The FX in this film were AWFUL....especially the water geysers after the bombs had exploded against the dams. I mean HORRENDOUS! The flak was TERRIBLE!....I mean NAUSEATING! Other than that.....not bad.
shareI'm with you on the special effects, they were ridiculously bad. But I did not let the special effects get in the way of an absorbing viewing experience.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
The special effects of the explosions and the dams breaking in the remake will probably be fantastic, what will be awful will be the CGI flying scenes!
sharePlease explain then how else they could have done the special effects since you are the expert on visual effects from the 1950's on the limited budget they would of had back then.
The effects are of the standard I would expect from the 50's and they have to be taken in context.
Stupid 1950s film not using state of the art CGI from 2013. What were the film makers thinking?
shareWell, they should have blown the dams up again for real and filmed it then...
"Well she turned me in to a newt!... I got better."
Not having seen a dam being blown up by a "bouncing" bomb in my life, I can't comment on how unrealistic the explosions were. For all I know, that is EXACTLY what it looks like.
As for the tracers, again, I haven't even been in a Lancaster & being shot at by flak, so can't comment on the realism of that either.
I have obviously led an incredibly sheltered life.
I'll grant you that the 'water geysers' were a little corny..but this film was shot in 1954 and NOT 2014. Special effects didn't amount to the same thing then as they do now!
As for the realism of the flak/tracer fire...all i have to add is i'm lucky enough to have a member of my family who was with Bomber Command in WW2. He flew in Handley Page Halifax's, a broadly similar aircraft. He's seen this film several times, and says that the effects are "pretty close" to what it really looked like, particularly the fire FROM the attacking aircraft.
He didn't recall it being in black and white though, especially when a JU 88 shot them down over the Ruhr! (before anyone asks, all 7 crew got out safely, something of a rarety at the time!)
The FX in this film were AWFUL ...1950's British films in general aren't acclaimed for their special effects. As a couple of the other posters note, this is exactly what I would have expected from this type of film from 61 years ago, which didn't have an enormous budget any way.🐭 share
after bbc news had several segments of the last survivor of this i first learned there was a movie and i was intrigued to check it out, often the technical quality on british entertainment right up to the 1960's doesn't appear very advanced, i used to find the earliest seasons of "the avengers" almost unwatchable, and i read many episodes have even been lost, it really didn't become appealing until they upgraded the quality of the series when it were to be sold overseas. i was surprised the fairly good quality of this considering it was made in 1954, until you get to the special effects, of course we understand it can't look as today, but even b monster movies had a way of getting around it and pulling it off back in the old days. check out those low door entrances, pretty solid on girl germs, besides the zoomed out dancers, there pretty much isn't a female featured until 73 minutes in and it's a small part at that, two hours for movie of this age was pretty unusual, it does feel overlong it isn't until over an hour in that their mission is set clear and up to that point had been preparing and scenes feeling as if on repeat. the documentary on the dvd with the real life persons is the reason to get this dvd, really strange how the last survivor appeared healthier years later on bbc than in this documentary.
✈️
sexy shell beautiful soul,
cant be manufactured on the factory floor,
since youve gone,
this is no fun anymore,
mechanically rolling from song to song,
with a flat tune and empty soul.