One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
34 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
From Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger: The story of a British bomber crew and the Dutch resistance
Terrell-48 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
One of Our Aircraft Is Missing, released in 1942, was the first film Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made after formalizing their partnership as The Archers, with both taking equal credit for writing, producing and directing. In 1941 they had collaborated on The 49th Parallel. In 1943 they would make The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, the first of a series of masterpieces they created in the Forties. In practice, Powell directed, Pressburger wrote and did most of the producing, and they closely collaborated on every aspect of their films.

The movie tells the story of the crewmen who bailed out of their bomber, B for Bertie, over The Netherlands in 1941. Even more, it tells the story of the Dutch men and women who endangered their own lives to give the crew shelter, to protect them and to pass them on to the North coast of Holland until rescue could be arranged.

Bertie, a two-engine bomber, is returning from a run over Stuttgart when it's hit by flak. The plane loses an engine but the crew nurse the plane along until the second engine stutters out over Holland. The six-man crew bail out. Five land together; one is missing. There is John Haggard (Hugh Burden), the pilot and the youngest; Tom Earnshaw (Eric Portman), the co- pilot, a Yorkshire businessman before the war; Frank Shelley (Hugh Williams), the navigator, a West End actor with a famous wife; Bob Ashley (Emrys Jones), the radio operator, a soccer star; Geoff Hickman (Bernard Miles), the front gunner, an owner of an auto garage; and George Corbett (Godfrey Tearle), the rear gunner, at least twenty-five years older than the others, a knight, a member of parliament who immediately signed up with the Royal Air Force when war was declared.

The crew, which is shortly reunited, now must trust the men and women of Holland. With one clever ruse after another they finally arrive at a house on the edge of the North Sea, owned by a woman who professes hatred of the English. She runs fishing boats and has the town's German detachment headquartered in her home. Eventually, in the middle of a British bombing attack, she will take them down to her basement, put them in a row boat, have one of her fishing boats meet them and take them to a German rescue buoy bobbing in the middle of the North Sea. There is a radio in the buoy. With a little luck the crew will be picked up by a British ship before a German ship arrives. She has done this before.

At each step of the crew's journey through Holland they meet more men and women who will put their lives at risk for the crew. The Dutch know who they are and protect them. The Germans suspect there is a British crew about, but can't find them. We meet a burgomeister (Hay Petrie) whose young son plays a dangerous trick on the Germans, a young priest (Peter Ustinov), a brave church organist (Alec Clunes) and a frightened Dutch collaborator (Robert Helpmann). At each step the situations grow increasingly tense and dangerous.

One of Our Aircraft Is Missing is a propaganda movie. It is precisely because Powell and Pressburger were so unwilling to do the ordinary and the expected that it holds up very well nearly 65 years later. For instance...

--There is no phony derring do or heroics. The Dutch get the job done in threatening situations, but with bravery that is understated. The crew know their lives depend on these men and women and learn quickly to do as they are told.

--We hardly see a German. And we never see a ranting, raving German officer or an enlisted goon. The German threat hangs over the movie, but it is made more effective by being subtle.

--The class consciousness of many British war movies, with the officers brave and well bred and the working class enlisted men often used for comic relief, is muted. All members of the crew have their own characteristics. All are members of the same team.

--The bravest of the Dutch, the most resourceful and the ones with the iciest nerves, are the women. From Else Meertens (Pamela Brown), a schoolteacher in a small community, to Jo de Vries (Googie Withers), who plays a risky double game with the Germans and owns the fishing boats, it is the women to whom the crew owe their salvation.

--There is no musical score. What we hear is wind rushing by, boots marching, the creak of windmills, water lapping at a stone pier and, often, just silence. Only a director as sure of himself as Powell could get away without using music to cue us what to feel.

--As tense as many of the situations are, Powell and Pressburger never shy away from humor in unlikely situations. It works because it allows us to know the characters better and to let us catch our breath before another dangerous scene starts. And they are sly. You have to be quick (or read a couple of reviews, which is what I did) to catch at least two puns they throw into the action.

--The opening, and especially the closing, is typically quirky and satisfying. I won't even try to describe them.

The movie was dedicated to the members of the Dutch resistance. We last see the crew getting ready to board their new bomber, this one a big four-engine job. Their target? Berlin.
25 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Archers Airborne
mthfllof5 February 2001
"B. for Bertie crashed on Sunday morning. 0431. But our story starts some fifteen hours earlier......."

With that simple statement Powell and Pressburger take us on another journey into cinema. A group of wise-cracking RAF crewmen take off on a routine bombing flight. The plane is shot and the crew manage to parachute off the before the plane stalls and crashes.

On the ground the men (minus the pilot) gather together. They first encounter a trio of children who ask "have you come to invade Holland?" The men are taken to the adults who debate about what to do with them.

Truly inventive film is well thought-out and photographed. Interest never wavers. What could have been a run-of-the-mill war film was skillfully crafted into a film of humanity in the midst of inhumanity.

Shameless Laudations!
27 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting WW2 drama
grantss16 May 2020
During a raid on Germany a British bomber crew is forced to bail out after their plane is damaged. They land in Holland and are aided by the Dutch civilians.

Interesting WW2 drama. Quite realistic: very plausible and accurately told. The RAF operational scenes at the beginning of the film are excellent and could be from an actual raid they're that realistic.

Being made in WW2 you would think it would be quite jingoistic and propaganda-filled but writer-directors Michael Powell and Eric Pressburger manage to keep things reasonably balanced.

No big names in the main cast but it is worth spotting a 20-year-old Peter Ustinov in a minor role. This was his film debut and he is not recognisable. Look out for the young Dutch priest.

The crew also includes a not-yet-famous David Lean as editor.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the best war films made during World War II, from one of Britain's finest film-making teams
robertguttman15 May 2001
One of the best war films produced World War II, `One of Our Aircraft is Missing' is the product of one of the best British filmmaking teams of the 1940s, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. The makers of such unusual and memorable films as `The Red Shoes' and `Black Narcissus', Powel and Pressburger's films were never like anyone else's. Their approach to a wartime propaganda film was equally different.

`One of Our Aircraft is Missing' begins dramatically with the crash of an RAF Vickers Wellington bomber designated `B-For Bertie', and then flashes back to the events leading thereto. The viewer is introduced to the six members of crew, and learns that they had actually bailed out of their crippled aircraft prior to the crash, landing in Nazi-occupied Holland. The remainder of the story describes their escape back to Britain.

What makes this film different from the conventional Hollywood treatment of similar subject matter is that `One of Our Aircraft is Missing' stresses the courage and resourcefulness of the Dutch civilians rather than the aircrew. Indeed, it made manifestly clear that the British crew could never have escaped without the assistance of a great many ordinary Dutch people of all ages and both sexes. The characters, both British and Dutch, are all well drawn Surprisingly enough, even the Germans are depicted as not entirely inhuman. `They want to be liked', says one Dutch patriot who has wormed her way into their confidence by posing as a Quisling.

From a historical perspective, this film is of interest due to its depiction of RAF Bomber Command operations during the early part of World War II, as well as details of the interior of the famous Wellington Bomber. It is also worth seeing as early example of the work of legendary film director David Lean (`Oliver Twist', `Bridge Over the River Kwai', `Lawrence of Arabia', Doctor Zhivago', Ryan's Daughter', etc), who served as Film Editor. There is also an early performance by a very young (and thin) Peter Ustinov, who acts in Dutch and Latin as well as English. All in all, this film is well worth a look.
51 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Well-done Story of Fliers Stranded in Holland.
rmax30482322 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A WW2 Picture Without American Involvement
StrictlyConfidential23 June 2018
If you are interested in seeing a fairly well-made WW2 picture that has no American involvement in it at all (either in its production, or its cast, or its story-line) - Then - "One Of Our Aircraft Is Missing" is certainly the one for you to watch.

Filmed in stark b&w - This 1942, British production, honoring the bravery, sacrifice, and patriotism of the R.A.F., featured some really notable camerawork, especially during the battle scenes which were taken from a dramatic aerial view.

With most of the action in the story taking place in Holland - My only real complaint is that, after being shot down by the Nazis, our heroic R.A.F. boys remained a little too neat and tidy in their uniformed attire (considering all of the "roughing it" that they had to endure).
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
WW2 suspense with a ring of authenticity
Leofwine_draca22 October 2016
A solidly engaging WW2 thriller from the Powell/Pressburger team. This one's a straightforward story about a bomber crew who go on a bombing raid over Stuttgart but who are forced to parachute out of their plane when it's hit by anti-aircraft fire. They land in Nazi-occupied Holland and are forced to put themselves at the mercy of local resistance members in order to escape.

A premise like this is ripe for suspense and ONE OF OUR AIRCRAFT IS MISSING doesn't disappoint in this respect. The story has a ring of authenticity to it and is enlivened by the stalwart efforts of the cast members who include Eric Portman, Bernard Miles, and Hugh Burden among their number. I thought that the special effects for the era - let us not forget this was made while the war was still going on - were very good. The bits in Holland tone it down a notch but the story picks back up towards the climax, leading to a thrilling ending. There's very little to dislike here.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A must-see movie for any World War II buff.
tommythek23 May 2001
More than half a century after the happening, for anyone who still can't get enough of World War II, this is a movie not to be missed.

It tells the story of what happens to an RAF crew on a bombing mission over Europe. That story is told with skill and even though the movie was made clear back in 1942, its technical aspects still hold up beyond the millennium (something which cannot be said for many World War II movies that were made during, and even after, the happening). All credit for this movie belongs to the brilliant British (well, one Brit and one Hungarian by birth) writing- producing-directing team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

Two other movies in this genre that immediately come to mind and which likewise should not be missed by any World War II "junkie," are: "Command Decision" (1948) and "Twelve O'Clock High" (1949). The only difference(s) between these latter two and the one being reviewed are that the latter two are American movies (set in England) while "Aircraft" is a British effort (set in England and, well, Europe). Also, unlike "Aircraft," which was made during the height of the war, these latter two were made a few years following the war's conclusion.

Other than those quite minor differences, all three of these movies belong atop any World War IIite's must-see list.
27 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"We can take it"
Steffi_P24 December 2006
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.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Downed RAF Bomber crew, aided by Dutch Resistance, try to return to Britain in early World War II.
icemith24 February 2006
Given that this movie was made about the then contemporary World War II times, without the benefit of a huge budget (compared to now), generations before computer graphics became the norm, it is refreshing to see a sensible depiction of those wartime conditions. Imagine making a picture of the bombing raids over Germany in the (I presume Mosquito) bombers, not known to be that secure from ground based A.A.C. fire— they could not fly higher, as could the later Lancasters. I feel the directors chose correctly in making it a character driven piece, with the action sublimated somewhat.

I caught this movie on a relatively new local TV station, it was one of their first offerings albeit in the early morning, I did not know about the movie before. What also surprised me was the appearance of later 'stars', Robert Helpmann, Peter Ustinov and Googie Withers, though she was fairly established by then. By co-incidence, I had viewed earlier that evening a British Documentary feature where the grandchildren of the original RAF bomber crew-members were to learn to actually fly a remaining WW II aircraft. And that reference was cool. The atmosphere exhibited in that doco, certainly the old time news clips, recent interviews of the veterans, rang true to the movie, especially with the actual ( or the perceived depiction if it was only that ) film of the raids over Germany and the resultant destruction.

The characterisations were laid back, as befits the RAF types, and the Dutch citizens, who organised the Resistance, were well played. Besides the unexpected cast members, there was another piece of 'recoginition' I found fascinating, and I hope it wasn't used in the film, (made in either 1941 or 1942, both are given in various sources), and gave away the Resistance as the war was only half over then. Of course the film makers had no idea how long the war would last or just what was in store for them. The pace of the film was a bit pedestrian, all the better I think, to enable the characters to be developed, and the bits of business the group had to 'endure' was fairly realistic, reasonably true to life. I guess there must have been some propaganda value in the movie as I couldn't imagine that opportunity would have been missed by the British authorities, maybe even instigated it, in league with the Dutch. I could hardly blame them.

All in all, I thought it was a fascinating movie, a benchmark. For others to come it also was a benchmark, to be creditable one had to do at least as well. Whether our later techniques make it easier, or convenient, or cost effective, or entertaining, or thought provoking, is a matter for our future, but looking back sixty odd years I think they produced a fine movie.
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
solid wartime film
SnoopyStyle29 August 2021
A British bomber is shot over German-occupied Netherlands. The crew parachutes down and struggles to escape with the help of the local resistance. The most notable aspect is its release date. It's war film released in the heart of WWII. There is the use of a real British plane and some convincing miniatures. The bomber part of the movie is a bit dry but the authenticity is quite compelling. The occupation part is compelling if a bit easier than expected. It's probably their uniforms. The soldiers do not take their uniforms off and thereby maintaining the rules of warfare. This is obviously done to show that the British fight by the rules. The men don't differentiate themselves within the group. All in all, this is a solid war film in the heart of a truly tough real world fight. As for the title, it's an example of something simple and memorable. That's why it's so often copied even as a joke.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Marvelous
zetes12 April 2002
Made in the middle of WWII, One of Our Aircraft Is Missing is quite a great film. The technical aspects and special effects are extraordinary. The script is wonderful (Oscar winning) and the British RAF members are all well developed. Some of the Dutch could use a little more characterization, but it's not too bad. One might think that the Archers' strengths lie in fantasy films, but they stick to realism here, and they do a great job. If you are a fan of the Archers, don't miss it. If you are a WWII buff, also make sure you catch it. 9/10.
24 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Jaw,jaw" rather than "War,war".Talky propaganda film...................
ianlouisiana4 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
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.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Another wartime propaganda effort by Powell and Pressburger
agboone720 May 2015
Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger were one of the great director-writer teams in the history of cinema (Ozu and Noda being possibly their only superiors; others come to mind, though they have smaller bodies of work -- Losey and Pinter, certainly Antonioni and Guerra, or De Sica and Guerra, maybe Lean and Coward). When they first began collaborating, Powell was the director, and Pressburger the writer, and although in time they would come to share those responsibilities to some extent, this more or less remained the nature of their partnership until it ended in 1957.

"One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" is the duo's fourth collaboration; however, it is the first film officially by The Archers, the production company started by Powell and Pressburger for this film. Prior to this one, they had worked together on three feature films, for which Powell was the only credited director and Pressburger the only credited writer of the two. Those films were "The Spy in Black", "Contraband" (a.k.a. "Blackout"), and "49 Parallel". "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" marks the first time that both the directing credits and the writing credits were shared between them, a trend that would continue for the remaining extent of their working relationship.

These early efforts by Powell and Pressburger are not especially good, and are by no means their best work. Formally, they're pretty flat, utilizing the plain, minimalistic, realist aesthetic that was popular in British cinema at the time. In terms of content, they're lacking in thematic depth, and they're highly propagandistic. There's not much to praise in these films, except that we can see the beginnings of the duo's gift for storytelling that would eventually elevate them to the great filmmakers we now know them to be.

Powell had been directing films since the beginning of the '30s. I haven't been able to find many of those early films from before his days with Pressburger, but the one I did find -- his 1934 film, "The Fire Raisers" -- was superior to anything else I've seen from that period in British cinema, including Hitchcock's work from that time. By 1939, when Powell and Pressburger teamed up for their first effort, a spy thriller called "The Spy in Black", the war was breaking out, and this called for an influx of propaganda into British cinema. As degrading as that would inevitably be to the quality of their films, Powell and Pressburger felt it their duty to use the tools available to them to serve the cause they believed in, and to help in some small way to win the global war against fascism. I can't possibly blame them for that, but it is worth noting that these films, including "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing", are overtly propagandistic, and that will certainly be frustrating at times for any unbiased, unprejudiced viewer.

Unfortunately, even outside of the propaganda element, there's just not that much to say about "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing", except that it's neither a good nor a bad film. It's similar to Powell and Pressburger's previous collaboration, "49th Parallel", in many ways. "49th Parallel" was a British film about Canada. It was a love letter to Canada intended to encourage a cross-cultural connection between the two wartime allies. "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" does the same thing, except instead of Canada, it is the Netherlands this time. Both films feature Eric Portman, a quality actor.

Bernard Miles is another familiar face in the film. He was a minor British actor that has popped up in many of the films I've seen from this era (he had small roles in "The Spy in Black", "The Lion Has Wings", and "Contraband", and was later in a couple of David Lean films, "In Which We Serve" and "Great Expectations", as well as Hitchcock's American remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much"). Also keep an eye out for a young Peter Ustinov, as the priest.

"One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" and "The Spy in Black" are the weakest films that I've seen by Powell and Pressburger (unless you include their short film, "The Volunteer", also from the war years). "49th Parallel" is a slightly better film, as is "Contraband", with its levity and wit, but this stretch of propaganda work by Powell and Pressburger is certainly the weakest period in their otherwise impressive oeuvre. It's not until their fifth collaboration, "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", that we see the legitimately impressive Powell and Pressburger cinema that would become their standard of quality from that point forward (again, barring "The Volunteer", their sixth film). "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" was the last of their feature propaganda films. Their seventh collaboration, "A Canterbury Tale", begins to break away from that irritatingly patriotic mode of filmmaking. While it certainly retains some of the propaganda elements from their previous films, it begins to see them liberated from the necessity to make those kinds of films, and that was a big step forward for their cinema.

And yet, even these early films, from before Powell and Pressburger truly hit their stride with "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", are enjoyable enough to justify a watch. "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" serves its purpose as a propaganda film, and also is mildly satisfying as entertainment. It has a plot that is probably just engaging enough to keep the viewer's interest, and while there's no real substance of any kind, it is certainly not a bad film. It is simply a mediocre film. Those who aren't watching it as a Powell and Pressburger film, and who are simply watching it in its own right, may not find it especially fulfilling. However, fans of Powell and Pressburger's work (or other, similar films from the time period) will likely find it to be worth the time.

RATING: 4.67 out of 10 stars
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Anglo-Dutch Treat
nk_gillen12 June 2004
Director Michael Powell's World War II-drama is a clever reworking of his "The 49th Parallel" (1941), a story of six German sailors marooned in Canada after their submarine is destroyed; the movie chronicles their failed attempt to cross over into then-neutral America. This time, in "One of Our Aircraft...," the heroes are six members of a British RAF bombing crew. We watch as they take off for the Continent and sample their conversation. However, after dropping their bombs on a Stuttgart industrial plant, their Wellington aircraft suffers a direct hit from German flak. The crippled plane flies as far as Nazi-occupied Holland before the crew decide to bail. The rest of the film chronicles their efforts to return to England, assisted by various Dutch civilians.

"One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" is Powell's wartime love letter to the Netherlands. The film opens with a close-up of a document, signed by the Dutch government-in-exile, informing us of the names of Dutch citizens who were executed for insurrection against Germany's Occupation - e.g., helping downed Allied fliers return to England. This visual device, the close-up of official paperwork, is repeated throughout the film. At certain intervals between episodes, Powell fills the screen with other documents and bureaucratic red tape - mostly applications to the Nazis, requesting permits to attend churches and soccer matches or to visit relatives in other villages. Off-screen, we hear the disgruntled commentary of a German Commandant as he stamps his reluctant approval on each application. The purpose of this motif is clear: to establish to British audiences what life in England would be like if overrun by an enemy with "an orderly mind." Thus, the whole film is a wartime morale-booster.

The crew represents an interesting cross-section of England: Sir George Corbett (played by Godfrey Tearle, who was the treasonous villain in Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps"), the "old man" WWI vet who wants to have another go at the Hun; Geof Hickman (Bernard Miles), the amiable Cockney; Frank Shelley (Hugh Williams), an actor; Tom Earnshaw (Eric Portman), a Yorkshire sheep breeder; Bob Ashley (Emrys Jones), a professional soccer-player; and the pilot, John Haggard (Hugh Burden), who bears resemblance to a younger version of the film's director, Powell. (Powell himself appears early in the film as an air-traffic controller - or "director" - reciting such lines as "Q for Queenie, you are now clear for takeoff.") The Dutch patriots are a fine, spirited lot: Pamela Brown and Googie Withers play two women who in large part are responsible for the downed fliers' safekeeping. Robert Helpmann, appears as a leering Nazi collaborator. And Peter Ustinov has a small role as a Catholic priest.
36 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nederland Zal Herrijzen!
JamesHitchcock18 November 2020
"One of Our Aircraft is Missing" was the fourth collaboration between Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger and the first film to use their trademark "The Archers" designation. Like their previous film "49th Parallel" it is a wartime propaganda film about a group of servicemen stranded in enemy territory and trying to escape, but reverses its plot. "49th Parallel" was about a group of Germans marooned in Canada and trying to escape to the then-neutral United States. "One of Our Aircraft is Missing" is about a group of British airmen (the crew of an RAF Vickers Wellington bomber) stranded in the German-occupied Netherlands and trying to get back to England. (The title derives from a standard phrase used by the BBC and the Ministry of Information when an aircraft failed to return from a mission).

Like "The Day Will Dawn", set in Norway, the film was made to draw attention to the plight of European countries occupied by the Nazis and to the role of the Resistance movements in those countries. The British bomber crew, forced to bale out when their aircraft is hit by enemy fire, are reliant upon the Dutch Resistance to help them escape. The film places great stress upon symbols of Dutch patriotism such as the "Wilhelmus", their national anthem, and pictures of their Royal Family. The film ends with the words "Nederland zal herrijzen!" ("The Netherlands shall rise again!") on the screen.

I would not rank the film as highly as "49th Parallel", which was given extra dramatic force by the tensions which arise between the "good" (i.e. anti-Nazi) and "bad" Germans and by the ironic ending in which the Nazi commander, who thinks that he has reached sanctuary on American soil, is returned to Canada by a twist of fate. The various British airmen, by contrast, are not really differentiated except at a superficial level; they are all what in the slang of the period would have been referred to as "jolly good eggs", united by their belief in the Allied cause and their sense of comradeship. Unusually Pressburger, who generally acted as the Archers' scriptwriter, did not include any "good Germans" in this film; the Germans we see are generally a faceless enemy, although we are left in no doubt as to their capacity for brutality or as to the treachery of the Dutch Quislings who collaborate with them.

I would, however, rank the film higher than something like "The Day Will Dawn" which was a slapdash film, made on a small budget, and it shows. It also suffers from a tendency to try and score propaganda points at every opportunity, even when this is to the detriment of the story. Powell, however, who generally acted as the Archer's director, handles his material well, producing a tense, gripping adventure story. "One of Our Aircraft is Missing" may be propaganda in the sense that it was made with the express purpose of keeping up British morale in wartime, but in the hands of skilled film-makers like the Archers propaganda is not necessarily a bad thing. 7/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A different kind of war movie
steve-24628 December 1998
Good flick; a different perspective (night bombing) than most of the air force world war two movies-12 O'clock High or Memphis Belle, for instance. Worth the price of admission to see Peter Ustinov thin (and young!)
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Finding the aircraft.
morrison-dylan-fan26 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Doing a viewing fest of titles by auteur film makers in 1942,I was happy to stumble on a copy of Carol Reed's The Young Mr. Pitt,I looked for a movie to pair it up with. Having found his works to be outstanding,I was happy to spot a Michael Powell creation from '42,which led to me searching for the aircraft.

View on the film:

His fourth collaboration with co-writer Emeric Pressburger,but the first made under The Archers banner co-writer/directing auteur Michael Powell takes a unique approach of tearing any background score or songs off the soundtrack, leaving the raw, ambient sounds of engines, bombs and water hitting against boats,subtly placing the audience in the mind-set of bomber crew trying to escape. Closely working with editor David Lean & cinematographer Ronald Neame, Powell separates the activities of the bomber crew with montages of the most mundane requests from the Netherlands having to be signed off/approved by the Nazis, which expresses in a compact manner the message to British viewers a warning that this could happen to the UK.

Keeping the crew undercover by the local Dutch Resistance, Powell returns to the front line of his espionage stylisation, landing on imposing dark shadows over Resistance members trying to keep the crew hidden under the floorboards. Powell also shines glowing outdoor light digging into the earthy countryside life of the town,which sails into impressive long takes drenched in the anxiety of the crew, thanks to Powell placing the camera in the middle of their shaking escape boats.

Whilst proudly patriotic of the stiff upper lip bomber crew, the screenplay by Powell & Pressburger raise the heroism to be from the Dutch Resistance, who in tense exchanges with the crew, trust they are not secret Nazi infiltrators,and in straight-lace manner of Else Meertens and the calculating Jo de Vries taking the lead, guiding the crew to a victory they'd have been unable to reach on their own. Reuniting with Powell after The Man Behind the Mask (1936-also reviewed) Hugh Williams joins Eric Portman in giving wonderfully Bravo!, calm under pressure turns in the Bomber Crew,while elegant Pamela Brown and Googie Withers give excellent performances as Meertens and Vries,coiled on anxiety over one of our aircraft being missing.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Solid wartime drama
Tweekums11 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Shortly after this film opens we see a Wellington bomber crossing the coast; there is something strange about it though... there is nobody aboard! Shortly afterwards it crashes... the action then moves back to shortly before it took off to bomb its target in Stuttgart. The crew are a cross section of society including an actor, a footballer and a former diplomat who conveniently speaks a little Dutch. The early part of the film follows them as they fly out of England, over Holland then on to their target in Germany. As they return home the aircraft is hit and one engine lost. They try to limp back but eventually the second engine fails and they are forced to bail out over occupied Holland; as the last of them jumps the plane dives slightly causing the engine to restart! Once on the ground five of the six manage to regroup; they are soon found by a small group of local children who take them to their teacher who can speak English. Once they convince the Dutch that they are really British not part of a German ploy to undercover the resistance they are helped to escape a chain of loyal Dutch men and women till they get to the coast; from here they must make their own way home.

Made during the war this film was obviously intended to work as a piece of propaganda; showing both the plucky resolve of the downed airman to get home and the steely determination of the Dutch to help anybody fighting to free them from the German occupation... thankfully though it isn't heavy handed and proves to be a solid piece of entertainment. The early scenes of aircraft 'B for Bertie' heading to its target were particularly tense with the constant drone of the engines only serving to raise the tension. Once they are on the ground again there is still plenty of tension but there is also a surprising amount of humour; for example a couple of the airmen aren't too keen when they hear that they are to be taken to the church... it is a Catholic church and they are Chapel! No doubt people needed a chuckle in the dark days of 1942. It was interesting to see that it wasn't really the aircrew that got themselves home but the Dutch men and women they had to put their trust in; only one Dutchman is shown to be a collaborator and he ends up being fooled by a child in a rather amusing scene. The acting is pretty solid as are the effects; if I hadn't read otherwise I'd have thought the bombing scene had used footage of an actual raid rather then a mock-up. I'd certainly recommend this to anybody who enjoys war films or who has an interest in that period of history.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Rotterdambusters
writers_reign28 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Possibly effective at the time but time hasn't been kind to this re- working of The 49th Parallel. Film scholars will always have to deal with it as it marked the official debut of The Archers, the company set up by Powell and Pressburger to exploit the name they were making for themselves. Here we really do have the 'Hollywood Bomber Crew' syndrome almost literally albeit the six-man crew is British and as diverse as the writers can make them, which is not very, really. The rewards come in the supporting roles, Roland Culver, Peter Ustinov etc, the latter almost unrecognizable in a dog-collar, and any buff of late thirties/early forties British cinema will wallow in the familiar faces. Googie Withers turns up in the last couple of reels and forces the higher-billed males to act. Just about worth a look.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
involving war drama from 'The Archers'
didi-57 April 2004
"...one of our aircraft is missing ..." is a well-cast and well-written piece from Powell and Pressburger, key film makers in 1940s Britain.

The crew of B for Bertie find themselves lost in enemy territory and have to depend on the resources of others to get them to safety. The crew are played by some of the best actors of the time: Godfrey Tearle as the upper-class rear gunner; Eric Portman as the bluff Yorkshire co-pilot; Hugh Williams (father of 1970s actor Simon) as the refined navigator; Bernard Miles - better than usual - as the front gunner; High Burden as the pilot; and Emrys Jones as the Welsh sportsman who became the radio operator.

In support are Googie Withers, P&P regular Pamela Brown, Joyce Redman, Robert Helpmann (as the quisling), Alec Clunes (father of Martin) as the church organist, and Peter Ustinov (in his film debut) as the priest.

This film has been done as a drama-documentary so has a very realistic feel and look, pulling the viewer right into the action alongside the aircraft crew. It is less atmospheric than the 30s P&P films featuring Conrad Veidt and perhaps represented a more grounded style to their work before their Technicolor fantasies of the late 40s.
18 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Splendid, undervalued war movie
MOscarbradley4 December 2009
While not as well-known, nor as highly regarded, as their other later works this is every bit as good as one would expect from the team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. It's fairly predictable, flag-waving stuff following the fortunes of six British airmen shot down over Holland as they try to make their way to the coast and back to England.

They are all well played by a stock company of British army types, though some of the 'Dutch' people they meet on the way, (Peter Ustinov, Robert Helpman, Googie Withers, Joyce Redman), leave something to be desired. The editor was David Lean and the photography was by Ronald Neame and they do a splendid job; it looks great and much of the airborne stuff has a documentary feel to it. It is also consistently tense and is actually better than the better known "49th Parallel".
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A strikingly realistic look at a group of an RAF bomber crew stuck behind enemy lines.
planktonrules11 March 2020
During WWII, the Americans and British made a bazillion war pictures. However, most tended to be a bit over-the-top--abandoning realism in order to score propaganda points with audiences. In stark contrast to these is the British picture, "One of Our Aircraft is Missing"--a film which tries its best to look real...as if you really are there watching the action. To heighten this, the Powell-Pressburger production has no incidental or intro music and they used folks that were not established stars. All in all...a sharp contrast to films that make Allied soldiers seem like supermen and the enemy like snarling psychopaths!

The film begins before the plane crash. The men are preparing for the flight and then much of the film follows them on their mission aboard a Wellington bomber. The plane is damaged and cannot make it back to Britain...so the men abandon the craft and parachute in rural Holland. The Dutch people take them in and assist them in trying to get back home to continue the fight. This portion makes up the bulk of the movie.

Because the film strives for realism, I did enjoy it very much and thing you probably would feel the same. Well worth seeing.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A well made film which reflects attitudes of the time.
hedgehog-1022 February 1999
A very professionally made film which avoids some of the more patronising aspects of other British WWII films. This is even more surprising considering that it was made at a very dark time in UK history. An excellent dialogue which is very well delivered by the actors.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Time better spent elsewhere.
bombersflyup17 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
One of Our Aircraft is Missing has a quality premise, but the execution's unengaging and dull.

Not much happens really and no one character or performance stood out. Hell I wouldn't even be able to match the faces to the names, it's that unmemorable.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed