LouHomey From my favorite movies..

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

joebolser-45270 I loved this atmospheric, beautifully scripted, edited and directed movie. It is, in it's way, incredibly original and unusual. No music, heroic, capable women, dramatically subdued, character driven and funny.One moment stood out for me. When complimenting the Dutch women in the resistance who is in charge of their escape one of the characters says "our girls would do the same, if given the chance." This was 1942. Nobody could say for sure that our girls weren't going to get that chance.Deeply moving.

ianlouisiana A bit of a Curate's Egg,this.A "Microcosm of Society" - type aircrew is shot down over Holland,contacts the Dutch Resistance and is guided safely back home.Now I understand it was made at a time when the British Government needed to ensure that we were all singing from the same hymn sheet and that Europeans(Brits weren't considered to be Europeans in those days)had to pull together to free the continent from the yoke of Nazism,but resistance to the Germans in Holland - like in France - was the exception rather than the rule,and these were lucky airmen indeed to have managed to contact members of such a very small and brave elite without disaster befalling them. Many Dutch and French were enthusiastically embracing Fascism right up until the Second Front opened. Mr Robert Helpmann as the collaborator would not have been quite the exotic creature he is made out to be. But my main concern about "One of our aircraft is missing" is the way the Dutch are portrayed as perky rosy-cheeked and chirpy,almost like members of the von Trapp family.And surely they wouldn't spend so much of their time together as a group right under the noses of The Master Race who might reasonably be expected to be a little suspicious of such gatherings. But considering the parameters within which it was made and the audience for whom it was intended,the film is capable enough,just a bit of a disappointment considering the talent involved and the high standard of many British propaganda works of the same era. The flying sequences are well handled but once the crew have parachuted and gone to ground,for me the tension is dissipated,when surely it should be increased. "Jaw,jaw",may be better then "War,war" as Churchill posited,but in "One of our aircraft is missing" it gets to be a bit of a "Bore,bore" I'm afraid.

Robert J. Maxwell It's pretty good, and it ought to be. Powell and Pressburger produced, wrote and directed it. It was shot by Ronald Neame and edited by David Lean. And the cast includes some well-known faces -- Pamela Brown, Godfrey Tearle, Bernard Miles -- as well as some, uncredited, who were to become familiar over the next few years -- James Donald, Gordon Jackson, Peter Ustinov.The script is literate, though it includes some incidents that are now staples, and the flight of the Wellington into Germany and its being damaged on the return over Holland are eminently realistic and filled with tension, given the period.It strikes a viewer as especially well thought out. The behavior and conversation of the men huddled in the bomber are believable. None of the boyish exuberance of, say, Howard Hawks' "Air Force." Nobody shouts, "That'll teach the Nazi miscreants" or anything like that. It's all business, made a little less heavy by some light humor.When the half dozen men land in Holland and are discovered by the locals, they aren't kissed by the girls, they don't have roses thrown at them, and nobody gives them bottles of wine. The Dutch have been living with the Nazi occupation for years and they know better than that. Pamela Brown, as a leader of the interrogation team, takes her time in making sure that she's not dealing with German ringers before she organizes help.Some of the incidents may be real but are a little hard to believe. The men are to be taken, disguised as farmers, to the Catholic church for safety's sake and two of them balk because they are Methodist and Baptist. Huh? Seriously. It's somewhat surprising to find a Catholic church in a Duth village to begin with, and even more queer to find the congregation singing hymns. But, okay.That's nothing compared to the film's many virtues, which include an exciting rescue at sea from a wobbling buoy.See it. Audrey Hepburn was a teenager who saw it up close because she lived through it. Anything Audrey Hepburn (nee van Heemstra) did as a teen-aged girl is all right with me.

Steffi_P With the Second World War at its height, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger here made their debut under the title of The Archers with this story of downed Royal Air Force men escaping through occupied Holland.This is first and foremost a propaganda piece, and as such it works well. Pressburger created a story which at turns makes heroes of British soldiers, reassures and bolsters the civilians back home and, typically for the internationalist Pressburger but rare for propaganda pictures in general, pays tribute to the people of occupied Europe. While it would have been mostly aimed at the British public, and the heroes are British airmen, this is really a picture about the Dutch resistance. However the Dutch nationalism in the film does border on the ridiculous at times, such as when a resistance woman comments that she prefers the taste of Dutch water to French champagne.The circumstances of the airmen's escape are extremely tame, it has to be said. Forget Steve McQueen on a motorbike – here it's all push-bikes, rowing boats and tea with the vicar. As a result the picture doesn't stand up well as pure entertainment. But it seems as if it's the domesticity and sheer ordinariness that Powell and Pressburger are wanting to stress. This film is as much – if not more so – about the home front as the western front. It's also interesting that the two main Dutch resistance characters are both female. Something Powell and Pressburger stress throughout their propaganda films is the role of women during the war, an aspect often overlooked in the more gung ho war pictures.Michael Powell's bold and highly cinematic style seems well developed here. Here, even more so than usual in Powell's pictures, the direction is very self-aware and openly pointed at the audience. With the narrative moved along at every turn by text based devices – documents revealing the movements of the airmen or the occasional subtitles which directly address the audience – and the sweeping, highly-noticeable camera movement, it's almost as if you can feel the director's personality as he guides you through the story. It's the complete opposite of John Ford's "invisible camera" technique, but no less effective in its own way.This picture also has significance for me as featuring the screen debut of my favourite actor Peter Ustinov, here playing a Dutch priest. It's not a huge part, but he gets enough room to make some funny little gestures and facial expressions that are typical of his style. Had he been given much more screen time he could probably could have stolen the film, even at this young age. Aside from Peter the Great, none of the performances really stand out.One of Our Aircraft is Missing is an interesting propaganda piece, but it's a weaker Powell and Pressburger film today. Taken out of the context in which it was made it's not particularly enjoyable. It's probably only really of interest for Powell and Pressburger completists or those who have an interest in the specific ground it covers.