Lancaster Skies (2019) User Reviews

Spoiled by unnecessary errors

[eunicemuir · 5/10 · 17 January 2021]

The crew is to be commended for producing such a low budget film successfully, but my main problem was with some errors which anyone who served in the RAF would find unacceptable. I realize that there aren't too many veterans of WW2 around, but surely someone in the crew had an elderly grandfather around who could have given advice, or there must be books detailing correct procedure. I served in the RAF 12 years after the end of WW2, and can still remember the rules and pecking order.

The two main problems I had were with the saluting, and the fraternization. Officers of equal rank did not salute each other, and one did not salute unless wearing a hat, or beret. No one went outside with the head uncovered, and hats were not worn indoors. Thankfully, the saluting did not generate to the sloppy American style of brushing the fingertips across the eyebrows, at least they got that right. Officers and other ranks did not fraternize off duty. It was not allowed, nor could officers use the sergeants' mess on a casual basis. I have not got to the insignia of rank, but you get the idea. Many period films today, it appeared tohave been made by people who were not born for another 50 years. At least they did not make the common mistake of the characters, including women, using four letter words, and leaping into bed on the first date.

Perhaps I am being pedantic, and unfairly picking apart a film dedicated to the tens of thousands of heroic men and women who served and died in the war, but a little research would have made a big difference.

Clearly the low budget didn't help

[captainbeecher · 4/10 · 29 February 2020]

Stumbled across this movie and very soon realised it was battling with a very low budget and, in all honesty, not the world's most inspiring writers. Firstly, in a desperate efort to try and create the image of the 1940s, the camera crew have been seemingly told to get as close as possible to the actors as they can, lest they capture something that has to be edited out. The result is an almost comedic high close up of the actors in every scene. It also becomes noticeabe after a while that this is indeed a strange squadron that seems to only have one bomber crew as there are several scenes in the mess hall but not another member of any other crew in sight. Instead this solo crew share their airbase with four WAFs and a sergeant. Pretty incredible really when, quite late in the film, the squadron board suggests this base should be heaving with all the noise and human traffic of thirty bomber crews. Perhaps every crew had their own individual mess, each staffed with four WAFs. It appears they may also have each had their own individual pub too. Either that or the other twenty-nine crews were sworn tee-totalers. The story is okay but the extremely close camera work, uninspiring dialogue, pedestrian plot and lack of the neccessary extras to make them feel like they're on a busy air base really do deliver a generally poor quality movie. It gradually becomes hard to put this down to a lack of finances. I can honestly say I've seen better productions created by university students for Youtube, albeit their efforts aren't feature length.

Low Budget shouldnt equal low quality

[malcolmgsw · 3/10 · 22 July 2020]

I am hard of hearing and wear hearing aids.Normally I can make out dialogue reasonably well.However I found much of the dialogue under recorded and totally unintelligible.That's when it was made impossible by the loud score.A really poor effort.

Masterpiece? Gave up after 25 mins

[poshbloke · 1/10 · 8 February 2020]

It's so awful. It's like some 12 year old wrote it, particularly the scenes where they are squabbling about rank and the endless saluting. This appears to have been written by someone who doesn't understand at all. The RAF is hierarchical but not in the way that an officer strolls into the sacred Sgts Mess and demands salutes.... grow up. This annoyed me so much. I can forgive the basic scenery etc but not such crap dialogue

The life of WW2 bomber pilots on a low budget

[lhutcherson1 · 2/10 · 8 May 2019]

A mixed bag with a good subject, music and sound, but also some painfully slow pacing, stiff acting performances and far too little action. The few good performances seemed the exception. This suffers from poor writing, direction and abysmal editing. Barely worth watching.

This ain't no 'Ronseal'!

[M85ALIVE · 2/10 · 29 September 2019]

Unlike the wood varnish, Ronseal, this film doesn't do "exactly what it says on the tin" so to speak. I was expecting less action, due to the small budget and more of a deep character study on the protagonist. What I watched was a tedious boring slog of pretty much nothing. Dear writer/director: if you're going to do a film about the inner, psychological struggles of a pilot and the death of his brother you need to clue the audience in on what exactly he's going through in his head, we're not mind readers, this isn't a novel where you can spend ten pages on how the character feels insode, you need to show us how he's feeling, whats going on in his head.

I can't stress this enough, this isn't a movie...nothing..NOTHING happens, nothing of any consequence happens in the film. The main character is seriously underdeveloped and one dimensional, as are all the characters. There is no story here, it's a few pilots drinking in a pub, thats about it.

There's a flashback near the start with a young boy and I thought it was the protagonist as a child, but it later turns out that the boy is the protagonists brother....poor filmmaking. The setup to the inner motivation of the hero is so poorly done to, I didn't experience much of the bond between him and his little brother and I didn't experience the death at all of him, it's not even in the film and that's supposed to be the motivation for the entire film, seriously? soooo bad!

The acting is poor, the only credible thing is special effects given the small budget, though there is one shot of the planes engine getting hit near the and it's clearly a small model but other than that it was pretty impressive.

Boring and pointless

[sainters-90555 · 1/10 · 14 September 2019]

The jacket notes indicated an entertaining WW2 yarn, with some tension and excitement. However, as soon as it started, it was clear that no effort had been made to engage the viewer. Incredibly slow, stodgy, sparse dialogue, with far too many meaningless pauses as 2 characters would stare at each other for ages. If you suffer from insomnia, this film will send to to sleepyland. I sat through a half-hour of this rubbish, wondering why it was even released.

Awful film.Low budget crap.

[davedavmail · 1/10 · 6 January 2020]

Waited for over an hour before ANY action,boring acting,boring conversations,just a bloody awful film,how they got the money together for this pile of tripe I don't know.

Not what I was expecting, but thats okay

[ogdenhalifax · 6/10 · 13 May 2019]

Took a punt on Sky. Script was a bit hit and miss, can't argue, but I read this film was made for 80 thousand pounds so I'm giving leeway.

Was hoping for more plane and war, to be honest. However, despite the poster mis sell I did find it fairly engrossing. 2 lead characters were good and the rest of the cast played there parts well. Undeserving of some of the criticism if you ask me, but I do understand the misgivings. At least it's not a studio remake - and well done for getting it done and being brave enough to focus on the people.

Horrendous

[pcadry · 2/10 · 11 May 2019]

I really don't know what the whole point was. Convoluted story line and a bevy of bad actors. Not worth seeing at any price, And what's with the "no ending" ending ? UGH.

Obviously unpolished but very worth watching.

[S_Soma · 8/10 · 8 May 2019]

If you're here reading reviews with an eye to deciding whether or not you want to watch LANCASTER SKIES, the best advice I can give you is that it's very important for you to approach this movie with the proper frame of mind.

By way of analogy, have you ever had the experience of your kid bringing you home the gift of the results of some art project? After the shock of absorbing the reality of the horrific things your child is capable of doing with cardboard, dry macaroni and glitter and that an art scholarship is probably not in your child's future, you're usually hit with a flood of emotions. These emotions are mostly having to do with how much you love this monstrosity that's been made for you and the painful depth of your love for your snot-encrusted kid. You see how proud your kid is that they made you a gift and how much they want to give it to you. It's this thought that hits you so profoundly. As trite as it might sound, it's the epitome experience of "it's the thought that counts".

LANCASTER SKIES, if we are to be truthful, has more than a little cardboard, dry macaroni and glitter about it. Much is made of the fact that the budget for the movie was £80,000, and seeing is definitely believing. But somebody loved this movie. In a world of millennials and partisan politics and deep obsession with global warming, somebody cared enough to make this movie about a time and place where every-day people did heroic things by the literal ton while never knowing if they would live to see another day.

I viewed this movie with the mindset that I was watching a video of a community theater stage play. It kept my mind open and my attitude forgiving and my concentration focused on the actors and the story.

Exactly like community theater, LANCASTER SKIES is possessed of the community theater-like mix of mostly amateurish workmanship mixed with sudden and unexpected bursts of high quality.

Most of the acting, for example, is somnambulistic and stilted. However, at least two of the actors were quite good. Joanne Gale as Kate was convincing at the very least and David Dobson was actually stellar in most scenes. He's a little on the short side which may cause him a bit of trouble in his future projects, but there's no question of his acting chops.

Most of the special-effects and Lancaster bomber images were pretty iffy, again, as you would expect from a community theater type production. And yet, every now and then, you're surprised by some particular shot that's actually impressive. There's one scene where three bombers take off and begin a slow, ponderous starboard turn to head off to their bombing objective and it had as much big-screen feeling as you can get.

Where LANCASTER SKIES screams its budget is its complete lack of context. In any movie, and most especially a period piece like LANCASTER SKIES, context is incredibly expensive. A World War II era airfield barracks or pub simply didn't have blank white walls with the occasional 8.5 x 11 LaserJet-printed pinup and white-frosted-out windows. Most scenes looked like they were shot in somebody's London flat and they probably were.

Every scene is shot with the lens so tight in on the actors faces to avoid having to show period-accurate context that there's danger of the lens going up an actor's nostril.

LANCASTER SKIES, in short, is a labor of love and is deserving of audience appreciation for its choice of worthwhile subject matter and the committed devotion of the people that made it, actors, crew and all.

In my opinion, there is only one genuinely negative thing to say about LANCASTER SKIES, all other positive elements notwithstanding. Many of the reviews here on IMDb extolling its virtues are 1-review wonders obviously from people directly involved with LANCASTER SKIES creation. Glowing reviews by interested parties without benefit of disclosure are just slimy. Engaging in that sort of thing goes a long way to besmirch a movie that deserves more respect and appreciation. LANCASTER SKIES creators should be proud enough in their work to not engage in such base behavior.

Excellent job for such a low budget

[jimthething · 6/10 · 27 February 2019]

Despite the cost of this movie coming in below £80,000 it easily held my attention for the full ninety odd minutes. Yes, if you look closely you can see some irregularities, and the action scenes are very few and far between. On the whole it is worth watching. The Merlin engines sounded fantastic at the cinema, and the story really conveys the desperation of the brave bomber crews, whose lives could end at the flip of a coin. It also did a great job of showing how living as fully as possible on the brink of disaster took its toll on the ground crews and families of those involved.

Very Dull

[elenthora · 1/10 · 14 May 2019]

The cast was WAAAAAAAY too old, way to flat, incredibly boring. I have seen better in the local High School productions or on YouTube. The cinematography and sound effects were lackluster at best and nothing gave me one reason to give a rat's patootie about the stooooooopid story line.

Not 12 O'Clock High

[danugrin · 3/10 · 6 May 2019]

The most boring WWII film I can remember seeing with numerous sub plots that get no resolution. It's like they couldn't figure an ending act so the just cut to black with the story half told.

Avoid

[randyrsole · 1/10 · 8 August 2020]

As an ardent WW2 fan, I thought I'd give it a try. I love all things Lancaster. However, it was probably the worst film I've ever seen in my entire life. I can't think of anything positive to say. There's hardly a plane in it never mind a Lancaster. Serious over acting. Music drowns out the words. Words fail.

Boring characters, boring storyline, boring, boring

[meyuk · 1/10 · 6 June 2019]

It is about time that IMDb started showing the number of reviews each reviewer has contributed. The number of 'one-offs' for this, all stating what a great 10/10 film this is, shows that more needs to be done to stop the rest of us wasting out time. This film lost my interest in the first 5 minutes.

Boring Boring Boring

[marriottjason · 1/10 · 1 September 2019]

The title is so misleading and I was expecting to see a proper WW2 movie showing the harrowing duties of the brave pilots. Instead I got a painfully slow paced drag of a movie with very little flight scenes, or portrayal of what it was to be a Landcaster crew member. Should have done my research before buying the movie, now I stuck with it!

Overrated and boring

[pietclausen · 2/10 · 7 May 2019]

Not knowing who wrote all these good reviews, I decided to watch this flick. I found it extremely boring and nothing of interest. Perhaps the British who lost about 55 000 of 125 000 airmen serving in the bombing raids on Germany, had some connection or respect for these men who died in defending their country, rated it much higher for this reason.

Alright actually

[johnsmatt · 6/10 · 9 May 2019]

Lots of things can be said about this film. It was cheap, and it looks cheap, but it's actually an enjoyable effort.

Some of the interactions were stilted, and I would have preferred more of the film around the Lancaster, but on the whole not bad.

Performances were okay. Most of the acting was average. I wasn't a fan of the alcoholic lead, everything felt overacted as if he was trying too hard, but the tailgunner character was well done, as were the two northern crew members who didn't have enough time on screen for me.

Worth a rental, probably wouldn't buy.

One of the worst movies ever seen

[technialabferrara · 1/10 · 5 August 2020]

Boring boring boring boring. Boring even on the one mission in the whole movie. Don't waste 5 minutes of your life to see such a movie. Insipid and lifeless characters, minutes and minutes of total silence. It will give you depression.

A fitting tribute to the Many

[chrisbarker-19132 · 8/10 · 28 February 2019]

Being an avid enthusiast of all things WW2 and in particular the exploits of Bomber Command I was both keen and sceptical to see the film. Many films including blockbusters like Dunkirk have dissapointed me especially after so much hype. Lancaster Skies is different, having if you pardon the pun flown under the Rader for most part this small-incredibly small budget film (£80000) has excellent production values and tells the story of a single Bomber Command crew at the height of the war. In my opinion (and according to the post film Q&A's) the opinion of veterans it captures the mood of life and death on a Bomber base perfectly. I have no hesitation in recommend you see the film if like me you have a thirst for the genre. If your wanting a fast paced all action movie then perhaps its not for you, but for me its very well done and a credit to all involved in the project.

A bit of research can be a good thing - if it's actually done

[giomy · 31 December 2019]

Fighter pilots didn't transfer to a bomber squadron - they weren't trained on multi-engined aircraft.

RAF personnel NEVER saluted if they were bare-headed.

Shirts with attached collars weren't issued until 1963 (trust me on that - I've still painful memories of trying to find collar studs when an 'alert' went off).

Officers didn't eat in the sergeants' mess (and vice versa). There was an 'aircrew mess' but that was only used just prior and just after a raid by the aircrews. (returning aircrew got a fried egg which was a very rare wartime treat).

Cracking low budget

[airfieldexplorers · 6/10 · 9 May 2019]

Considering this movie was made on a small budget compared to other movies I'd say this is a cracking movie. I've seen people moan about the actors etc but I enjoyed it. It has a great story with some great humour along the way. The only thing that did slightly worry me was the amount of scenes where they were smoking on. Great film though.

Worst war movies I have ever seen!!

[billgmorley · 1/10 · 23 December 2020]

The story was non existent, the action was non existent, in fact what was the point of this movie? £80,000 wasted

A Film in which nothing happens

[pilot1009 · 2/10 · 16 November 2019]

Obviously saved money by noy having a writer so no story, just a few days in the life of a bomber crew waiting to go to war.

Pitiful effort. Only good this was the Lancaster itself.