Marky B

Sorry,Carmel - I was not impressed by it. That's that,so there........
Ta Ta
Marky B

I am special. The heavens always open for me.

Carmel

Just you wait

Marky B

Pistols at dawn it is then.
Ta Ta
Marky B

I am special. The heavens always open for me.

Joenoir

I'm glad I've found someone else who wasn't impressed with The Wicker ManI've never understood what all the fuss regarding this film was about!

Start every day with a smile and get it over with.

ChristineCB

I can't think of a Most Disappointing film, but when I first saw DR NO, GOLDFINGER and FROM RUSSIA, I was shocked at their low quality. I'd seen many other Bond films first, and looking back, it's rather amazing - pleasantly so - that this franchise grew from DR NO.

Carmel

Joenoir now now

christoph404

Yes, Lean and screen writer Robert Bolt endured very harsh revues and critcism at the time of the films release, Lean braveley faced a question and answer conference with a panel of American film critics at the time of the films release and they mercilesly and cruelly tore him to shreads. Lean was so traumatised from the experience of being rejected for the first time in his succesfull career that he retired from filmmaking and was only persuaded back behind the camera 15 years later for "A Passage to India". I guess the critcism holds up in some ways as Lean does use very overblown epic scenarios to tell what is in essence a small scale love story but looking at the film now it does not seem as bad as the critics of the time would have us believe, a dissapointing film by David Lean standards yes but by no means a total failure. So I would agree that it is dissapointing but watchable all the same as a lesson in how it is possible to get carried away by "epic" effects when they are least appropriate!

TimR

I was not aware of that - I had thought it was a success when it was released.

I am very sorry he was so traumatized by the American critics; it is always easier to criticize. It wasn't that bad...just a discrepancy between content and scope.

christoph404

It was universally panned and not just in the US, British critics gave it bad reviews as well and I think that hurt Lean more than anything.

kelp

Not wishing to turn this into a discussion, but surely the "Battle Of Britain" was made as entertainment, and to make money at the box office and that is all. So big star names, lots of colour and terrific sound and watch them line up to see it.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR...YOU MAY GET IT!

christoph404

Of course that is true as it is for most feature films but Im sure in dealing with such a serious subject , the filmakers had in mind that they would also pay tribute and celebrate the bravery of the British armed forces during WW2....as well as entertaining us and making some money! Actually its got me thinking that many war films tend to carry a message or make some kind of comment on the futility of it all, Im thinking Kubricks "Full Metal Jacket" or "Saving Private Ryan" or "Apocalypse Now" there were a lot of war films made in the 60's which could be described as rip roaring adventures such as "Von Ryans Express" or "Where Eagles Dare" or even "The Great Escape" and so on which could be considered as action adventures using WW2 as a backdrop, designed to entertain and make money. But Im not sure if The Battle of Britain would simply fall into that category, there didn't seem to be any critcism of the futilty of war in the film or any personal viewpoint by the director, but certainly as I said, respect and tribute was shown to the characters involved and an effort made to depict historical events in an accurate way while upholding some dramatic narrative drive. As pointed out it was not a documentary film. I guess Vietnam changed the way in which war was depicted on screen but thats a whole other debate and story!

ChristineCB

Kelp, that's why I generally turn my expectations down to very, very low when seeing films purporting to have relations to actual history. BATTLE OF BRIT was too vast of time-period to be bothered with a lot of interesting facts when they could fill the screen with creating characters instead. The vast time period is why such a film can't be fairly compared to single-event historical films which can donate screen-time to illustrating more small details.

Ken Burns is lamenting his forthcoming 14-hours-plus series The War because he couldn't devote all the time needed, he felt, and then he concedes "Twice or four times as much would have still been too little."

BATTLE OF BRIT fulfills my biggest hope: a lot of shots of working, flying WWII-era aircraft. They could have chucked all the characters and dialog except for "where do I land" and "fill 'er up again" for me! These are the films that made me get my pilot's license, and I'm stuck with an occasional P-38 workout. Not a Spit in sight. Blast the luck...

batman

The Battle of Britain may not have been a 'great' film, but it was entertaining and had some really good aerial effects etc. For how not to make such a film see Pearl Harbour.

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

christoph404

Ah yes, Pearl Harbour! What a rubbish gung ho film that was. I really do think films about war reflect the political climate of the year they were made, we have gone from the anti war films of Kubrick and Coppola based on their disgust at Americas involvement in Vietnam to gung ho America whooping and hoalaring and kicking ass on the back of the hysteria of invading Afghanistan and Iraq and kicking ass around the middle east! In other words a celebration of Americas power to overwhelm its "enemies"!.....ahemm...I will get off my soap box now, don't want to get too political here but Im sure you get what I mean!

orpheum

But Eastwoods 2 films on Iwo Jima are certainly an antidote to all that Gung Ho militarism that you otherwise see in American war films.After all very few war films have been made from the other side so to speak.
I would add that many British war films are to a great degree relics of their times.It is pointless to say that you dont agree with the way they treated a particular topic.That was the way it was handlede at the time.Remember "stuffy"Dowding was alive at the time of making BOB and i believe attended the premiere.Actually i remember doing so of the administration work on the estate of his widow.So they were unlikely for instance to put anything in the film that was too critical of him.Not that there is a great deal to be critical of him as he was very farsighted about keeping the RAF at home rather than sending it to France.

Welcome To Highbury The Home Of Football