Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

This is a mildly interesting, low budget version of The Battle of Britain. But the fact that it doesn't include any real air action is a huge letdown. The filmmakers borrowed about six Hurricanes from the Portuguese air force, marked them up as British, and filmed them flying past the camera in various ways, taxiing and landing. That's about the extent of real footage for air action. The rest is done with studio shots of men in canopies. Well, not quite all. It's hard to understand why the producers couldn't get footage of air battles, apart from one shot of a half dozen contrails across the sky. Unimpressive. Especially noticeable was the lack of footage of German aircraft. In its place they used some truly embarrassing makeshift replacements, the very worst of which was a drawing of a handful of bombers from below with one fake bomb animated as falling from one of them--truly laughable. And it was used not once, but twice. A couple of models of Messerschmidts on wires were used to show German fighters coming in to attack, and a rather pitiful attempt was made at special effects to depict the downing of German aircraft, seen from the cockpit of British fighters. For a film whose very title indicates battles in the air, it is all very disappointing. The story is workable, if uninspired, leaving just the workings of the air defence system as the main interest in the film. The jaunty dialogue among flyers who in real life would be scared out of their wits was annoying.

"Angels One-Five" would make a wonderful double-feature along with the 1969 classic "The Battle of Britain". While both films have to do with the same battle and the same time period, they both approach it from completely different ways. "Angels" is a personal film--showing one particular unit and especially one brand-new pilot to the group. On the other hand, "The Battle of Britain" tries to do the impossible--encapsulate the entirety of the battle in one film! Plus, "The Battle of Britain" is a stunning film because of its amazing aerial sequences--whereas those in "Angels" are not particularly good, though this really isn't the focus of the film--it's more on people.Baird is a new pilot arriving in a replacement fighter plane. However, due to an accident (which really isn't his fault), he gets in hot water with his immediate supervisor. Then, after shooting down his first plane, he gets in hot water with the base commander! Can Baird manage to pull it all together and make himself useful or will he crash and burn (literally)? The film does a nice job of capturing the look and feel of the war from the point of view of Baird and he's a nice sympathetic character. While you don't learn much about how Britain prevailed, it is a nice portrait of one particular brave but inexperienced man--something rarely seen in war films. Very enjoyable and I actually have little to criticize--it was a top-notch production aside from the air sequences.By the way, if you are an aviation nut like myself, you'll notice that the planes in both movies are completely different--mostly because of the supply of planes available to both productions at that particular time (one film borrowed planes from the Portuguese air force and the other from the Spanish--which were both still flying WWII vintage planes at the time the films were made). For example, in "The Battle of Britain", the only German bombers shown are HE-111s and British are mostly shown flying Spitfires (though many other types of planes were used in the battles). However, "Angels" shows the Brits flying Hurricanes (which is more realistic, as more of these were used during that time than the more modern Spitfires) and you see other German bombers (such as a Ju-88). So, you not only see the war from a different perspective, but entire different aircraft as well!

I first saw this film over 40 years ago, as a young boy and was absolutely enthralled by it. I always watch it whenever the opportunity arises, and I still find it a very moving film.By modern standards the special effects are not up to much, but the film cleverly gets around this by centering much of the action in the operations room, which helps to build up the tension and adds to the sense of desperation.Touching little scenes, such as hanging out the light on landing, when the rest of the house has been reduced to a pile of rubble, help to capture the spirit of a nation which simply refused to be beaten.The ending of the film is also very memorable, when the young pilot,who was is as keen as mustard and raring to get into the scrap, is very quickly shot down and killed. It serves to remind us that most of "the few" who lost their lives were indeed very young men.Overall - a very good film.

Just watched this film again, really good fun. I've recently bought a WW2 computer Flight Simulator called IL-2 and afterwards I just had to go flying and shoot down some bally Huns, Tally Ho!Shame there are no memorable quotes listed as this film has lots. My favourite is just after the Ops bunker takes a direct hit, the roof has fallen in and there is concrete dust everywhere. People slowly start dusting themselves off, one of the WAAF's (Foster) timidly comes up to SqLdr Clinton and offers him a cup of tea.Foster: Tea sir ? It's a bit gritty, sir... SqLdr Clinton: (looks at the tea in amazement for 5 seconds) Foster, that's an inspiration ! Remind me to have you promoted.Classic.