GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

JohnHowardReid A Gainsborough Picture, made at Gaumont British Studios, Shepherd's Bush. Neither copyrighted nor theatrically released in the U.S.A. Released in the U.K. through General Film Distributors: 28 June 1943. Presented by J. Arthur Rank. London opening at the Odeon, Leicester Square: 20 May 1943. Australian release through 20th Century-Fox: 7 September 1944 (sic). 8,557 feet. 95 minutes. (NTSC available on a VCI DVD; PAL available on a Simply Media DVD or an ITV Silver Collection disc). SYNOPSIS: A British submarine receives orders to sink a Nazi battleship. NOTES: Made with the co-operation of the Admiralty and the officers and men of His Majesty's submarines. The Navy did not think the original Williams-Valentine script "sufficiently authentic", so Launder was engaged. He revised the script with the help of an experienced submarine officer.COMMENT: No greater contrast can be found than that between the war- time propaganda movies made by England and the USA. The Hollywood product is full of false heroics and exaggeratedly racist bravado ("One of us is worth ten of them"), glamorized action and an enormous amount of dame-chasing on leave. The British movies are soberly realistic to a fault (you actually go away from "We Dive At Dawn" with more than a passing knowledge of the interior workings of a submarine); little attempt is made to glamorize war and give it a glossy sheen of high adventure (although there is plenty of tension, war is usually shown in all its horror and futility and mindless waste); whilst the Germans are invariably presented as lacking the quick wits of the English, they are still a force to be taken extremely seriously; and leaves are usually spent quietly with families in environs far removed from high- stepping night clubs.On the other hand, both American and British war pictures usually devote a great deal of their screen time to filling in the characters of a select group of officers and men. Whilst the Hollywood writers often fall back on stereotypes and stock characters, their British counterparts are more successful in presenting a diverse and more interesting range of personnel. The English have never been afraid of eccentrics and non-conformists, whereas to an American scriptwriter, any character who doesn't conform simply has to redeem himself by some heroic act in the final reel. The British certainly believe in team spirit, but the Americans demand total subjection to predetermined rules of conduct."We Dive At Dawn" is an excellent example of the British school. Well-rounded, interesting characters are soberly, and realistically acted by a large group of fine players with whom we can sympathize and identify. A great deal of the action is fascinatingly concerned with the details of submarine command. And the film has been put together with admirable competence and professionalism but without overt flashiness or unrealistic special effects. Asmittedly, "We Dive at Dawn" takes a fair while to get cracking, what with all the boat-side camaraderie as the various characters are introduced. In these early sections of the film we feel too that the two star performances, Portman (top-billed, though his is the subsidiary role) and Mills are somewhat lacking in depth. In fact they both seem too brusque to be totally convincing. However, Mills and Portman do settle down and grow as the story progresses. And some of the other below-decks business, particularly the running gag with the Arabella tattoo, also becomes more enthralling and/or amusing. Of curse, once the action really starts, with its surprising semi- documentary insistence on all the details and actual mechanics of the attack, this movie achieves a realism, a verisimilitude, a naturalistic tautness and tension worthy of Asquith's best work. Even Jack Cox's drab, gray-toned lighting photography comes into its own. Topped by an all-action climax.

pawebster The main interest here is the period detail. Those who make films today set in the 1940s ought to have a look and listen - then they might not make some of the mistakes of language and tone that are so common. However, we have to face the fact that this film is a cheap flag waver. The first third drags as we go through some unconvincing stories about the home lives of the sailors, mostly done in the "chirpy working class" mode that the British entertainment industry favoured at the time. The main story is far-fetched and the Danish village is made of the cheapest painted cardboard. During the war it was obviously important not to scare the families on the home front too much, with the result that there is little real sense of danger on the sub and hardly any casualties. In contrast, think of "Das Boot" with everyone bathed in sweat, cooped up in claustrophobic conditions, breathing foul air and scared out of their wits. It's not like that here. Despite the food and fuel running out and depth charges going off all around, everyone is pretty much calmness personified. On a positive note, the Germans are real ones and speak correct German, which was good going for a wartime film.

ianlouisiana This is the film "In which we serve" should have been.Unfortunately Mr Coward's starry - eyed love letter to Mountbatten was woodenly directed and totally dominated by "The Master"'s ludicrously mannered performance whereas Puffin Asquith is like David Lean without the pomposity and directs with real flair.This is particularly praiseworthy as he was working completely within the boundaries of propaganda(as was - to be fair,Mr Lean - but Asquith managed to avoid the worst excesses of stereotyping),in particular with his lower deck characters none of whom are the plaster saints so memorably patronised by Mr Coward. The wonderful Mr John Mills is excellent as the submarine commander,posh,yes,they tended to be,but not precious.Never apart from here have I seen a propaganda film where the captain gets shirty with his crew,but you can be sure it happened and it's rather remarkable that in 1942 it should have been shown in cinemas throughout a besieged country. The interior scenes of the submarine in combat have a documentary feel that Asquith's elders and betters failed manifestly to capture. Yes,Mr Portman's northern accent is a bit dodgy at times and his mastery of several languages is never explained,but he typifies what was seen then as typical British "grit",not to say bloody mindedness. "We dive at dawn" deserves to be far better known and is a very good example of a thoughtful,well - made propaganda film.

mutikonka1 I watched this expecting to see the usual British stiff upper lip stereotypes and was surprised to find the dialogue remarkably natural and tinged with black humour. It was more like Eastenders Goes to Sea than In Which We Serve. The scenes during the approach and attack are remarkably realistic in their depiction of a fighting ship and the stuff ups and banter among the ship's company (well at least based on my service in the 1970s). Some of the throwaway lines are very witty ("I'm not joining the Band of Hope just to please some greasy fish fryer!). My only complaint is that they didn't show what happened to the Irish coxswain and his bride to be, or the tattooed PO and his "I Love Arabella" tattoo!