Battle Over Britain

I have seen parts of this movie and it is just as bad as the Masters of the Skies series.

Guys sitting in there Spifires in perfectly starched suits flying straight lines while in combat.

Really is this the new norm of Hollywood movie making.

Flying straight line in active combat airspace is a deathwish to be fullfilled.

Every enemy gun will have zero trouble of shooting you down.

And the ammount of CGI is again everywhere.

And then I'm not even talking about the highschool level acting of the actors.

My advice would be to find, Battle over Brittian from 1969 and get a much better feeling how it was over the skies of Southern England during WWII and how close England got to be defeated by the Luftwaffe.

I have already deleted this movie from my collection because I will not insult the brave airmen that gave their lives during this horrible conflict by owning a copy of this abomination.

"Battle Over Britain" attempts to capture the intensity and heroism of World War II aviation but ultimately falters due to its glaring technical flaws, lackluster production values, and uninspired direction.

Visually, the film struggles with immersion. The cinematography is static and uninventive, failing to convey the dynamism of aerial combat. The dogfights, a crucial element in any war film centered on pilots, lack urgency and realism. Instead of sweeping camera movements and pulse-pounding aerial choreography, we get rigid, repetitive shots that resemble outdated flight simulation footage. The overuse of CGI, particularly in battle scenes, only exacerbates this issue, as the digital effects are glaringly unconvincing and fail to blend seamlessly with live-action sequences.

The production design is minimal to the point of distraction. The film's airbase setting is astonishingly sparse, consisting of a single Spitfire (which inexplicably serves multiple pilots), a makeshift shed doubling as squadron headquarters, and barely any support vehicles or personnel. The absence of crucial wartime details-such as proper refueling, rearming procedures, or even period-accurate uniforms-further strips the film of authenticity. These omissions make the film feel less like a historical drama and more like a low-budget reenactment.

The acting, while occasionally competent, is often wooden and lacks the gravitas needed for a war epic. Many performances feel modern and out of place, failing to capture the discipline and demeanor of 1940s RAF pilots. Dialogue is stilted, with prolonged, uneventful conversations that add little to character development or dramatic tension. The emotional weight of war-fear, camaraderie, and loss-is barely conveyed, leaving scenes that should be gripping feeling lifeless and mechanical.

Perhaps the most egregious failure is in storytelling. The film lacks a strong narrative arc, instead meandering through loosely connected events with no real stakes or momentum. A historical war film should thrive on tension and character investment, yet Battle Over Britain offers neither. The absence of an enemy perspective also drains the film of depth, reducing aerial combat to an impersonal, video-game-like experience rather than a harrowing fight for survival.

While the film may have been made with genuine enthusiasm, it ultimately falls flat as both a war drama and a cinematic experience. With a more meticulous approach to historical accuracy, stronger direction, and a more engaging screenplay, Battle Over Britain could have been a worthy addition to the WWII film canon. Instead, it serves as a frustrating reminder that ambition alone cannot compensate for technical shortcomings and lack of storytelling finesse.

Of course, the title Battle over Britain is quite an overstatement. What is depicted here, at best, are a few isolated skirmishes rather than a comprehensive vision of what this epic battle truly was. It has been cemented in history with a name that carries weight and significance, yet in this case, it has been undeservedly appropriated-an act of naivety at best, and at worst, a rather sly opportunism.

At the beginning when the four Spitfires land after a sortie ,the only person there to greet them is one man in blue overalls ,who pokes around in a cockpit . In reality the planes would need refueling and re arming so they would be ready to take off again within 5mins. This would involve many men swarming around the planes as they stop! With a fuel bowser present and a least an Ambulance .We see no vehicles .We see one man ! Two men are later seen fiddling around with a tail rudder in the background! But NO refueling or re-arming! A short while later a Spitfire lands with a female pilot (with presumably a replacement aircraft) But it has exactly the same flight identification markings as the Spitfire the Skipper landed in a short time earlier ! Then they take off in a few minutes later without being re-armed or re-fueled ! And so it goes on !

I am assuming their research department for this movie was hit by severe funding cutbacks because this movie is riddled with inaccuracies and outright hyperbole. I especially enjoyed the part where they just hop in their Spits and fly away, not a ground crew to be found other than one guy pulling the wheel blocks away. And whats with the not shaving? It may be be chic to walk around with a 5 oclock shadow, but in the military you would get crucified. Uniforms are sporting insignia that are placed wrong or did not even exist during the BoB, terrible plane inaccuracies, and British pilots who would ALL have been shot down on the first day. The movie is good for a laugh, or if you fancy a drinking game where everyone does a shot when they notice something farcical.

From the point of view of the remains of a squadron, with a new replacement after losing two pilots, this story is more about what it was like for the fighter pilots both during and in-between battle.

The acting is good and the story and characters are interesting enough to keep you engaged to the end.

The evidently low-budget does however impact scenes, flying scenes in particular, with some moments more convincing than others. I swear I saw one Spitfire fly through a Heinkel wing (remember a ship doing something similar in Star Wars?) and the scenes showing battle through the gun sights were poor, whereas, oddly, the shots of German fighters in the rear view mirror were better, if still not that great. In short, the effects were low budget.

There aren't many real "Spits" around anymore and at times it seemed like they only had the use of the same one on the ground.

If you are looking for a non-stop, action-filled Battle of Britain story filled with great air scenes and dog fights, you'll probably be very disappointed by what you see here - but if you are interested in a tale about the psychological strain of war and how different pilots dealt with it, this is worth a watch.