We Go in at Dawn

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.