We Go in at Dawn (2020) User Reviews

Was this a school project?

[KIFUK · 3/10 · 25 April 2020]

Low budget yes, cliched and wooden and what surprised me was that I viewed it to the end.

Not bad just not great

[dkm1981 · 4/10 · 16 April 2020]

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.

Good effort but let down

[dannycrossman · 4/10 · 10 November 2022]

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.

Clearly Used Every Third Page of "WWII" for Idiots" As Source Material

[mikeh-54044 · 1/10 · 1 December 2020]

All three introductory statements at the start are historically wrong. Sets the tone for this utterly wretched effort. Weapons magically appear, disappear, and reappear. Shoes are on, off, on without human intervention. The Germans simply stand about to be shot, stabbed, or done away with. POWs wear civilian clothes but aren't shot as spies. British agent is sent to France who can't speak French! Weapons that shoot sound like air pistols.

Unimaginably BAD. Even with social distancing not worth the time.

Pathetic!!!

[bcarruthers-76500 · 1/10 · 3 November 2021]

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.

Poorly made historically inaccurate

[artakphotography · 2/10 · 12 April 2020]

The movie was very poorly made and very historically inaccurate. Please don't waste your time and money on it. There are many problems with the film, but I'll only mention a few so I don't waste your time like the movie does. 1st, there is a beautiful squadron of fighter planes soaring through the air in the movie poster, but none are seen flying in the movie, only one in a hangar. 2nd, in 1944, no SS unit would have been issued a machine gun MG08 from WW1, but it is used on several guard towers during the film. 3rd, one of the SS soldiers on patrol is wearing a helmet with Heer, or army, decals on it, not SS. On top of uniforms being incorrect, the simple actions of the characters are illogical and inaccurate. In the scene where the escaping POWs must make it past a guard tower with a machine gun nest, one man runs into the gunner's sight to serve as a distraction while another man shoots the gunner in the head. The problem is that the distracting man makes it back to the group unscathed, because the gunner didn't turn his machine gun right at the enemy clearly standing before him. Instead, the gunner shot every last brick in the wall near the man as he slowly turned his machine gun in the man's direction. Instead of just turning and shooting, he shot while turning, which is plain dumb. Common, Germans lost the war, but where not stupid. Also, in the scene where Ellie accidentally shoots the soldier on patrol who nearly killed her and nothing happens. Nobody hears the shot. It's not like it was just several meters away from a building full of SS guards, of course not. Even though Ellie and John talk shortly after about why she shot him and Ellie claims it was a mistake, nobody hears the shot. It's impossible that not one soldier heard a gunshot go off right near their camp and didn't go check out what happened. It's just a disgracefully bad movie, it's illogical and unfortunate for a movie that really did have some potential in the beginning. Very sad. PS: These critiques are written by my 13-year-old son who knows history way better than the film makers.

Terrible...!

[Bad-Good-Great · 1/10 · 17 March 2020]

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.

Garbage

[ewen1957 · 1/10 · 21 March 2020]

Acting is awful. Continuity is utterly wrong. Don't waste your time. This is actually worse than "The Bruce"

BAD

[MAC-115 · 5 April 2020]

Bad acting, bad story, bad script, bad continuity, bad editing - just BAD.

So poor

[j-jacks · 1/10 · 27 June 2020]

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.

Awful film

[jhobley-79586 · 1/10 · 19 April 2020]

The worst war film I've seen. The cover image made it look promising but it is trash.

Special FX weren't special but low budget trash.

Entertaining movie

[pimouche · 8/10 · 21 April 2020]

Some reviews are very unfair. This movie is a low budget production, it's not like flying WWII fighters costs nothing... So of course they have to do what they can with the budget they have, and I personally think it was well done.

The movie is entertaining and fun, actors are good (Ellie's French accent is spot on, which helps with creating this occupied France atmosphere) and the story is interesting.

Sure, if you expect a high budget war blockbuster it is not the movie for you. But if you want to watch an entertaining independent movie, give this one a shot! It is totally good and fun to watch, totally recommended!

Entertaining

[Mol10965 · 7/10 · 20 April 2020]

I would disagree with the 1* and 2* ratings as far too harsh. I found it rather entertaining. True the poster is misleading and the limited budget quickly stands out but overall I had good time watching it. Not a blockbuster but it could fare rather well on TV. Some criticize the credibility of the plot, but what about the plot of The Dirty Dozen or Kelly's Heroes ! The plots in those classic WW2 movies are about as realistic. Who cares if the story is entertaining ? Considering the budget limitations and accepting the plot I found acting rather fine; save for some French and German accents. Directing and particularly editing could be better. The score is overused and considering the budget a touch of lightness with some show of humor would have improved the overall impression. A bit like in Kelly's Heroes. Globally a nice independent movie.

Oh my word this was bad

[curtisratcliff · 1/10 · 6 July 2020]

If I could give this a minus 10 I would if was abysmal, kelvin fletcher cannot act, his acting capabilities were pushed in emmerdale, when he tries in a movie it just shows how terrible he is, don't get me wrong the whole production was terrible but if they had someone who wasn't a piece of wood as the leading man it would of been slightly better, fletcher give up pal your terrible them dreams of being the next wolverine will only happen if you are invited to a xmen themed fancy dress, YOU CANNOT ACT

Abysmal

[cardinal-biggles-34-133083 · 1/10 · 12 November 2021]

This film is a shambles. Historically there is nothing factually correct except the date of D Day, except of course that if this were a true reflection of events the people involved would have been preparing for a date a day before.

The actors are not even of the quality I would expect to find in a third rate soap opera, The Direction is pathetic, continuity errors abound and the use of NATO hardened shelters ....well I could go on but the simple truth is I have absolutely nothing positive to say about this film.

Do yourself a favour and watch something else... As for spoiler alerts...there is nothing to spoil.

Another Superficial 2nd World War Movie

[info-90847 · 2/10 · 11 April 2021]

Did not enjoy this one. Mediocre actors, historically Incorrect, archetypical Germans, glorification of resistance and its enablers. Cheap special effect matching the performance of the actors. N-th iteration of the subject. Very boring, not entertaining at all in my view. It's probably better to spend your viewing time with an accurate documentary on the subject.

Gosh..that was bad and very amateurish

[glendajohnson-17984 · 1/10 · 13 December 2021]

It started off bad, then got gradually worse, but the end it was really pathetic.

The continuity mistakes were plenty, they took their shoes off , then they were wearing them, she had Brown packing tape on her machine gun, he was dressed like someone out of the 70's, .

That will do for now, as I have lost the will to live.one of the worst films I have had the misfortune to watch..

Summed up in a few seconds....

[joeloughlin · 1/10 · 24 December 2021]

The film can be summarised in a few seconds by the scene in which the French resistance woman hiding in the bushes is inadvertently urinated on by the German soldier on patrol. Choose another film.

A Lackluster Remake of "Where Eagles Dare" without the Castle

[zardoz-13 · 5/10 · 15 May 2020]

You know you're in trouble when the DVD case for a World War II movie promises action that the filmmakers don't deliver. The cover depicts American Mustang fighter planes strafing an enemy airfield. At best, British writer & director Ben Mole's "We Go in at Dawn" gives us a glimpse of an airplane parked in a hanger. However, this is the only plane we are shown in the entire movie. Basically, this modest World War II movie concerns espionage behind enemy lines. One of the planners of the Second Front, i.e., D-Day, has been captured after his plane was shot down over occupied France. The only thing good about this unfortunate accident is the Germans don't realize the importance of this Englishman. Meantime, they keep him under close guard in a chateau in France until a high-ranking Gestapo officer can arrive to interrogate him. As it turns out, this Gestapo officer knows who the prisoner is, so the Allies can expect immediate action out of the Nazis. If the enemy are able to loosen this man's tongue, the plans for the historic invasion of Fortress Europa along the Normandy coastline on June 6th are compromised. Predictably, a seasoned English commando, who has survived behind enemy lines in the Balkans, is dispatched either to liberate this very important person or slip him a cyanide pill. The setting and the action of Mole's World War II thriller duplicates on a micro budget with considerably fewer explosives and bullets what highlighted Brian G. Hutton's explosive epic "Where Eagles Dare" (1968) starring Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood. In "Where Eagles Dare," the Allies infiltrate a heavily armed castle nestled in the Bavarian Alps and rescue one of the chief coordinators of the Second Front before the Gestapo can extract value information out of him about the invasion. British commando officer John Seabourne (television actor Kelvin Fletcher) has grown as tired as anybody about the course of the war, and his daughter has suffered without a mother. She is going to visit relatives when the German Luftwaffe bomb the area and killed her. Naturally, Seabourne isn't happy about this tragic turn of events. Were this not enough bad news in his life, he learns that his superiors have a mission for him in France. Seabourne is one of their best commandos, but he has been operating in the Balkans and doesn't speak a syllable of French. Nevertheless, he is briefed and sent across the Channel to rendezvous with a small group of French Resistance fighters. These intrepid French Resistance fighters are led by a ruthless young woman, Ellie (Audrey L'Ebrellec of "Arthur & Merlin: Knights of Camelot"), who has no qualms about shooting Germans dead at point blank range. Indeed, we see her stand over the supine body of an unarmed German soldier and shoot him dead without batting an eyelash. Since "We Go in at Dawn" is a low-budget feature film, the filmmakers refrain from showing how our hero is transported from London to France. Suffice it to say, Seabourne is tromping through the French countryside when he links up with Ellie and her small band of guerrillas. No sooner has Seabourne sneaked into the German compound at a French chateau than he learns to his chagrin that his objective, Victor Laurence (Christos Lawton of "Hugo"), doesn't want to risk his life again to escape. Laurence argues that the German were learn too late about his identity and the D-Day landings that the Allies have scheduled will have taken place. Laurence ponders the problem that Gestapo officer Richter (television actor Guy Faulkner) may recognize him. At first, the villainous Gestapo officer doesn't remember Laurence, but it doesn't take him long to search his memory. What "We Go in at Dawn" lacks in budget, Mole struggles to compensate for his shortcomings by emphasizing suspense, suspense, and more suspense. Ellie and Seabourne clash throughout the action, particularly after they kill two Germans prowling the woods and some of her Resistance fighters are captured. Eventually, Seabourne convinces Laurence that he has no choice but to escape and return to England. Seabourne rallies the prisoners-of-war serving time along with Laurence in the chateau, and Ellie relies on a bag of explosives to distract the Germans long enough for our heroes to make their getaway. Mole conjures up several moments of suspense as our heroes risk their lives against a superior force. You don't often see in movies like this the practice of battlefield salvage. Meaning, an unarmed soldier picks up the firearms cradled in the arms of dead enemy soldiers and use them against them. The biggest problem with "We Go in at Dawn" is credibility. The Allies have it far too easy and the Germans are a day late and a dollar short in every encounter against our heroes. Clocking in a minimal 85 minutes. "We Go in at Dawn" ranks as the kind of World War II movie that only die-hard movie warriors will find tolerable in the best of the conditions.

It wasn't a bad film!

[goldemily-85401 · 5/10 · 29 August 2022]

It wasn't a bad film, I'm not anywhere near old enough to have seen or been close to a war unlike most of the people in these reviews obviously. It didn't have the over dramatization that the Americans put in their films, like bigger and louder has got to be better, but thinking about it, it would've been scary and learning to trust strangers at that time would've been pretty much like that. To be honest how he managed to do what he did after what happened to him concerning his family he must've really loved our country too. That's possibly why I rated it the way I have and didn't go any lower.

Oh dear!

[hollers_chemistry · 1/10 · 4 December 2021]

Awful movies made worse by soo many errors. Continuity flaws degrade the enjoyment. Glad I did not pay for this film.

I must read reviews before I commit to watching films on Prime and then, perhaps, I would not waste my time.

We Go in at DAWN

[lakes-49068 · 9/10 · 17 March 2020]

Contrary to the previous Reviewer,I Found this War Movie to Very good,well port-raid,by,(To Me) none know artists,good Story,good Acting,Great Picture !!!!

It is ok and could be good

[xavieradam-29568 · 7/10 · 19 April 2020]

Reviews are a little unfair. It's an ok film. With more budget and advisors it could be sharper. The language etc sometimes does not ring true. The plot is a good one and well executed. Some of the director work is a little cliche - like the shadow of the gun etc. It needs a bit of a rework. It's a shame as it's almost there and the chateau scenes are good and create suspense. The twist of not wanting to leave the barn and the explanations are good. All in all better than previous reviews would have you believe. Worth seeing.

Horrendous

[stevenwales-77814 · 1/10 · 12 January 2022]

So many errors in consistency. While the acting can be excused of main cast they can only perform as directed and written to a level of acceptance. The final Barn scene is something i seriously can not understand how it manages to be funded or or approved, its not even school nativity standard.

Oh dear. Appalling

[tim-clark-69368 · 1/10 · 16 December 2021]

Oh Dear. A radio controlled JU52 model overflying a disused Cold War era UK airfield with hardened aircraft shelters. A Yak 3? Sat in the hangar where the Brit and German have some poorly acted fisticuffs. This is truly poor.

Was there really no budget to use an airfield with some historic relevance and resident aircraft that could have acted as a backdrop.