Battle of Britain (1969) - Action, Drama, History

Hohum Score



In 1940, the British Royal Air Force fights a desperate battle to prevent the Luftwaffe from gaining air superiority over the English Channel as a prelude to a possible Axis invasion of the U.K.

Director: Guy Hamilton
Stars: Michael Caine, Trevor Howard
Length: 132 Minutes
PG Rating: G
Reviews: 21 out of 151 found boring (13.9%)

One-line Reviews (79)

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.

It's easier to make an exciting action movie when the good guys win, after all.

It's worth watching just to see Christopher Plummer.

In a vast film that focuses on several RAF airfields where the similarities might otherwise have been confusing, and which takes us to many otherwise faceless bureaucrats and high-ranking officers who might look the same in uniform, it's good to have recognizable faces.

Indeed, several survivors of that conflict became fast friends, each side's propaganda still moot.

I thought the story was bit disjointed, too, and lacked suspense.


That said the aerial battles are still pretty enjoyable despite the poor effects when the planes explode!

The battles are perfectly staged and consistently exciting - with the authentic aircraft making it even better as often films use models or later vehicles painted up to look like the real thing.

This film has about a million such action scenes, many of which are exciting, but they quickly get dull as aerial combat can only be so exciting.

There are Heinkel 111s, Spitfires, Stuka-87s, Messerschmidt 109s, it really is quite visually stunning and remember there was no Industrial Light and Magic back then.

If you're looking for gripping drama, look elsewhere.

For a very long time to come this film will remain a standby in schools trying to increase awareness of key events that have shaped their world among today's children - many uninterested per se in history, But I was too personally involved to assess its likely appeal for other IMDb users - all I can say is that it a well made and gripping film which will not be quickly forgotten.

The views from both the German and British sides of the conflict is helpful in maintaining a perspective that I found to be riveting.

Not only is the movie jam-packed from end to end with essentially authentic aircraft in flight, but the photography makes the most out of it, with countless exciting, full-color shots of carefully choreographed combat sequences.

I watched the fascinating episode of "The World at War" (narrated by Olivier, incidentally) dealing with the battle a few days ago.

"Battle of Britain" is a rousing, entertaining war movie with more stars in the cast than you can count.

The apparently disjointed plot and timeline become clearer if you understand the battle really was the messy and drawn out affair portrayed here.

This to me represents the typical pro-Allied propaganda evident in many films in the 1960s/70s.

Here, the big events and strategy of the Battle of Britain swallow personal stories, which waste screen time that might be better used to explain just what on earth is going on.

Amazing historical document, but fairly dull cinema .

Even the Battle of Britain itself was hopelessly confusing because you had to deduce the decisions that had been made by the Germans and why they changed the balance of the battle.

while they sit and eat in high style in dining rooms with more empty chairs every day.

And later, after the last exhausting air battle, we see the German pilots, so full of life and eager for action at the start, sitting silently at the dinner table, glancing at the conspicuously empty chair of a fallen comrade.

I'd recommend a film like EAGLES OVER LONDON, as it does have an intriguing plot and lots of action on the ground, set against the backdrop of the Battle of Britain.

Really excellent air battle scenes capturing the confusion and chaos of the fights.

However the crowning glory of this film is that it manages to convey almost perfect historical accuracy, and at the same time makes it very watchable and utterly fascinating.

Set to perfect music, the aerial ballet of this scene is breathtaking.

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.

Very entertaining all the same.

boring .

Wonderfully entertaining piece of history .

Overall I found this film to be very entertaining.

During the opening titles we hear a rousing piece of music which continues during the entire sequence as the German officers inspect the assembled fleets of Heinkels on the ground in France.

Mainly though it is a rousing adventure ( if a trifle " boys club" ) war film.

Tight stunts also had me on the edge-of-my-seat.

true,i could only get through to about 40 minutes before quitting,but up to that point,i was bored out of my skull.

The fact that they do have them at all is a thrilling treat for any WWII aviation buff.

If it has faults it is that it can sometimes be a bit dull as it is very historically accurate, as it was a very well documented battle and presumably because when it was made many of the participants were still alive (and some still are).

Unfortunately, this is a plot-less movie.

wherever we're on the ground, we're struggling to stay awake.

Only spoilt by some boring romantic scenes with Christopher Plummer.

For all the breathtaking aerials, there is the constant visual reminder that real people were being butchered on the ground and in the air.

Characters therefore weren't fully developed - there were so many of them - but the real story is in the skies where the battles rage, with some very exciting flight sequences as well as some glorious scenery.

), the aerial confusion, the lack of a center despite Olivier's valiant effort to hold the reins, and the disappointment of seeing favorite actors (in my case, Michael Redgrave) reduced to bit players (to be fair, it appears large chunks of the movie were edited to give it a bladder-respecting running time--you don't want audience members rushing to the restrooms and miss any of the interminable airplane shots) all conspire against this flick.

Engaging a British cast to die for, the entire campaign is handled with both ruthlessness and compassion.

"Battle of Britain" is an exciting movie to watch.

Ron Goodwins rousing music adds the final touch to top entertainment.

For the most part, this is a boring war movie, though a good history lesson.

It's perhaps not very special and not as good as other classics like "A Bridge too Far", "All Quiet on the Western Front" or "The Bridge on the River Kwai", but it certainly is worth watching.

For - Stunning cinematography, a masterclass in fact.

The subplot was uninteresting, melodramatic, clichéd, distracting and predictable.

I say this because there is no plot to the film, the inconsequential love story is pathetic, the characters are all forgettable, the sound editing is horrendous and worst of all the acting is non-existent.

Excellent aerial battle scenes but boring plot .

Though at times, the screenplay seems a little slow, it does allow one to grasp an idea of what the war must have been like then.

2-Dimensional Characters but Visually Stunning Epic .

Though the aerial dogfights between the RAF and Luftwaffe are impressively recreated, this film is otherwise disappointing, as it never creates an involving story with its characters, or any kind of compelling dramatic story, which is strange, since the potential was there.

Fifty years later the aerial footage is still stunning.

It is a Dull Movie the only interesting shot is when Susanne York bends down in the bedroom.

" It has a compelling, historic attraction based on the actions of the RAF to provide England with sufficient breathing room after the fall of Europe to fight on in WWII.

Photographed in widescreen and color, the aerial fights are the most exciting moments in a film that manages to be dull despite the important story it has to tell.

The film is also unflinching in its depiction of the sudden, yet horribly slow deaths many of the pilots suffered, making it an unusually honest war film for the 60's.

My only major gripe is the contrived love story between Colin and Maggie (Plummer and York) respectively, I couldn't really believe their story and it seemed surplus.

) in full 40's u/wear was very exciting when I was 16.

Battle of Britain or more appropriately titled Battle of Boredom is the worst WWII "movie" ever.

Well rounded cast cannot save this dull treatment of a potentially interesting subject.

i found this WWII movie boring in comparison to other WWII movies,and i have seen quite a few others.

This movie is far too slow, especially the battle scenes.

This might only be of interest to aviation enthusiasts or history buffs, but so what: it's an historic film, the only occasion outside of newsreels that you'll ever see these aircraft in their element, and it's breathtaking.

Guy Hamilton's best film by a factor of about 100, also my favorite pro-war movie, "Battle of Britain" is fast-moving, violent and surprisingly involving cinema, far superior to junk like "The Longest Day (you ever spent watching a bad movie)" and "A Bridge (and an hour) Too Far (and long)" - how many times is "The Longest Day" exciting?

The aerial sequences are riveting, the action compelling.

This overlong and boring film with its very obvious models and overage cast of middle-aged pilots must have seemed like a film from the 1940s.

The aerial shots were breathtaking and the silent scene (As my Mum & Dad said) "were just how they used to watch the dogfights and felt very sad at every plane that came down as it was someone's son"Over all i think it did justice to both side in the conflict.

The aerial scenes are good, but become repetitive.

In Australia this one has beeen dragged out on Saturday afternoon TV ever since its debut to educate generations of young boys - a great when one discusses 'Warries'.

Gorgeous cinematography by Freddie Young, gripping aerial sequences using real aircraft (no CGI back then folks) that puts the audience right in the midst of the action in a realistic way that modern cinema today fails to effectively achieve - for all it's computerisation and 3D frippery.

It's a gripping effort from beginning to end which also serves as a decent history lesson, despite being highly anachronistic in appearance(check out those 60s hairstyles).

Whilst both were vital to an allied victory, the former was shorter and more intense - which made it easier to reduce to the scale of a film - whilst the latter dragged on right until the end of the war and ultimately claimed many more lives.

Battle of Boredom .