "hot box office" is shot down - many pilots who seemed invincible were lost. A number of the parts are based on real characters Robert Shaw's is based on Adolf 'Sailor' Malan - 74 Squadron Ace, Susannah York's Harvey is based on one Felicity Hanbury (who later became the Commandant of the WRAF). The scene where she has to deal with a bombed slit trench is based on what happened when Biggin Hill was attacked. Being burned and still being alive was one of the biggest risks - sitting next to a tank of 100 octane whislt being shot at was risky. It's chief flaws are i) Hurricanes shot down the bulk of the German losses during the Battle - this "error" is primarily because there were more flying Spitfires available. More serious is depicting "The Few" as a group of equals - in reality the class system was still to the fore in some places more so than others. Officer would not mix with NCOs, Auxilliary Air Force pilots (predominantly from the upper classes) looked down on Volunteer Reserve pilots (predominantly from the working/middle classes). But bear in mind this was made less than 30 years after the event when some of the myths and propaganda surrounding it were still treated as the truth, unlike "Pearl Harbor" and "U-571" and other recent films they haven't just thrown historical fact out because it doesn't fit the desired story line! Many pilots were killed simply because of the stupid tatics they used - fighting by the 1930s RAF rule book until lessons were learnt. Many didn't see what hit them. In most other ways the film is by and large correct. The British were very reluctant to use Polish and Czech squadrons; despite many of these pilots being much more experienced than British. Oh and having read the other comments here - this does not follow just one squadron, Robert Shaw is one, Michael Caine another, The Czech/Poles others, Christopher Plummer another. I seem to remember that the film makers went out of their way not to show any one squadron as being the "winners" hence no squadron numbers are mentioned - all aircraft codes are ficticious. A film has to keep an audience's attention for 100+ minutes real life isn't like that just showing the fear and boredom of sitting around on hot summers days dreading the 'phone call would not make a good movie instead compromises are made. When you watch it remember that this wasn't just dreamt up by some scriptwriter this really happened.

• Formulaic, yet uniquely authentic. (Very minor spoiler)

  boazbenjamin2004-08-12

  I found the secondary sub-plots and "personal dramas" to be hokey and formulaic, to wit, the Susannah York character Maggie is horrified and transfixed by the appearance of a badly burned pilot, only to hear moments later (in screen time) that her own pilot boyfriend has been badly burned. Nevertheless, what struck me much more than any of the performances, effects, or writing, was the simple fact that the RAF adviser on this film was the exceptional Sir Douglas Bader, who was one of the most aggressive flyers in Fighter Command despite having lost both legs in a flight accident in the early thirties, while the Luftwaffe adviser on the film was the man who shot Bader down in 1941, Adolf Galland. Each man was a fighter ace, and each was among the most famous and respected pilots on his respective side at the time of the war itself. That is to say that these men were not only in the Battle of Britain, but played significant roles in it and were privy to, if not party to, many of the tactical and strategic decisions and debates depicted in the film. In fact, the sardonic request to Goering to "give me a squadron of Spitfires," voiced by Major Falke in the film, was spoken by Galland in real life. No quantity of flashy CG effects could outweigh the guaranteed authenticity of having the real thing on hand. An amusing side point: The roll of nationalities at the end of the film concluded with one "Israeli" pilot, a mild anachronism as there was no Israel until 1948. At the time of the war, he would have been referred to as a Jewish Palestinian, or simply a Palestinian, but of course the film was produced shortly after the Israeli victory in the Six Day War (1967), and the term Palestinian was coming to refer uniquely to those Arabs inhabiting the territories captured by Israel in that war. Anyhow, in summary, while I found much of the melodrama to be overplayed and unnecessary, the central action of the film, both at Headquarters and in the air, vibrates with an authenticity which is ever more difficult to reproduce as the remainder of the wartime generation ages and dwindles, particularly those who were old enough to be in staff and leadership positions during the war.

• Very good.

  magellan3332002-02-05

  Never knew this movie existed until I happened upon it at the local video store. I decided to give it a chance. This movie can be compared to "Tora! Tora! Tora!" in that it gives one the factual perspective of the Battle of Britain and not some love story or "shoot'em up" action adventure set around the Battle of Britain. It is the absence of such elements that makes some viewers not enjoy this kind of film. However, if you are interested in seeing history played out on the screen, or are a history buff like me, you will enjoy this movie. The characters are not deep or complex and there is little character development, but in a movie like this, it is not necessary. There is a pretty useless subplot involving a man and his wife, but other than that, this film is not to be missed by those who enjoy WWII history.