Recensioni degli utenti

I am the co writer and co producer of this work and I am proud of it, despite its flaws.

My son, Callum, and I have worked very hard to build a business that produces low budget entertainment. We work from our family home in a spare room and don't earn a great deal from it, but we love film and we love working together and that's enough for us.

Reading some of the reviews on here is hard to say the least. However, we're strong enough to take it.

We didn't set out to make a flawed film. We set out to make the best film we could. The tiny budget, our lack of experience (we continue to learn and try to improve) and time restrictions did the rest.

My first reaction to reading some of the reviews on here was to get angry and hit back with a ten out of ten review of my own. Upon reflection, I don't need to do that. I know how hard the tiny cast and crew worked on Spitfire Over Berlin. Many of them are my family and close friends and I love them.

That's all that matters at the end of the day.

The acting is not bad, and the story is so-so (predictable and not very deep, but that's okay for war movies), but the actual spitfire is embarrassing and almost made the movie unwatchable.

The opening sequence is the Spirtfire flying while avoiding flak, and the 100% CGI plane is horrendous, even worse than MS Flight Simulator. Same thing with the single flack burst that was copied and pasted numerous times.

I almost shut the movie off then, but decided to tough it out for a while, but every time you almost start to look past the terrible CGI, they through some other ridiculousness in your face. The actual plane used in land scenes is obviously a mock-up built with Phillips screws that weren't used on Spitfires, some even aren't painted, and every surface is brand new - showing zero use. Kind of like watching a jungle warfare movie where they've been trekking through a tropical jungle for weeks, but their faces are still clean, their T-Shirts still white, no one is sweating, and their uniforms are still clean with creases intact.

It's really hard to look past the poor attention to detail and get immersed into this movie, no matter how hard you try.

Spitfires didn't have enough fuel just to go to Berlin, so coming back seems more than unlikely.

The whole movie is as unrealistic as this fuel problem. Combats, medical issues... Nothing make sense!

There are useless flashbacks too (that, I can't stand anymore).

And the 3D models are poor.

Not bad, but really, really, not good...

It's more like a high school project than a movie. No reason to go on but I need 150 words. The audio isn't mixed right so it doesn't match. Special effects would have been better off using a model airplane on a string. Music rarely matches what's going on. Plot has many problems "you're the only pilot left for this mission!" My first ever review and I'm just trying to save another innocent person from this fake rating.

The entire movie consists of headshots of pilots in phony aircraft. I've seen better CGI on Saturday morning cartoons -- from the '60s! And calling the acting wooden is an insult to actual wood... Everything about this stinker is phony.

You have been warned.

The story is nonsense. The technical basis impossible. The cgi of the plane no better than a cartoon. This is a truly pathetic representation of one of the most iconic machines of WWII and the men who flew them. How does something as poor as this get funding?

Really dreadful.

Being a indie film producer myself, I admire that this team at least got distribution on this. In today's very critical audience (you can see by the rude comments here) either you have at the very least, a 2 million dollar budget, or don't film. This film might have fared better just doing film festivals and maybe getting a streaming service to pickup. The storyline is good, but yes, today's sophisicated audience is brutal if you are not using Hollywood "Industrial Light & Magic" level CGI as they can tell. It is sad and if this was released back in the 60's or early 70's, it might have gotten a pass. I admire the filmmaker for working with what budget he had, and who knows, he might make his investment back and thats all that is important. Critics may gripe, but at least they paid to watch it somehow and that is all the investors care about.

This is a competent but boring movie, largely because it has nothing original going for it, nothing exciting or interesting. The effects are way below standard, acting passable but not great. Story itself is bare bones and without imagination.

I'd probably give this 3 or 4 stars, but minus points for the annoying (and very obviously fake) reviews... a terrible idea, since it will ultimately make your score lower.

It's a comment on the state of the UK film industry that such an amateurish production could be considered broadcastable, or even distributable. There's a lot of syllables.

An actor spends the first 20 minutes or so talking to camera wearing an aircrew face mask, so any acting is minimal. Then we get to visit a Museum of WWII, and admire pristine aircraft (of the wrong type and vintage, of course), Austin Standards or whatever, and the interiors of pubs lovingly recreated by RentACrowd, Inc. Oh, sorry, you thought there might be a story? Nah.

It is a home movie, after all. Alan Smithee would be ashamed.

Really ???? All I can do is laugh. I have never seen anything so bad as this miserable attempt at entertainment.

Why did the even attempt to do something like this

Ha Ha Ha Ha.

If you are looking for a standard WWII action movie, forget it.... this is not that, and from that frame of mind, it's rather boring. However.... if you just appreciate this movie for what it is.... a meaningful dramatization of what solo unarmed pilots went through undertaking dangerous missions, which no one would ever recognize what they endured... and the pain & responsibility that they willingly took on, to get the job done for the sake of others.... then you can appreciate what is shown here.

Did not know what to expect after reading all the bad comments but I did really like it. It depicts the depriving and loneliness of reconnaissance pilots during WW2 quite well. You will have to look through the simple cgi and focus on the story. Read in some other comment that Spitfires were not able to reach Berlin from the UK but that is not true - the long range version was used for it. It also shows the low quality of camera's that were used by the British; the captured Zeiss-Ikon camera's from the Germans were even used. So if you want to see a special angle on important events during WW2 then I think this is good movie.

Apparently it was made on a tiny budget, oh it shows. It is definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, don't expect too much of it.

Yes, there probably are many stories to tell to honor the pilots flying in WW2, but this, well, it is just plain boring, there is no content. The CGI clearly visible after the first couple of seconds turned me off immediately. Would better CGI and a wellknown actor have made it better? No, because there wasn't any content or story.

Disjointed, uninteresting and and languid. CGI straight out of the 80's, it's diabolical. Amateur script, average actors and 80% of the film takes place in the cockpit, I assume to limit any additional expenditure on action scenes. Save your breath and effort, there are better WWII shorts on You Tube produced by University students.

I admire WWII movies with artistic real combats, however this one I couldn't even continue watching> weak plot weak acting> boring and the graphics are so bad and unreal.

The only good point is the sceneries of landscapes.

What budget did they have for making this film? $25 or something around there, the spitfire cgi (if you can call it that) was terrible, the cockpit cover was moving way too much with the shots taken from the inside, the canopy was ill fitting and would have blown off long before the plane reached take off speed, I thought this was some kind of joke when i first saw the spit in the sky, well i suffered 30 mins of it and it was embarrassing to watch. Poor acting, the flak was a joke, the plane was worse than a joke, nothing made you feel like it was a serious film,, the director should stick to what he appears to be best at,,,,, childrens colouring books.

Whilst others have quoted the realism of the film including poor quality CGI, they are incorrect about the range to Berlin being too far for an Royal Air Force Photographic Reconnaissance Unit spitfire. It is a shame that the story was not based upon the lifetime experience of an RAF pilot. Whilst few pilots are now alive to tell their story there is a wide range of biographical books and PRA information which could have been used as a basis for the film.

Numerous versions of the PRA spitfire of which few had armament but relied on their speed and height eventually enabled the RAF, to obtain complete photographic coverage of enemy territory

The last and the greatest photographic reconnaissance variant of the Spitfire was the PRXIX.

It was powered by the Griffon 66 engine, with a max ceiling of 42,000ft. Its normal safe range was 1,160 miles, but this was extended to 1,550 miles by adding a 170 gallon overloaded drop-tank.

London To Berlin is 579 miles and the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit often photographed Berlin and further East from airfields in the UK and France.

Quite simply actually, this movie has to be one of the worst ever in any category. Some have written before that it's a low budget movie and no one can miss that, but without a good story everything falls.

The idea for the story could perhaps have been something good and good to draw attention to those who flew photo reconnaissance missions but the story completely falls on most of the content

The planes look like something from an old computer game.. I wonder how streaming services can buy this kind of garbage they must have completely failed the quality review (if they have any).

I think I have to watch another WW2 movie to forget about this movie......

Tin Hat Productions - should be renamed Tin Pot Productions - could have been filmed in 15 minutes rather than stretching it out - I love WW2 and Spitfires and I wanted to love the film but a huge disappointment I am afraid.....

The title is a giveaway because even I know that the spitfire's range was nowhere near enough to get the Berlin and back.

I had to turn it off after 20 minutes. It was just so bad. I couldn't stand another shot of that girl on his dashboard!

Poor CGI, obvious cockpit mock-ups, poor acting and a storyline which is just flawed.

Spitfire Over Berlin is a 2022 British war film focusing on an aerial spying mission during World War II. Like Burn's prior film, Lancaster Skies, it is a homage to the British war films of the 1940s and 1950s, and is inspired by true events.

Daredevil pilot Edward Barnes is recruited for a special mission: Operation Extreme Jeopardy, taking an unarmed observation plane over Berlin to photograph defence installations and prevent an American squadron from heading to certain death.

Enjoyed the story. Not groundbreaking, but some of the reviews are drastically unfair. (And illiterate. Glass houses). Given the budget, and production during a pandemic, I'd say they did a good job.

I've seen much worse multi million budget films that are "critically acclaimed". Great story, that would benefit from a bigger budget to finnese any rough edges.

Sometimes, all you need is a compelling story and Spitfire Over Berlin is such a film. Whilst nitpickers may gripe at the quality of the CGI and certain technical inaccuracies with the Spitfire itself, this is nonetheless a most worthy effort to tell a little-known aspect of this period in history-I applaud the filmmakers for their endeavours.

I feel it germane to point out that PR Spitfires were perfectly capable of reaching Berlin: the distance is under 600 miles and with the additional of internal wing tanks and another in the rear fuselage, this more than doubled the fuel capacity of a standard Spitfire and gave it a range of about 1200 miles. Later marks like the PRXIX extended this even further.

It's really not good. The CGI is almost insultingly bad. It's really hard to care about the well-being of a plane that is clearly a cartoon. I watched because I saw the trailer on Facebook and it looked like they were using real planes. (Probably should've known that's not likely, but...) I was hoping for an adventure movie escape. This isn't it. The dialogue is often unintelligible. The plot is very very thin. It's not even clear whether the mission is accomplished. The acting is, I dunno, sort of non-existent. I can't really think of any facet of the movie that's worth watching. I gave it a 2 rating because if you've watched every other movie in existence you might want to watch this one. Disappointing in the extreme.

Worth zero stars. Very thin story line. Wooden acting. Poor characterisation. The CGI is absolutely pathetic. Main mission to fly 1160 miles without drop tanks. Only problem was the maximum flying distance is around 450 miles. Perhaps a wing and a prayer helped?

Overall the film mainly consisted of a cockpit shot of a pilots head and poor CGI generated background. It had the hallmarks of a budget restricted amateur production.

The storyline was thin and near impossible to achieve in a spitfire. One of the 'funny' bits was the portrayal of ack ack. Little squishy red blobs, I've seen far better 'CGI' pre 1970s films. If you value your time, give it a miss.