User reviews

Low budget yes, cliched and wooden and what surprised me was that I viewed it to the end.

I honestly don't think the 1 & 2 star reviews are totally fair as I have seen far worse movies. Admittedly its not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination and maybe 5 is a little too generous but I didn't think it was a total write off.

I think the biggest issue with this film is that any war movie dealing with action and combat sequences needs a big budget and the budget constraints were clearly visible here. The audience has to be able to suspend belief and feel that it really is Occupied France in 1944 and that these events are really going on which sadly I didn't. It looked and felt more like a film made in the woods near my home last week. The script was poor, the action sequences lacked much action and as another poster pointed out historical accuracy has to be key.

I really like Kelvin Fletcher and had really hoped this would be an enjoyable and entertaining movie and I think he did the best he could with what he had to work with. But sadly the whole thing was a disappointment which was sad as the story itself clearly had some potential.

Making low budget indie war films is HARD! Having aid tht, if you are going to tackle a military subject, it needs to be believable and as accurate as the budget allows>

Accuray and Believable - The military or SOE content was not very believable, and the characters acted in ways that were totally non-military (or rather they acted like civilians trying to portray soldiers). Many of the costumes and weapons were incorrect which many people won't notice but given that most people watching these films (in my case on Tubi) are looking for historical military content).

Continuity - Many, many continuity issues here - lead drops his knife and never picks it up etc etc. This is a basic filming task and not the editor's fault.

Editing - I found some of the editing and scene or shot transitions very awkward and jumpy. Blocking that could have been used wasn't done, although that is a director's prerogative.

Script - The basic story and plot is fairly sound although some of the character arcs don't complete or get lost. Lots of cliché dialogue here (I'm coming with you then...) and overused phrases. I do like Ben Mole's films, but the scripts do feel like someone writing about the military but with no believable content.

This could have been a decent film, but it gets let down by the military content or lack thereof.

This movie makes me embarrassed to be an Englishman. If I were a betting man I would say that I'm sure that these actors were chosen from the local village acting club.

Avoid at all costs.

The movie was very poorly made and very historically inaccurate. Please don't waste your time and money on it. There are many problems with the film, but I'll only mention a few so I don't waste your time like the movie does. 1st, there is a beautiful squadron of fighter planes soaring through the air in the movie poster, but none are seen flying in the movie, only one in a hangar. 2nd, in 1944, no SS unit would have been issued a machine gun MG08 from WW1, but it is used on several guard towers during the film. 3rd, one of the SS soldiers on patrol is wearing a helmet with Heer, or army, decals on it, not SS. On top of uniforms being incorrect, the simple actions of the characters are illogical and inaccurate. In the scene where the escaping POWs must make it past a guard tower with a machine gun nest, one man runs into the gunner's sight to serve as a distraction while another man shoots the gunner in the head. The problem is that the distracting man makes it back to the group unscathed, because the gunner didn't turn his machine gun right at the enemy clearly standing before him. Instead, the gunner shot every last brick in the wall near the man as he slowly turned his machine gun in the man's direction. Instead of just turning and shooting, he shot while turning, which is plain dumb. Common, Germans lost the war, but where not stupid. Also, in the scene where Ellie accidentally shoots the soldier on patrol who nearly killed her and nothing happens. Nobody hears the shot. It's not like it was just several meters away from a building full of SS guards, of course not. Even though Ellie and John talk shortly after about why she shot him and Ellie claims it was a mistake, nobody hears the shot. It's impossible that not one soldier heard a gunshot go off right near their camp and didn't go check out what happened. It's just a disgracefully bad movie, it's illogical and unfortunate for a movie that really did have some potential in the beginning. Very sad. PS: These critiques are written by my 13-year-old son who knows history way better than the film makers.

If the British fought the war against the Nazi Germany was like what we saw in this lame movie, I doubt even with the help of the Allied force leading by the U.S. the war would be totally lost. What a lousy try that only showed how a bad screenplay, bad directing, B-level actors would have turned a WWII movie into such a tasteless and boring one. The main purpose trying to re-glorify the British during that era was just a waste of time and money, no matter what low budget was invested in it. Viewers should not further waste their own time to watch or rent it, even it only costs $0.99.

Acting is awful. Continuity is utterly wrong. Don't waste your time. This is actually worse than "The Bruce"

Bad acting, bad story, bad script, bad continuity, bad editing - just BAD.

I would disagree with the 1* and 2* ratings as far too harsh. I found it rather entertaining. True the poster is misleading and the limited budget quickly stands out but overall I had good time watching it. Not a blockbuster but it could fare rather well on TV. Some criticize the credibility of the plot, but what about the plot of The Dirty Dozen or Kelly's Heroes ! The plots in those classic WW2 movies are about as realistic. Who cares if the story is entertaining ? Considering the budget limitations and accepting the plot I found acting rather fine; save for some French and German accents. Directing and particularly editing could be better. The score is overused and considering the budget a touch of lightness with some show of humor would have improved the overall impression. A bit like in Kelly's Heroes. Globally a nice independent movie.

This movie is so poor don't waste your time on it. You will curl up laughing at the numerous mistakes. Here are a few. Shoes left the other side of a moat then later they are wearing them. Pows locked up in a barn secured by a simple latch that operates on both sides of the door. A pow drawing fire from a machine gun by running slowly then standing still. The final mistake is when the lead says the invasion will start tomorrow 6 June when we all know it was due the start on 5 June but due to bad weather it was postponed 24 hours.

Some reviews are very unfair. This movie is a low budget production, it's not like flying WWII fighters costs nothing... So of course they have to do what they can with the budget they have, and I personally think it was well done.

The movie is entertaining and fun, actors are good (Ellie's French accent is spot on, which helps with creating this occupied France atmosphere) and the story is interesting.

Sure, if you expect a high budget war blockbuster it is not the movie for you. But if you want to watch an entertaining independent movie, give this one a shot! It is totally good and fun to watch, totally recommended!

The worst war film I've seen. The cover image made it look promising but it is trash.

Special FX weren't special but low budget trash.

If I could give this a minus 10 I would if was abysmal, kelvin fletcher cannot act, his acting capabilities were pushed in emmerdale, when he tries in a movie it just shows how terrible he is, don't get me wrong the whole production was terrible but if they had someone who wasn't a piece of wood as the leading man it would of been slightly better, fletcher give up pal your terrible them dreams of being the next wolverine will only happen if you are invited to a xmen themed fancy dress, YOU CANNOT ACT

This film is a shambles. Historically there is nothing factually correct except the date of D Day, except of course that if this were a true reflection of events the people involved would have been preparing for a date a day before.

The actors are not even of the quality I would expect to find in a third rate soap opera, The Direction is pathetic, continuity errors abound and the use of NATO hardened shelters ....well I could go on but the simple truth is I have absolutely nothing positive to say about this film.

Do yourself a favour and watch something else... As for spoiler alerts...there is nothing to spoil.

Did not enjoy this one. Mediocre actors, historically Incorrect, archetypical Germans, glorification of resistance and its enablers. Cheap special effect matching the performance of the actors. N-th iteration of the subject. Very boring, not entertaining at all in my view. It's probably better to spend your viewing time with an accurate documentary on the subject.

The film can be summarised in a few seconds by the scene in which the French resistance woman hiding in the bushes is inadvertently urinated on by the German soldier on patrol. Choose another film.

Yeah the poster is a little misleading, but this movie is not bad. It certainly doesn't deserve all the 1 ratings. You want to talk historically inaccurate then watch the Argonauts. I think they did a good job with what they had to work with.

Contrary to the previous Reviewer,I Found this War Movie to Very good,well port-raid,by,(To Me) none know artists,good Story,good Acting,Great Picture !!!!

"We Go in at DAWN" is a film that attempts to portray a wartime story on a limited budget, and it shows. While the movie has some potential, it falls short in several key areas.

One of the most significant issues is the historical accuracy. The film struggles to create a believable World War II setting, with inaccuracies in costumes, weapons, and even basic military tactics. This can be distracting for viewers who are well-versed in the history of the era.

The acting also leaves much to be desired. While some of the actors do their best with the material, there are moments when the performances feel wooden or unconvincing. This can make it challenging to connect with the characters and their journey.

The script could have benefited from more refinement. Some of the dialogue feels clichéd and lacks depth. Additionally, the plot could have been more engaging and cohesive.

On a positive note, the filmmakers did their best with the resources available to them. It's clear that they tried to create an entertaining war movie, and there are moments of tension and excitement.

In summary, "We Go in at DAWN" is a film with potential that falls short due to historical inaccuracies, uneven acting, and a script that could use improvement. It may still hold some appeal for viewers interested in low-budget war films, but it's not without its flaws.

It wasn't a bad film, I'm not anywhere near old enough to have seen or been close to a war unlike most of the people in these reviews obviously. It didn't have the over dramatization that the Americans put in their films, like bigger and louder has got to be better, but thinking about it, it would've been scary and learning to trust strangers at that time would've been pretty much like that. To be honest how he managed to do what he did after what happened to him concerning his family he must've really loved our country too. That's possibly why I rated it the way I have and didn't go any lower.

So many errors in consistency. While the acting can be excused of main cast they can only perform as directed and written to a level of acceptance. The final Barn scene is something i seriously can not understand how it manages to be funded or or approved, its not even school nativity standard.