Added: 4 years ago
From: bvanderstok
Views: 370,631
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (1,066)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Ha ha ha, corny as hell, but you gotta love it

  • This was bad, even for its time, and the special effects and acting were panned.

    Old =/= good

  • Ah those oh so deadly Me-108 Taifuns...the scourge of the RAF just like those Spanish M-48 Pattons...oops, I mean King Tigers were of the US Army in many a 60s film.

  • O.M.G.!!! That old Airfix kit is about to crash.... bale out chaps..!!!

  • old, old, old flick.

  • At least it's in Color :D

  • You call that FAKE ,It looks realier than half the people in this world.

  • I've seen worse. Still don't understand why so many commenters are slagging off CGI though.

  • The prolific use of ketchupm at 7.51 Battle of Britain Movie 6. Great. Analogue over digital anytime. Just wait until your children laugh at your ipod, video, facebook page, then you will understand.

  • What the hell is so bad about that? There's much worse, including supposedly wonderful modern digital effects - which look like what they are - jumped up video games! (Avatar?! Jurassic park? King King? - unbelievable and stupid dinosaur chase scenes). Far more important things are the quality of the script, dialogue, acting, plot, use (or moronic overuse) of music. As an intelligent movie viewer, you use a thing called 'imagination' to suspend reality if the effects are a bit dated.

  • @jegspillerpiano Please spare us with your retardation and shut up.

  • it landed and had diareha

  • You obviously haven't seen many WWII movies.

  • I dunno, the site of the USS Arizona inflating like a balloon before it blew up in Pearl Harbor was pretty terrible special effects and they probably had 500 times the budget this movie did.

  • @NVanWendy

    Ships With Wings (1941) - Directed by-Sergei Nolbandov for Ealing Studios.

    (I know, it's 2 years after you asked, but I thought I'd throw it in anyways)

  • @propfan2k Hey, and I appreciate it! For those who don't know what we're talking about, it's a war movie with even worse airplane effects than this. I was looking for the title. Interesting that my description of the appalling toy plane action (posted 2 years and one account name ago) was enough for Propfan to identify it!

  • @carmium - What can I say, it's a gift. ;)

    I think most filmmakers will give you the best SFX their budget will allow. If there's no money for more elaborate effects or to re-shoot a mediocre one, and it gets the point across, they would just go with it. It's a compromise between "state of the art" and "how much do we want to spend on this?"

  • Are u kidding these are the best special effects i have seen in my life i was forcefully mind fucked by this video, kids these days don't know visual effects if it bent you over a table and had its way ^^

  • 0:9 "it's consequence!"

  • the Movie was on a budget. 

  • I just got the video...and it is lame in effects.

  • I think the very, very worst airplane special effects was the opening of Plan 9 from Outer Space where two guys were piloting an airliner.

  • Show some respect for the classics! They didnt have any of this cgi crap back then! all they had were brains and damn good artists! Not to mention amazing special effects artists and sound producers!

  • I've seen worse

  • from "squadron 633" ?

  • what do you expecting out of the this film big special effects like any other war film out today

    it is an old film and i have watch it and it is good and i wasnt expecting big effects becuse

    i know it was an old film

  • Still looks better than anything CG.

  • where are the worst effects??? is an old movie... what were you expecting?? a plane transforming and firing lasers?

  • seems legit

  • Tbh i dont see why it looks so bad to you people, i mean other than the backdrop. The people worked with what they had knowledge of.

  • Gee, it looks like the battles I used to have with my model areoplanes when younger days availed.

  • was that a bf108

  • Yeah,this movie sucked on toast.As bad as the special effects were,

    the acting and pace were even worse.

    A painful,mean spirited movie that seemed to resent the viewer.

  • !!!!!! I NEARLY SHIT MYSELF WHEN THE PLANE CRASHED, IT WAS SO VIVID

  • couldn´tell it was fake, really.

  • I don't understand? bad special effects? it's your monitor and vid card, cos on my PC I can see it all in full HD and 3D

  • i dont see the problem? disliking pointless video

  • Better than Transformers.

  • Better than CGI

  • well it was bad but not the worst. try flying tigers with john wayne. Though this was slightly subpar for the day. Better was the battle of britian it had better effects with its models i can still tell the stukas are models but they still look good to me.

  • how the hell are these the worst specail effects in a movie? they are good effects id like to see YOU make better ones

  • You have to understand. This was James Cameron' like back when it came out. IT may suck now, but think of it from their point of view.

  • Really? whoever put this up should learn to animate something himself before critisizing an early movie. You're limited to what you have moron!

  • idiot it whas a good special effects in the 60,s

  • no shit

  • That's the kind of special effects I did as a child with my plastic airplane models by setting them on fire. Of course I didn't have a movie camera.

  • How about we see the effects in your movie?? its easy to criticize when you have no idea how to do it yourself!

  • I grew up watching Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet so this was some of the best special effects I've ever seen!

  • Looks better than Attack of the Clones.

  • To be honest this was a really good special effect

  • Nah, that was a peach. Watch John Waynes "Flying Tigers". Now THATS some bad effects. The inside of the P-40 has enough room for a love seat and when the Japanese plane crashes only one wing breakes off and it bounces then the fire looks like the fire on the wick of a zippo, FUUUuuunny ;)

  • This was a great movie I love when I was a child, and someone my dad knew worked on the SFX on not just this movie, but he went on to work on movies like ALIENS, THE MEDUSA TOUCH and also ZEPPELIN.

  • Effects were as good as could be attained in those days. I used to like that they always crashed behind a hill tho. :-). A lot of the newer generations seem to think that everything was automatically digitally enhanced or done on a computer.

  • sooooo what so fucking bad about this ? that they used models ?? looks fine for fuck sake.. ice seen alot WORSE. fuck it

  • where is the bad part?

  • There is no such thing as a bad movie that has a Mosquito in it.

  • Whatever, it's better than the cockpit scene in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"

  • lol

    

  • They couldn't have just, you know, crashed a REAL plane?!

  • @Abcormal I hope that is a joke, mossies dont grow on trees you know!

  • I really didnt think it was that bad

  • @FRYSDUB same here

  • And yet it still looks better than star wars episodes 1-3! Bring back models!

  • About Windtalkers. As a retired artillery officer, I can assure you that there isn't much of a fire ball emitted from an arty round. There is a quick flash which is followed usually be so much dust and smoke that you can;t see anything else. But then, I've only seen a couple of thousand arty rounds explode.

  • What about Windtalkers? That was sad to me example of FX. Arty rounds with larger fireballs coming from gasoline. You would think they could get some footage from Fox News of real explosions.

  • What is wrong with our generation ( im 16) where the people dont respect anything old? if its old it means its better then that piece of trash justin beiber kid

  • @rebelsoldier121 Yeah it's just the technology of the time and a low budget film. It has a few good things about it like a good story and theme.

  • @rebelsoldier121 I've never seen such a bullshit logic. I don't respect Justin Bieber. I don't respect what was done during the Civil War. I don't respect Napoleon Bonaparte. I don't respect K$sha. I respect all that deserves respect, not because it's old and somehow being old gives you merit. My grandma is old but I disagree with her on a few things, does it automatically make her right and me wrong because she's 'old'?

  • @rebelsoldier121 totally agree with you (im 17)

  • @rebelsoldier121

    There's plenty of old shit that sucks too you know.

  • @rebelsoldier121 I understand what you're saying, but this is just horrible.

  • Loved the shadow of the crashing plane on the backdrop picture.

  • This movie sucks the special efects wouldnt fool a retard.

  • Looked real to me.

  • looks very bad for 2011, but the film is 50 years old or so I guess

  • @Wittmann73 this. while there are rubbish special effects today, there were also terrible ones from ye-olde-times. This is why we don't watch the old bond movies, the fighting is even worse than dr who :P

  • Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is? Think of all the men who died in the actual battles to give a directors years later something to make a movie about. My hats off to them !

  • The original Flash Gordon serial mini-movies had terrible production values. Black & white film, ham acting, and really - REALLY - crude SFX. Even as a little kid I objected to the rocket exhaust that went straight up out of the nozzle. I can imagine the film crew setting fire to an oily rag, stuffing it into the rocket, and yelling "Action" while a puppeteer swung it around a paper mache moonscape.

  • what was wrong with that???

  • would have been quite good for its day.

  • you know i love modern war movies, but its the classic like The Longest Day and A Bridge to Far, that will always be the classic perfection

  • this was not nearly as bad as i was expecting from the title...

  • The ME-108 Taifun (which the two guys were flying) IS NOT A COMBAT AIRCRAFT! It was a trainer, and general purpose aircraft that could not possibly dogfight due to its low stress and low power,oh well they were so niave back then when this supposedly happened

  • God dame you all of you who think this movie seen is bad 

  • Well, that's the way it was way back. Tecnology has moved in leaps and bouds over the last 40 years, look at Avatar in HD. 

  • Birdemic was WAY worse than this!

  • I have watched this clip 7 times. Where is the bad special effect?

  • There were a string of really bad WW2 movies being made in the 60s in the UK. Most of them due to lack of a budget so it all went to the SFX... "633 Suadron", "Mosquito Squadron" and of course "The Battle Of Britain"

    To see what a realistic warmovie looks like with decent special effects, please watch "Battle of the River Plate (1956)." One the few things that don't look very convincing are the "near misses" seen from the bridge. But for the rest it's a great warmovie.

  • it look's berry good!

  • That wasn't the worst by any means! I thought they looked good! Just like "Saving Private Ryan." !!!

  • LOL aerial SHADOWS!!

  • I think it looks ok.

  • This is how it actually looked like back then .. Luckaly graphics improved Thnx Nvidea !

  • looks Real in 240p

  • It's not fake. I was there.

  • why is everyone slatting that scene. COME ON PEOPLE!!! the film was made years and years ago way before special effects.

  • HAHAHAHAHAAA lol ths is soo bad :D

  • 0m23s mega realistic turn!

  • @mumugamer2006 You mean shadow on fields or static shadow in cockpit? ;d

  • These effects aren't so bad. I seem to remember the original Dambusters winning an oscar for its special effects and they're pretty rubbish by today's standards.

  • Obviously you haven't seen many WW2 movies if these are the worst effects you have seen.

  • Without the shadow getting cast on the giant poster it would have looked alright ,.

  • Like to see you do better.

  • not only did they do really well with the budget they had but you have to remember this was filmed in the 1960's

  • I remember this movie which is 633 squardon. It was a big hit and full house for 3 months in Hoover theatre, causeway bay, Hong Kong. At that time TV is not that popular,personal computer was not existed ,radio listening and movie watching were main stream popular entertainment.It was the 60's . I was a teenage life was a lot simple then.

    I am longing to see the new Dambuster movie, with the now computer tec, this should be a look realistic film.

  • @kwokwing This isn't '633 Squadron' but a movie made ten years later called 'Mosquito Squadron' - but it's an easy mistake to make: 'Mosquito Squadron' lifted most of their effects footage from '633 Squadron'!

  • @Carandini Yes, you are right. this is a film about putting some bowling bombs against something.

    I like the old film Damn Busters and development of Wallis bomb better.

  • I still enjoy the film, but that is rather 'Thunderbirds'.

  • all negative ppl about ww2 movies should be hanged

  • Don't see what's wrong about this.

  • Wait never mind its not 633, I dont think....

  • NOOO! not my favorite 633 squadron! Loved that epic movie!

  • well the movies like 40 years old

  • They're remaking the Dambusters, let's hope they remake 633 Squadron (keeping the same music of course)...but I guess if Hollywood have anything to do with it they will twist history

  • Still better than some of the crap I see on YouTube.

  • it wasn't that bad for and old movie

  • not the worst maybe, it's pretty good on it's era

  • @redi497 Agreed.

  • No, 'Pearl Harbor' had the worst special effects in a WWII movie...and the worst acting, story, dialogue, direction, etc. Basically, it's the worst WWII movie ever. No, scratch that, its the worst war movie ever.

  • it's from '69 and it still aged better than friggin cgi from '03 did

  • not bad

  • Spoiled kids these days. You know... years ago this type of special effects looked just as good for us as the cgi does now. And they where good and we liked it.

    Don't bash on this stuff, becourse there is enough modern cgi stuff that looks even worse, where developers did not even do proper research etc.

    These guys here made atleast a damn good try, and i like the result!

  • @XCougar85X hey thank you btw i am 13 but i do respect and like these movies and yes that special effects are great in this :)

  • @XCougar85X I agree with you. I am still young but I prefer oldie movies like "Gasbags" or "Duck Soup" and etc.

  • @XCougar85X Agreed. Additionally the older films actually had a plot which progressed unlike today where films are "Successful Franchise (N+1)" or "Ancient Formula, New Character" or those where the plot is an excuse for cramming as many special effects and gimmicks as possible - the latest one being 3D

  • i dunno, looks pretty good to me. ur probalbly some new 11 year old cgi worshipper

  • 11 seconds= cobmat flight simulator.

  • i've seen WAY worse than that...ever check the syfy channel?

  • its funny cause its not a special effect

  • WAY better than CGI. shit now looks like a video game.

  • 244 people are great grandchildren of the guy that did the special effects for this movie.

  • Watch the trailer for "Red Tails" if you want to see bad ww2 CGI

  • that was actually pretty good

  • that is honestly the old coroner from navycis

  • the pilot is ily kuriakin from the man from uncle or that old cunt from navy csi and charlses bronson shagged his mrs jill ireland who died of cancerBOO

  • If you think you`re better at special-fx, especially with a low budget strangling your efforts in producing a high quality vehiclecombat with just 30 feet of nylon-cord and a bunch of plastic models and firecrackers, then go for it pal ^^ no offense pal, but I think they`ve done quite well with their setup ;)

  • @Phozz4 and this was made a long time ago before any cgi shit

  • do a barrel roll

  • At least cut is good.

  • Was the really the cockpit configuration? One guy sitting slightly behind, and to the side of the other guy?

  • @ralphyetmore actually, yes that was the config in the mossie. All the mosquitoes used in this movie were actually bomber versions that had the glass nose painted over to make them appear as fighter bombers. Not a bad movie by old standards, at least you get to see and hear the merlins of the mosquitoes. The special effects were laughable but hey, wadda ya want?

  • For the time period... they aren't that bad. You just have to take it for what it is worth.

  • people back in these days would sit in the theater and fucking flip shit because the movie showed them the best effects ever

  • It remindes me Flash Gordon

  • Comment removed

  • fot me looks pretty organic compare to new cgi explosions today

  • i think it looks better than todays cgi?

  • I didn't see anything bad :/

  • 3 seconds of this movie is still better than 3 hours of Pearl Harbour movie.

  • @enprios no kidding Pearl Harbor movie was total garbage

  • @walmartgoof yeah... i agree...

  • ok.. think that was pretty good for and old movie... there are movies that comes out now that have 100 times worse special effects then this.. just saying :)

  • You can't say this was bad because of the era, because "Battle of Britain came out at the same time and had way better effects.

  • @alphatotheomega7 Thats because the footage in the Battle of Britain is the real deal. The air combat seens featuring actual aricraft where filmed from a modified b25 bomber. If you buy the Battle of Britain DVD, there is a complementary documentary DVD included which details how they did it and the effort that was involved in acquiring the aircraft to film the movie

  • @makka9710 Oh wow. I had no idea. When I was a kid watching the movie I was too caught up in the action to think how they made it.

  • better than pearl harbor the movie... this is prolly before pearl harbor ever even happened

  • ...its not bad

  • this is pretty good

  • The shadow of the plane 0:13 is pretty realistic :D

  • @mumugamer2006 nice eyes u got ;)

  • @mumugamer2006 ahahaha nice spot!

  • @mumugamer2006 AHAHAH

  • @mumugamer2006 Yeah XD the shadow is lake 5 miles long ^^

  • I think there's a worse shot in 'Battle of Britain' where a crippled Heinkel crashes into Victoria Station. It really does look like an Airfix model landing on some cut out cereal packets. Strange for such a high-budget, prestige film.

  • Could you do it better at that time?

  • Actually, I’ve seen worse in movies made during the war.

  • Quite competent...until the crash shot. There's no excuse for that shadow in any professional film of any era. Wire work in front of a backdrop is one of the oldest FX techniques, long since mastered. There really are only three big technical rules:

    (1) Make the model big enough that the smoke looks real.

    (2) Pull back far enough that you don't see the wires guiding the model, and

    (3) LIGHT THE DAMNED THING AT SUCH AN ANGLE THAT THERE'S NO SHADOW CAST ON THE BACKDROP.

    Easy.

  • That wasn't bad at all.  Thanks for wasting 27 seconds.

  • were just spoiled nowadays when it comes to special effects

  • @thatartchannel Indeed... We demand the best from the film industry... just look at the amount of money spent on effects in the new Transformers film.

  • That wasn't bad at all, considering the date it was made and still puts Michael Bay's Transformers to shame.