Lets make no bones about it, Dambusters is a film stuck in its time - just a look at some of the 'special effects' is enough to prove that, which is a shame, as a bit more care and attention would have at least removed the cringe factor. The editing and direction of some of the film also leaves a lot to be desired at times, the tension should be at level 8 for most of the film and at 11 for the last quarter, but barely manages to get near seven until the last 15 minutes. The lack of focus on individuals (with the exception of Wallis and maybe Gibson) is also a bit of a problem - who is who during the raid? The switching from Lancaster to Lancaster is pointless unless the viewer has at least some idea of who is in it! I'm not asking for awful Hollywood character-driven filming, just a little more focus.
There are some good points though, especially Redgraves cracking portrayal of Barnes Wallis and the use of real Lancasters instead of the usual airfix on piece of string. The bombing of the dams is also well executed (except the terrible explosions). The last 15 minutes is pretty good, especially post raid - showing tiredness in every sense of the word. None of the Pearl Harbour histrionics.
The dog - well, that was its name. Whether Gibson used the name for its Latin meaning or just plain offensiveness I don't know. But it's historical fact. And it was upper-middle class Britain the 1940's. Take it as a lesson in hindsight rather than a terrible problem.
Essentially, this film feels perfunctory - tell the story, put in some FX and finish. If this film was remade lovingly with a director who could keep within history it would be corking, but I doubt in this day and age that will happen.
6
There are some good points though, especially Redgraves cracking portrayal of Barnes Wallis and the use of real Lancasters instead of the usual airfix on piece of string. The bombing of the dams is also well executed (except the terrible explosions). The last 15 minutes is pretty good, especially post raid - showing tiredness in every sense of the word. None of the Pearl Harbour histrionics.
The dog - well, that was its name. Whether Gibson used the name for its Latin meaning or just plain offensiveness I don't know. But it's historical fact. And it was upper-middle class Britain the 1940's. Take it as a lesson in hindsight rather than a terrible problem.
Essentially, this film feels perfunctory - tell the story, put in some FX and finish. If this film was remade lovingly with a director who could keep within history it would be corking, but I doubt in this day and age that will happen.
6