We Go in at Dawn

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.

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.

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

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.

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