User reviews

I don't want to flame South African cinema. I've enjoyed several releases from there. I also love a good World War II flying movie. This one lost credibility with me.

I can forgive the CGI flight scenes that look like they came out of a game. Original planes from that period are far too rare and valuable to use to make a movie and special effects don't make a movie. The story makes the movie. Unfortunately the story is what let me down.

There is a phenomena called "suspension of disbelief" in a movie. Unfortunately they literally shot suspension of disbelief quite early. The cliché evil SS officer just blew it away. His actions were utterly illogical. His men didn't point out how his actions directly worked against the Third Reich winning the war.

The evil SS officer was the worst but it wasn't the only logical failure. Over and over I kept thinking "Why would they do that" and "What a wasted opportunity." I sincerely wish them better luck next time.

Just watched this on the TV. Interesting storyline let down by poor research and immature psychological insight, silly stereotyping and stilted dialogue script.

Initially I thought the acting a bit wooden. Slowly each of the main characters idiosyncrasies grew on me until they became almost believable characters and worthy of the "Actor" job-description. The exceptions were the girlfriend of the main protagonist and a truly SSified SS officer. She; really quite irrelevant to the story. He; relevant but preposterous. Why, in the 21st Century, did the director decide to have a German SS officer who came from the same mould Hollywood production lines fabricated in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's...? The man who played "SS offizer" wasn't even any good at acting a simple 2D stereotype.

Bomber flight formations were good even if the CGI was a bit naff, though one can't be too picky as the producers certainly wouldn't have had a Spielberg or Cameron budget (and they can create disastrously bad films costing tens to hundreds of millions., ie., , Titanic, Avatar, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park series).

The plot would have been better served with less time in the air and more time on enemy occupied ground as terrorfliegers cautiously avoiding the wrath of a heavily bombed people and SS Panzer division.

The girlfriend (story) could easily have been ditched with no loss, and the cardboard cutout SS officer spun into a more credible human being. Which, frankly, is what I'd hoped the film would be like when I read the TV schedule description.

I just LOVE WW2 flying movies. This has to be the worse I've ever seen. Never mind the wrong salutes and wrong uniforms. The rank of Lieutenant has NEVER existed in the RAF (or RCAF - same structure). Pilot Officer, Flying Officer, Flight Lieutenant and so on. If memory serves, this structure was established in 1919! Prior to 1919 the RAF was the RFC.

The VW Kubelwagen the SS men were driving had a RIGHT hand drive. In Germany, right hand drive vehicles have NEVER been in use. Not even in WW2.

The list of errors goes on and on and on...

Too much crap, not enough believable action!!! Compared to such greats as Reach For The Skies, or The Battle Of Britain, this REALLY sucks!!!

If you've quite finished with your special effects............. I'd like my Commodore64 back

Not sure where to start with this one - it is obvious that the writer/director wanted to honour the South African volunteers who served, very capably in the RAF during the WWII. Unfortunately this load of rubbish does them no honour at all.

The research, if indeed there actually was any, is slapdash in the extreme (a medic carrying a rifle? the "hero" in tropical brown in place of RAF blue? etc. etc.). The uniforms and background ideas (RAF daylight bombing???) are just ridiculous and even the ranks are incorrect (how hard is it to get those right?). To list all of the obvious errors would probably take more text than the full wooden script.

I could go on about this but all could have been tolerable if the acting had been even competent but, to be honest, I have seen better at the local 'AmDram'. There is little attempt, so it appears, to actually do more than "read the lines" from a script that shows zero knowledge of WWII or the RAF with a crew that purports to be veteran but is so undisciplined that most wouldn't have managed more than a couple of months without a court martial.

Sadly I cannot see any saving grace in this movie - it really is a case of can I have the two hours of my life back please?

Don't waste your time.

This is a South African made film about some of the former colonies men who volunteered their services to fight for Britain at the hour of her greatest need in the dark days of World War 2. Meet Captain Kirk (yes he is really called that) played by Nicholas Van Der Bijl, in a performance of varying degrees. He leads a motley crew of his fellow countrymen who use such vocabulary as 'cheerio' and 'filly' in reference to ladies. Anyway they are fighting for RAF, Bomber Command and have to go and bomb the bejesus out of Germany etc.

Well whilst over Germany they get shot and have to make an emergency landing and then decide to battle their way back to France and the safety of the British lines, this is set late in the war and Operation Overlord has already taken place so we are well past D Day. What happens next is the story of their journey.

Right, for war film buffs there are a few things wrong with this film, first off the planes are all CGI, which is not a problem as they are all done really well even the Mescherschmitts, with props that look real and proper smoke etc so well done there. Problem is these guys are flying during the day. By this stage of the war the USAAF were doing the daylight runs and the RAF were doing the night runs. And they had fighter escort in the latter stages when this is set and there are none here. They are also flying Liberators which were never deployed to bomb Bremen by the RAF as depicted here. Now you are doing CGI so you could have got a Lancaster or a Wellington even, but still never mind.

The acting is all quite good and the love interest in the shape of Kirky's beloved in good if underplayed Lillie Claire as the neglected and dutiful lover is actually really convincing. This does have its moments and is far from being a bad movie, but factual errors really annoy some people and it is not a real full on 'action fest' especially once the plane goes splat, but I still found a lot to actually like here, hence the rating. If factual errors annoy you then best to avoid, and it was originally released as 'Angel of the skies' in a reference to the plane and not the overblown title we have presented here.

I simply couldn't finish it.

I wasn't bothered by the CGI but by the lack of good, writing, acting and dialog.

I'm guessing that a lot of films that wouldn't hit the radar are now filling the streaming hoppers.

Not your average war film, but rather an interesting look at the life of commonwealth pilots that served Britain during the war. The visual effects are not as great as many Hollywood productions, but this isn't a Hollywood production. Don't get me wrong, they are rather good on a high definition screen, but I was a little sad to see that the main air battle was short lived. The film is more about a bomber pilot and his crew, and their daring escape from occupied Europe. That being said, after watching the behind the scenes documentary that was also available on the Blu Ray, I have new found respect for the film makers. The director taught himself visual effects and took it unto himself to do all the work alone, for almost three years. One can easily see the passion, blood, sweat and tears thrown into the production. It's reminiscent of the old auteur filmmakers, which we do not see very often. One can not expect all films to have massive budgets and for that I completely forgive the lack of "quality', if you can call it that, in the air battle scenes. Once on the ground, the film takes a different direction and I found the slow pace reminded me of older films I had watched in my younger days. I can see this film will not appeal to a younger audience who are used to the fast paced action scenes that make up the majority of films today. Unfortunately it won't be remembered as one of the great war films, but it was enjoyable none the less. If you're looking for a fast thrill, skip this film, it requires more commitment from its audience.

Cardboard aircraft that do not even look real, poor acting and locations that are obviously not European. Certainly can tell it is a low budget film with no real dialogue, a total waste of viewing time!

I watch a lot of war movies (especially with my dad). So don't think i'm against war films as i write this...

This was a horrible horrible movie. I don't even know where to start, the title sequence felt like it went on forever, with the same grainy film in a loop overlapping at what felt like a whole newspaper I had to read.

The visual effects were appalling. Felt like it was rushed by a 9th grader using 3D studio max for the first time.

The characters was one dimensional and the acting was just soooo soooo baaaaad.

The story was boring, after the first 15 min I lost interest.

And the sound..ARRRG the sound....The background sounds were out of place and repetitive. The voices in some scenes sounded as if it were re-dubbed.

The ONLY reason i'm giving it a rating of 2 out of 10, is that at least the costumes looked authentic.

Rather save your money and re-watch something brilliant like Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, The Pacific or We were soldiers.

Just about unwatchable, as others have said cgi was poor but that is not so important if the acting and story are good. Unfortunately that is not the case here and added to that the accents perporting to be English, Sa and Australian (I think?) Were just too bad to be believed. Avoid if you can.

The cinematography at times verged on acceptable but the acting never even approached this level, not even close. I found it hard to empathise with any of the characters because I couldn't suspend the belief in the acting. It's hard to know if the writer, director or actors are to blame as one of the constant annoyances was a guaranteed WWII cliché of dialogue every minute or so that simply grated.

The accents were simply laughable and removed any sense of authenticity. As some of the other reviews have noted, the background sound design is obviously looped and this gets boring quickly.

The CGI was also basic, which in some cases can be charming, in this case however it just looked cheap.

I didn't finish watching this movie, I wouldn't recommend you start.

The British accents where embarrassing, I couldn't tell if they where Australian, South African or they had swallowed a plum!

One scene someone asks how much money he had in his pocket, "only a tenner, £10" £10 would have been equivalent to £1000 in 1944. None of the sets looked anything close to being set in England, swing doors in a British pub, not on your nelly guv! And Europe looking like the South African Savana... your avin a larf!

This film is very poorly researched and uses cheap CGI that is poorly developed.

The RAF did not fly Mkix spitfires against BF 109 E fighters in 1940, then a new member of a crew arrives straight from training, as a flight lieutenant with no flying brevet.

I have given up 15 minutes in, that's 15 minutes I'll never get back.

This is a low budget war film about South African air force pilots in World War2. I say it is unusual because I can't recall seeing many South African films. This film is low budget and I was tempted to stop watching it after a few minutes but I am glad I stuck with it. The role of empire and commonwealth forces in World War 2 is not well enough known in Britain (I am British). I reckon that the South African contribution to the war effort is perhaps the least known. If I waned to be negative or if I was obsessed by detail I am sure I could be very negative about this film but I quite enjoyed it. It is not the best film about Bomber Command,that is Appointment In London in my opinion.

Not only the scenario and acting was below average and the CGIs primitive but also the south african terrain was not convincing of central Europe...it might had been better to show Marseille with his Bf109 battling P40s and Hurricanes in Tunisia...also the technology advisor sucked....B17 could sustain long bursts from enemy fighters ...B 24 couldn,t

This is a review that was posted on the Angel of the Skies fan page on Facebook.

"I rather liked the slowish pace in the beginning. I really was able to get to know each character and hence care about them as their various fortunes unfolded. If anything I could have had more character building, only because I occasionally got a tad confused between two of the airmen who looked alike. Overall, a superb and surprising film that manages to capture the allure of those old classic war movies that many of us oldies grew up on. Guns of Navarone, Battle of Britain, the Dirty Dozen. Yet the film has also succeeded in being contemporary. There were moments when it resonated and drew triggers from and with Inglorious Basterds, A delight to watch a 'home spun' film made with such technical expertise with a dead straight storyline with the magical and universal appeal of a boys own adventure novel. My only slight criticism was with the texture of the dialogue which sometimes had a audio quality that seemed not to match the environment it was enacted within. Thanks!" - Andre J Smith

This a solid air force WWII film. It goes well with the computer games my kids used to play when they were little.

I enjoyed this film, special effects were not up to the par. Was it like this in the real war? Acting is sometimes good, sometimes bad, I am not sure which way it is swaying.

The scenes of crash landing should of been done better, you can see it was some sort of special effect which did not turn out the best.

Plot is similar to any other WWII films of this type.

Camera work, is sometimes excellent, like the scene when they are running in the forest. Sometimes not so good, like in the plane sometimes.

If you like good WWII action film this one is for you.

Angel of the Skies stands alone in its study of Commonwealth air crew. It lacks the bravado of other productions but certainly in the first half of the film, that worked for me. The aerial sequences are credible and who's to say that the rather muted and relatively calm interchanges of the crew are not representative. The second part of the film worked less well and it all looked a little two dimensional and predictable. Characters were not developed enough in this context and the viewer doesn't care enough. A couple of points of accuracy pointed out by others here. I'm pretty sure that they are not Liberators, but Halifax bombers. Not as famous as the Lancaster, but certainly a stalwart of Bomber Command. Also, although it is very true that the RAF left the vast majority of Daylight Raids to the US B17s, Halifax bombers did fly in the day, particularly towards the end of the war on a few precision raids.

The RAF stopped daylight mass Bombing in Europe early in the war. It was too costly in casualties and aircraft losses.

The US Army Air Force 8th Air Force did do daylight missions and thus suffered high losses. Each B-24 Liberator had a ten-man crew.

This film is yet another case of "stolen valor". The British are shown flying highly dangerous mass formation bomber missions during daylight where they encountering accurate German flak and fighter aircraft.

This film should have been about American crewed B-24s. Credit where credit is due.