User reviews

By God, this is as definitive as a war film gets. It's on every year, and is as much a part of Christmas as getting drunk and Monopoly. Everyone in this Sceptred isle knows the theme to Dam Busters, and it causes more people to stand up and salute than God Save The Queen. It has moustachioed R.A.F boys, politely bespectacled scientists, laughable special effects, and an entirely predictable ending. It's a British institution, and I don't know where we'd be without it. You can keep your devolution and your New Labour, I've got Dam Busters and I'm not bloody budging.

There is a fundamental difference between British and American war movies of the 1950's and 60's. Where as Hollywoods output tends to have gung-ho heroes gun in each hand, knife in the teeth, winning the war for Uncle Sam and getting the girl to boot, the British war movie tended towards a more factual almost documentary style. Almost as if British cinema was saying 'something of great importance has recently happened, so lets document the facts for future generations lest we forget.' Hence we have films like Dunkirk, Sink The Bismark, Battle of The River Plate and most famously of all The Damn Busters.

Coming back to this movie 54 years after it was made and over 60 since the events portrayed this movie can at time seam rather odd. The acting is stilted and dialogue clipped, but this is a stylistic thing rather than bad acting, after all the same style of acting can be witnessed in Ealling Comedies, the proto-hammer horror films and any number of 'The Blue Lamp' type police films. The bulk of the cinematography is also nothing special, being straightforward 'one' or 'two' shots with lighting that can be described as bog standard.

However this film really scores on two fronts. Firstly the use of real true to era aircraft (Leased from the RAF who still used Lancasters as trainers at the time) flown by genuine RAF bomber crews and filmed using the various lakes around Cumberland and West Yorkshire where the real 617 squadron trained for the real mission. And secondly it's dogged sticking to historical detail, or at least as much that could be adhered to without breaking the official secrets act!! There is no Pearl Harbour rewriting of history here. What you see is as near as damn it what really happened. Even now the a comparison of the attack as portrayed on film and the most recently published accounts of the raid as released by the British ministry of defence show very few factual flaws.

Also it must be born in mind that the early 1950's were not a pleasant time for the UK populous. The nation was still crippled by US war debt, many items were still rationed and the teething pains of the change that would lead to the welfare state and the cultural and economic boom of the 1960's were still cutting deep. So it is hardly surprising that a film showing a heroic and resourceful Britian would strike such a strong chord with its viewers.

I must be said some aspects of this film haven't aged well compared to some of the other Brit war flicks of the time ('Battle Of The River Plate' springs to mind), but as a historical document and comment on Britian in the immediate post war era it stands tall as one of the most important films of its time.

Now that everyone has taken their shots at this magnificent movie, just a couple of comments about it to help put it into context. A) No we didn't see Russian prisoners of war trying to flee for their lives and drowning. We didn't in fact see anybody drowning. But this is war and people die in wars, it's the nature of the beast. B) Seen in its current setting, especially in North America, the use of the name Nigger for the Black Labrador may seem upsetting and racist, explaining why that section of the movie is left out sometimes. But back in Britain in those days, it would not have been regarded as so nasty and derogatory as it now seems here. It was actually a fair common name for Black Labs at the time - though not any more of course. C) Nope, the movie isn't entirely accurate in all aspects - many years after I first saw it back in the UK, a bomber pilot from those days told me that they used not a Lancaster but I think a Halifax to plough into the ground. D) Maybe it did glorify Guy Gibson, but he earned that Victoria Cross, if I recall, for all his diversionary flights to draw off the flak from the other aircraft, who must have felt like sitting ducks the way they had to drop every bomb at precisely the same spot and height, very low over the water. If the movie gives him credit for thinking up the overlapping spotlights, we can take that as artistic licence. Finally, anything which slowed down the German war machine was crucial to Britain. This movie did its best with hardly-developed special effects and produced an exciting and fine picture, made still during the days of rationing in England. I know because I was there at the time. I was just six when this movie was made in 1954 but it's still a real favorite of mine, not least because we were living on the shores of Lake Windermere, England's largest lake, in the English Lake District at the time, and they flew right in over our house for about six weeks that summer to film some parts of it. Remember the scene where after one of the practice runs, they were picking bits of tree out of the undercarriage of one of the aircraft? My father always used to remind that they clipped one of our trees in the filming one day and he used to claim that those bits of branch and foliage actually came from our tree. I guess they probably didn't really and they faked it a bit for the movie, adding that bit of dialogue into the script after the incident because it showed how low they flew. Quite why they showed it in the landing gear I'm not sure, because of course they wouldn't have been flying with their landing gear down, but it is effective in showing how low they flew both in the raid and in the filming. I've always loved this movie though - it's a beaut, as they say - not least because I grew up with Black Labradors. I wept like a baby when Nigger died. Have just watched it for about the zillionth time - have literally lost count. It's still a fine and fitting tribute to the men who gave their lives in the raid all those years ago.

Dam Busters tells the (mostly) true story of the men who developed and delivered the bouncing bomb used against German dams to cripple their industrial output.

I've seen my share of WWII films, and while this one has many of the standard features, it has one thing that makes it unique: it shows the critical importance played by the engineers in this -- as in any -- war effort. I guess being an engineer myself, I found the character of Barnes Wallis (the developer of the unique bomb) particularly endearing: his single-minded pursuit of an idea, his refusal to accept defeat, the tension and anxiety while watching trials go bad one after another. I've been through all that but not during a shooting war, so I can only imagine how much of a pressure cooker he was in.

OK, nerds aside, the rest of the cast is also splendidly real and believable. The effects are, well, let's face it, this was 1954 and it looks worse than a Godzilla movie, but somehow that doesn't detract from the impact of the movie. You still get that tense seat-of-the-pants feeling as the Lancasters fly straight into the gauntlet of machine gun fire, just praying they won't get hit and be able to deliver their payload.

Just the footage of the flying Lancasters alone is enough reason to watch, if you are into WWII aircraft. There seem to be 5 or 6 in use during the shooting, and their appearance (even on the small TV screen) is impressive. One can only imagine what it would have been like on the big screen.

Another fine touch is the final denouement: mission accomplished, but there is no crowing or high-fiving, just the sober realization that 56 men did not return from the raid. The victors are tired, weary, simply sink into their beds for sleep. To me this seems like a much more realistic ending than the back-slapping good cheer that a typical (shallower) movie would have ended with.

It's long, maybe could have been trimmed here and there, but not without losing the effect of what it's like to be down at the base, waiting for news, no way to communicate except to just wait. Or the pilots training and training for a mission whose objective they don't know. It's a bit demanding of the viewer, as there seems to be not quite enough tension to spread over the 2+ hour running time.

Overall, 7 out of 10 for a truly classic wartime film.

With the possible exception of "In Which We Serve," "The Dam Busters" ranks as one of the finest British films about WWII. It is told in a straightforward, semi-documentary manner that keeps the viewer interested until the final credits roll. Yes, the special effects pale when compared to today's computer-generated efforts, but when viewed in the context of the technology available, they still make the point and come as close to reality as possible.

The two leads, Richard Todd and Michael Redgrave really carry the film Todd is superb as Wing Commander Guy Gibson. Straight to to the issue, no frills, and let's get the job done. He immediately takes on the assignment when asked, without being told of the nature of the mission, the nature of the target, or when it will take place. He gathers his crews and begins the grueling and, at times, terrifying training for a job in which no one has been fully briefed.

Michael Redgrave as Barnes Wallace is, if I can use the term, absolutely delightful. There is a naiveté about him that at times seems childlike. His character comes across as the brilliant, but at times, absent-minded professor. When we first encounter him in the film, he is doing some experiments at home with the skip-bombing technique that will be used. He is doing this in his backyard with his children and it is almost like a game to all of them. They are just having the most delightful time trying to come with something that will prove quite deadly when perfected. Often talking to himself and seemingly wandering around lost in thought, one of his best lines in the film comes when he tells a representative from the Aircraft Ministry that he will need a Wellington bomber for the early tests. The Ministry official asks him: "What can I possibly tell them that will let them justify you getting a Wellington bomber?" With a perfectly straight face and and air of ingenuousness, Redgrave, as Barnes replies: "Perhpas if you told them I designed it?" Priceless!! Eventually solving one seemingly insurmountable problem after another, the film moves on to the night of the raids. We are waiting, as dusk falls, with the bomber crews out by their planes for the takeoff signal. We see them thunder in at terrifyingly low level over the enemy coast. We are waiting in the communications center with Barnes Wallace and the others for any word over the wireless.

We face the tension as the big Lancasters swing out over the dams and start their bomb runs one at time, being fired on by heavy anti-aircraft fire along the tops of the dams. The excitement when the bombs perform as designed. The ecstatic shouts radioed back to HQ. Then the initial dismay as one bomb after another seemingly fails to breach the dams. Gibson's and Barnes Wallace's disappointment when the dams are still intact. Finally, we see the first rivulet of water and then the torrent as the dams burst wide open and water floods the valleys below.

Barnes Wallace's initial reaction is quiet joy and then grief as he realizes the number of planes shot down and men lost to this mission. His comment that he wouldn't have done this if he realized that so many lives would be lost. This is in stark reaction to the military men who realize the price that must be paid for victory.

The 617 Squadron went on to carry out other special missions in WWII. The book, "The Dam Busters," points out that 617 Squadron had the highest loss rate of men and planes of any RAF bomber squadron. Not surprising when looking at their missions such as attacking rail bridges, docks, tunnels, etc. Quite often they used other types of bombs that were also developed by Barnes Wallace.

I enjoy this film every time I see it. It is my favorite British WW II film. Certainly much better than "Sink the Bismark." It shows the emotional as well as the combat side of war. How people think, how they interact, how they feel. Something that is lacking in many war films that rely strictly on great battle scenes to carry the day. "The Dam Busters" still stands today as a great and fitting tribute to the men and machines that destroyed the German dams.

The Dam Busters (1955)

If you aren't into WWII movies you might think this isn't your thing, but think twice. Or read on. Because this is a drama about problem solving, and it's set in WWII which makes the stakes very high. The acting is so good, and the direction so competent, the plot takes on relevance even for those who don't know a Lancaster from a B-52. I certainly don't. Or didn't.

A Lancaster, for starters, is a big four engine plane that comes into use here to drop a bomb. You'll see right off that the plot here is about a British scientist designing a new way to drop bombs against three German hydroelectric dams. The flight sequences in the movie are extensive (and expensive--the planes had to be pulled out of storage), but they're fun, too, mainly because of this bouncing bomb being developed. It seems crazy, and crazy smart.

The wikipedia entry for the film has a list of all the influences this movie has had on later films (from Star Wars to Pink Floyd's "The Wall") and you might check that out. Or just start here by seeing the movie. The leading actors are quite convincing, from the scientist who has the idea to the pilots who run the mission. There is no German presence here at all, so it's not a war movie like that. It's about ingenuity and problem-solving, and if that sounds dull, it's not.

There is a little controversy about the black dogged named, I guess for historical accuracy, the N word, which in this context is pretty empty of meaning, especially in Britain. At least I don't sense the issue as a racist one. But a heads up for the sensitive. I'm with the growing tide that likes the way the word is gradually becoming diffused by a kind of deliberate overuse, largely in Black American communities, and so maybe the controversy will die away over time. Either way, the version on Netflix is the original 1955 American release and it includes the original language. There are a couple of recent dubbed releases that change the dog's name, and that's probably fine, too.

This standard American release of the film actually differed just slightly from the original British release in having one extra scene added--of a plane veering into the hills and blowing up. I think the British were going for a steady almost deadpan (dare I say British) sensibility with an eye for accuracy, while the American studio releasing the film (it's a Paramount production) thought it needed a touch of excitement. And you know what? They were right. It's a perfect small bit of drama that doesn't tamper a bit with the general flow.

Anyway, a character driven, clever movie that makes you admire the Allies. I'm sure there are German films that do the same for the Germans, but there is still a tinge of patriotism in me, I guess, because I was glad whenever the Brits succeeded.

First of all, it's a pretty darn good depiction of the factual events of Britain's destruction of German hydroelectric dams in WWII, including the sometimes single-handed efforts of Dr. Barnes Wallis, engineer, scientist and visionary, to convince British high command to implement his plan. Second, excellent footage of the AVRO Lancaster, Britain's premier heavy bomber of the war, at times yanking and banking at extreme low level. Third, it's a very good depiction of the combat crews and their emotions before and after the missions. Fourth, it's just a damn good movie, no pun intended.

The main plot is to develop a means of destroying the three main dams that power most of Germany's war industry in the Ruhr Valley, and then executing the plan. Sir Michael Redgrave's rendition of Wallis treats the audience to the same enthusiasm, exhaustion, disappointment and triumph that the man himself must have felt. A very interesting part of the movie is when, after finally winning over bureaucratic lethargy and getting his plans for the destruction of the dams approved, he now realizes his pet project will put young men in danger, and many, even possibly all, will die.

Richard Todd and a competent cast play the Lanc crews with a minimum of schmaltz. All depictions of the Lancasters are live footage with the exception of the few crash scenes, which are done using miniatures. Legend has it that George Lucas used footage and even duologue from this film for his Star Wars movies.

Warning: Todd's character, Wing Commander Gibson, has a black Labrador Retriever named "Nigger." In fact, they use the dog's name as a code word indicating success. Obviously, the word means something much different in the US today. The US version of the movie and the one seen on TV had "Trigger" dubbed in, but the DVD version uses the original duologue. It take a bit getting used to, and may be a distraction for some.

Look for future greats Robert Shaw and Patrick McGoohan in bit parts.

I'd have to say that this is one of the best war time classics along with "Sink the Bismark" and "12 O'clock High".

I've seen this movie when I was still in elementary school. Then it became scarce, and haven't been able to see it. Since then, there were many documentary made about the Dam Busters, and equipped with these knowledges, I have new appreciation for this movie. The movie is pretty accurate to the actual story of the Dam Busters. It's very exciting to watch the story unfold as it happened for real.

It's a classic, and a great story, although many people lost their lives.

The movie stands repeat viewing which attests to its quality. It's one of the best war time movies of all time, and highly recommended for a watch.

This film has taken me over fifty years to watch. Hating films about war (and they bombarded English cinema as relentlessly as bombs for several decades) I had better things to think about when I was eleven years old - like loving people and not indiscriminately destroying them. Contrary to some gung-ho responses here I see all war as evil and life-destroying.

One, of the characters in this film is Bomber Harris, he who destroyed Dresden and its population quite without mercy, and needlessly. Here he mentions Essen and perhaps he had strategic military reasons for that, but Dresden posed no greater danger than good opera and Rachmaninov's Second Symphony. Who cares if this city was obliterated, including many thousands of refugees escaping from war? Well, some of us do and his presence in this film was as sickening as the war itself. I will leave the inclusion of the name 'Nigger' to those who think everyone found it acceptable in 1955. In my white family it certainly was not, but let's get back to the film.

Todd is his boring self and Redgrave looks as if he would have preferred being in a Rattigan adaptation (this is not in the same class as the glorious life-affirming 'The Browning Version'). The direction is pedestrian and has no cinematic merit. Ursula Jeans added a spark of real humanity by rather quaintly asking the Redgrave character if Harris had been 'fierce'. The word fierce was said with conviction and I wondered what she felt about this period of darkly pompous self-glorifying fifties war films. The French at this time were producing sensitive films like 'Adorables Creatures' and 'La Ronde'. Sensible people, and they really had been invaded by the Germans!!! Oh, and today in the centre of Brighton the good people here were protesting against Israel so please do not suggest the reasons for the war were defending the Jews, or liberating the concentration camps. Pitifully few people cared then and pitifully few people care now. I am not Jewish. I was raised a lapsed Catholic, and War is bad, bad, bad and we give ourselves fine reasons to encourage them and then cry when we watch films like this afterwards.

Musically, Coates was no Elgar either, however much he may have wowed the middle-brow public with his patriotic pastiche.

Final words. 1,6OO civilians were drowned and German industrial output returned to normal capacity within a few months - just in case that may be of interest.

Just like to respond to Howard Morley's comments. The dam's raids were urgently needed, and it took only a few months to form 617, train them and attack the dams. Quite a feat I'm sure you'll agree. The film nicely conveys the struggles and the friendships of the crews, put together from the best of the Commonwealth fliers. Even if the screenplay does take some rather large liberties with the story.

As to Guy, he was killed in 1944 on his way back from acting as Master Bomber on a raid over Germany. His Mosquito crashed in Holland, killing him and his navigator. To this day there are no explanations for the crash. Guy should not have been flying at all, but he was so desperate to get back in the air that Bomber Harris gave in and let him. A tragedy. Of the crew of G-George (Guy's ship on the raid) none of them survived the war. The crew crashed whilst trying to bomb the Dortmund-Ems canal later in 1943.

The film is a fitting tribute to the raid, and the massive losses of 617. Of the 19 ships to go out, 11 came back. Of the 77 crew lost on the raid, only 1 survived. This is why the dams were not bombed again. And the problem with the Sorpe was that it was an earth damn, the bombs were not very effective as with the Eder and Moehne.

How do I know all this? My Great-grandmother was a Gibson.

Watch the film and marvel.

The excitement of this film lies in its gradual buildup of tension, and in overcoming one obstacle after another, to achieve a magnificent outcome. And it all really happened.

The dam busters of Squadron 617 were a highly skilled, hand-picked bunch, who robbed the enemy of their water-supplies during World War 2, by finding a unique way to bomb their dams, when all other methods were impossible. The film is a classic, and even if you don't normally like war films, you should see it at least once in your life.

There's only one disappointing feature, and that is that the special effects of the bombing of the dams are the most phony and unrealistic special effects you will ever see in any movie. Although this film was made in 1954, the special effects in "King Kong", made in 1933, are vastly superior!

Apart from that, the movie is well-acted and directed, and although highly predictable, is nevertheless gripping in its story.

Have watched this film so many times,and still love it.I think the dogs name is a bit unfortunate,the fact is Guy Gibson owned a black dog and that was the dogs name,so the film is only trying to be accurate.In those days there were very few ethnic people in the country,so the film is not guilty of how people view it today of being racist,as none was ever intended.I wont comment on the special effects,as it was made in post war Britain on a very tight budget,we get the point of what the bombs were doing,so you don't need brilliant special effects to convince us.The acting is good and not overstated.The film is dedicated to the courage of the brave men who flew this near impossible mission.I hope they will never do a remake of this film,as i think this should be the only version.

Based on real events, dealing with the British are desperate to shorten the length of World War II, then they effort to devise a method of destrying six strategic dams in Nazi Germany. Forming a team of valiant pilots, they propose a daring raid to smash Germany's industrial heart. At first, the objective looks impossible until a British scientist invents an ingenious weapon capable of destroying the planned target. The dramatic true-life story of the men who broke the Nazis' back!. Amazing Drama of the Sky-Terror Squadron...They Dropped the Hell Bomb!.The story of the "bombs that had to bounce" - and the air-devils who had to drop 'em!

Inspired shooting from a British film industry still brimming with confidence before the bubble burst in the late Fifties. Based on real events about the attempt by the RAF to destroy six dams in Germany during World War II, starring Michael Redgrave at his best as the scientist who invents the famous 'bouncing bomb' and Richard Todd is superb as the squadron-leader picked to lead the team that delivers it to the German dams it must destroy, Todd in real life was a paratrooper during the second world war. The tremendously popular march theme by Eric Coates became a standard for all brass bands.

This war film portrays the British obsession with destroying German industrial production in the Rurh zone, during WWII, with the aim of shortening the duration of the conflict. It stands out for its exceptional technical apparatus, as well as including innovative narrative resources to the time. Lucas himself came to be inspired by this war film for the scenes of the attack by the rebel fleet on the Death Star in the 1997 film 'Star Wars'. In addition, Gilbert Taylor, responsible for the photography and special effects of Dam Busters, would be later the director of photography for the film directed by George Lucas.

Well starred by the best plethora of British actors, including famous acting actors and others in their acting beginnings, such as: Basil Sydney, Ernest Clark, Laurence Naismith, Nigel Stock, Robert Shaw, John Frazer, Bill Kerr, George Baker Patrick Barr, Philip Latham and Patrick McGoohan. This ¨The Dam Busters¨ (1955) was the first movie to feature "bouncing bombs" , being here firstly seen in this earlier British war movie , ¨ and subsequently in ¨Mosquito Squadron¨ and ¨The thousand plane raid¨ in which thousand allied Bombers to destroy a specific target producing German fighter planes , among others . The film was nominated for three BAFTA awards in 1955, including best film.

The motion picture was well directed by Michael Anderson. Definitely one of the better in the war movie genre. The producers wish to acknowledge the extensive facilitis accoreded by the Air Ministry and by membesr of the Royal Air Force, also the valuable help received from Messrs Av Roe and Co. Ltd. They wish also to record their appreciation of the approval willingly given to the telling of this story by all those represented by all those represented in it and by the next of kin of the many membrs of 617 Squadron who , from this or later operations, did not return.

A very well made film, with a good script, actors and supporting cast. The film recreates the technical problems of the bombs development and squadron training. However, being made so soon after the raid the film ignores the relative lack of impact of the raid on German war production. However, the bravery of the air crews is very well portrayed. Guy Gibson, who was killed later in the war, won a Victoria Cross for his part in the raid and his leadership.

This is a splendid well cast movie which features two important identities - the first - Barnes Wallis (played well by Michael Redgrave) a somewhat eccentric off beat scientist with an imaginative idea of defeating the Germans by breaching their dams, the source of their hydro electrical power generation necessary for their war production, and in doing so, bringing a quick end to the Second World War.

The other is British Wing Commnander Guy Gibson (played superbly by Richard Todd) who leads his newly formed Lancaster bomber squadron (No. 617) on the attack with precision low flying tactics and brave judgment and charged with the duty of care and welfare of his well chosen loyal crew from all sides of the Allied cause.

Despite their difficult confronting obstacles, they complete their designated assignment with understandable casualties. Wallis is appalled by the loss of so many men on this mission and he regrets his decision to have even advocated the plan in the first place.

Gibson assures him differently and says his men would have gone anyway regardless of their outcome. The loss of his beloved black Labrador dog, hit by a car on the eve of his mission adds a very personal touch to this story.

Great musical score so thoroughly and magically composed for this WW2 drama by Eric Coates gives this film the thumbs up.

Just watch it and see. Absolutely outstanding viewing.

Tense, well acted WWII true story of the development of a special bomb to be used on German dams.

Dated and clunky in spots, and pretty heavy on the (UK) flag waving.

However it features Michael Redgrave in a simply terrific performance as the slightly eccentric scientist who figures out how the bomb might work, but who has trouble getting anyone to pay attention. Its interesting and unusual to see a war film as much about the science behind the mission as the mission itself.

Additionally some of the flying footage is very exciting, especially for the era (although some of he special effects and model work is downright awful).

Also of note, the main character has a black pet dog named 'Nigger', which is a weird and uncomfortable social artifact to say the least -even if it is historically true.

Not quite a great film, but a solid, enjoyable one.

It is not that 'The Dam Busters' is about a war crime committed on the watch of the notorious butcher who inspired fantastic novels such as Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse-Five'. Normally a film glorifying a war crime would leave you outraged or upset; at any rate, you would expect it to trigger some kind of emotion. Here that's not the case. In 'The Dam Busters' the most emotionally gripping moment is when a dog gets run over. The rest is boredom. Michael Redgrave plays a kind of engineer-inventor who keeps breezily talking about technical stuff, Richard Todd is the intrepid young wing commander who talks in more or less the same tone about flying-related stuff. The rest of the cast is too bland to leave any impression at all. There is no plot to speak of, that is, no conflict that causes consequences that are in some way resolved by the end of the film. The inventor experiments with bombs, the airplane crews practice dropping bombs, and eventually the dams are busted. That's it. The score is alright; that is why I am rating this film 3 stars rather than 2. One wants to be fair, isn't it?