If you didnt like Tora tora tora what on earth did you think of the CGI dominated remake which made aircraft look like birds or insects when formation flying about a foot apart and pulling turns that would break a Zero into pieces with the G forces.
Its obvious in any war film that you cannot get a fleet of real period aircraft unless they are from the winning side and even then its hard . 633 squadron used real Mosquitos in 196X but today??? So using Havards was a decent idea after all few people today have ever seen a Zero or a Val whereas many have seen Spitfires and P51s.
The lead up with the dateline muddle and communications screw up are all very real as is the dilemma the politicians and diplomats find themselves in.
Dunkirk was disappointing-the aviation bits were rubbish especially the 1 for per ten miles glide ratio of the Spitfire and the entire Luftwaffe encapsulated in one He111 but as I said these rare warbirds are just that -rare. I think compared to earlier versions about Dunkirk it was good in focusing on some individual aspects but the cast do not look remotely military whereas the 1960s version was full of actors who had either been in the war, done national service and I think in some cases had actually been in Dunkirk-ie they looked and walked and marched like soldiers . I am never too sure why such a fuss is made of Dunkirk-import for sure but a pretty ignominious feat -Churchill himself made that point right after it and no doubt if the geography had been reversed it would have been all about the French running away (well at least in the Sun and daily mail versions)
All in alla decent film without too much Good ol USA nonsense