Castles in the Sky (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
20 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A fine historical drama with a likable star performance from Eddie Izzard
Red-Barracuda24 June 2014
Set from the rise of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany in the 1930's until the Battle of Britain in 1940. Scottish engineer Robert Watson Watt is hired by the British Government to develop his new idea, something which would go on to be known as radar. He has to endure many set-backs and class snobbery, while his marriage is put under enormous strain by the enforced secrecy and workload but eventually gets his theory put into practice, saving many lives in the process and helping win the Battle of Britain.

This British historical film is quite light-hearted despite the very serious subject matter. Much of this comes down to a playful script with quite a lot of comic moments between Watt and his team as they work towards their goal. But the singular main reason is the presence of star Eddie Izzard in the central role. He reigns in his comic persona and plays the role with seriousness but he still can't help but be amusing at times nevertheless. It's a very good, measured performance that benefits greatly from Izzard's very likable persona; even if his Scottish accent was a bit strange some of the time! At heart, this is a quite simple and solid example of a British period drama. It's elevated somewhat though by the simple fact that it's a true story about characters who never seem to have been given the big screen treatment before. We do care for these characters and we want them to succeed, so this ensures that we are onside and involved throughout. It's obviously a film which has been made on a moderate budget, so this means that certain decisions have had to be made such as black and white archive material showing the horrors unfolding in Europe and footage from the movie The Battle of Britain to illustrate certain aspects of that conflict. But they are integrated perfectly well into the flow of the film. Otherwise the modest budget has been utilised well to ensure the period detail is convincing, while the cast as a whole are all very good in their respective roles. So, all-in-all a very solid little movie about a relatively unheralded British hero, underpinned by a fine performance by Eddie Izzard.
34 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
More about the people than the technology
nzpedals14 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
How do ideas get into production? Here we are shown how radar came to be. And what a struggle. From the initial ideas, (first developed in Germany apparently, but ignored!), but under the dire threat of Nazi bombers and the mad Hitler, Britain's committees got going.

Eddie Izzard is Watson-Watt and goes through the stages he had to do to get the funding and the support to prove his ideas would work. There is quite of bit of personal side-tracking, with the Official Secrets Act, and his abandoned wife and family. It is not just Watson- Watt of course, there were a team of dedicated and really hard-working colleagues too.

Very little technical explanation, but that can be obtained elsewhere, (ie, youtube), and it is important to know about the personal sacrifices that sometimes have to be, and were, made.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Period Drama About the Value of Community
l_rawjalaurence11 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
For many switching on to this drama - as other reviewers have indicated - the chief attraction of CASTLES IN THE SKY lies in watching Eddie Izzard performing a straight role as the co-inventor of radar, Robert Watson Watt. Sometimes his Scottish accent seems a little too broad, almost as if he were trying to hard, but on the whole he gives a creditable characterization of a scientist for whom the word "no" spurred him on to even greater efforts to make his device work, despite budgetary restrictions.

Gilles MacKinnon's production contains several other noteworthy elements. It makes intelligent use of symbolism - for example, the tie, which is here used as a representative of Establishment values, the kind of thing Watt and his co-workers explicitly repudiate. Whitehall mandarins Albert Rowe (Julian Rhind Tutt) and Henry Tizard (Alex Jennings) wear ties; the only time Watt sports one is when he is expecting a visit from the Air Ministry to inspect his progress. As soon as they leave, he rips it off. There is also the symbolism of catching - on at least three occasions Watt catches a tennis or a ping-pong ball, at moments when he makes a scientific breakthrough, suggesting success.

The late Thirties atmosphere of grim austerity is cleverly evoked through lighting: Watt's scientists have to work in primitive conditions, often with antiquated equipment, as Whitehall refuses to give them sufficient subsidy to expand their operations. The group works together in ill-lit rooms, often for long hours at a stretch. With the onset of war, the atmosphere becomes even grimmer; there is a memorable sequence where Watt is shown climbing up to ground level from the Government's defense bunker in a stone passageway green with mildew.

Thematically speaking, CASTLES IN THE SKY not only celebrates Watt's achievement but shows the strength of group loyalty at a time of severe national crisis. The scientists are totally committed to the project, and when one of them (Iain McKee) is exposed as a mole, supplying information to Professor Lindemann (David Hayman), he is ruthlessly cast aside. When their task is finally accomplished, no one really takes the credit; they believe they have been working for the national interest.

Sometimes Ian Kershaw's script seems a little anachronistic (the phrased "loved ones," to describe one's nearest and dearest was definitely not in circulation in the Thirties), but CASTLES IN THE SKY is nonetheless a value historical recreation of a defining moment in British history.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent history-drama
grantss24 September 2016
It is the mid-1930s and Germany is making radical advances in weaponry, especially aircraft. Suspecting that a war with Germany is likely, the British War Ministry look to new and advanced inventions of their own. After aiming for something more radical - a death ray - they end up with the invention that saved Britain during its darkest hour - radar. This is the story of the invention of radar, and, in particular, the story of Robert Watson Watt, its inventor. We see his trials and tribulations of its invention, and the characters that were trying to undermine his project.

A decent history-drama. Gives a good sense of the work, trial and error and set backs involved in the invention of radar. We also see how close the project came to being shelved, and the impact it had on WW2, especially the Battle of Britain.

Solid performance by Eddie Izzard as Robert Watson Watt. I couldn't imagine him as a dramatic actor before this, as he is more a comedy actor and stand-up comedian (and a very good one). However, he proves very much up to the task.

Well worth watching, especially if you're a history buff.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
well enough
SnoopyStyle22 July 2019
With war against Germany approaching, the British government sends out a request for a death ray. Robert Watson Watt (Eddie Izzard) suggests something else, radar. Instead of the stuffy professors from the highest universities, he recruits other weathermen. The program faces opposition from his superior Lindemann with Churchill calling it building castles in the sky.

Not every story can be dramatized and this movie tries its hardest. The small guy against the world is always a good angle. All of that works very well. The technical aspect of radar is explained but the drama isn't that dramatic. I'm reminded of squeezing an orange to explain the nuclear bomb. His married life is probably the least appealing. It diminishes his wife. It's almost more compelling to have her fade into the background which would justify her leaving. As for the acting, these are experienced veterans. Eddie Izzard is solid. Tim McInnerny is playing Churchill which I wouldn't be able to guess. He's a little skinny for the role. Overall, it tries hard to be dramatic and works well enough.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An enjoyable story.
Sleepin_Dragon9 March 2022
The story of Robert Watson Watt, a pioneer, who helped enormously in Britain's war effort.

I liked the humour, feel and spirit of it, it was a light hearted take, on what's quite a serious story, I'm not sure about how much of it was historically accurate, but the story itself is fascinating, and if you're interested in this piece of history, it's worth reading up.

Some nice touches of humour, the scenes on the beach were food fun, such a contrast to the authentic footage of the Nazis, chilling still to watch.

A wonderful cast assembled here, Eddie Izzard and Julian Rhind Tutt were both great, Tim McInnery, great actor, but not the right fit for Churchill.

It's worth seeing, 7/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's the Full Monty only with science
cpowell4427 May 2020
I really don't have anything else to say. I didn't dislike it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Great Piece of History
paul-2976930 August 2020
Eddie Izzard seemed like a curios choice, at first, but he does a terrific job in this movie. It proves to be a great lesson in the importance of achievements from the farthest corners of Britain during WWII.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Frustrating attempt at telling a engineering military history story
sbierly21 February 2021
I enjoy historical dramas, many good ones these days--this is not one of them. I'm also an electrical engineer, so the story of the invention of radar had great promise to me. Sadly, this movie was almost as disappointing to me as the movie Monuments Men was, except in that case they had a good book to screw up, here I guess they just winged it (pun intended). The villain's are caricature, the history is mostly skipped over, and the engineering is as much a façade as a town in an old Western movie. Worse, they can't decide if it's about human relationships, history, war, or technology, not to mention occasionally attempting but failing to be a comedy. It basically fails across the board. Except--well, it's quite lovely to look at, and I enjoyed being given even a rather silly tour of an important moment in history and in engineering. It kindled my interest to read more, and for all these reasons I upgrade it to 6 stars. In other words, it's worth seeing, but don't expect much.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Enjoyable and Informative
dlstrayer15 January 2015
In 5 years, this is only the second review that I have done on IMDb. The reason for this review is that there were only 4 other user reviews and this movie deserves much more so here I am writing a review. I started off watching by myself and a few minutes into the movie my son joined me. My son is an action movie buff and will usually leave the room if it isn't action so I was surprised to find him still there at the end of 'Castles In the Sky'. Not only was he still there, he initiated a discussion about the movie with respect to his new-found know knowledge of just how important radar was in helping Britain win the second world war. This movie was also very inspiring since Robert Watts developed radar in the face of adversity and very much to his credit, he was able to overcome many obstacles while under immense pressure. I know that myself and my son left this movie with a 'can- do' attitude. The acting was superb and even though it was a dark time for England, there was some light-hearted scenes which were thoroughly enjoyed by both of us. I can absolutely state that this movie is a good movie that I would highly recommend to others.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Shows us how the Battle of Britain was won.....Before it was Fought!
don25076 August 2015
A local theatre has been showing little-known WW II films this month (August 2015) on the 70th anniversary of the end of that war, and this film on the British development of radar for the RAF prior to WW II was one of them. I'm interested in the historical development of technology plus I had seen a PBS Nova show several years ago on WW II's spur to radar's development, so I was interested in this BBC production. In addition, Ian Kershaw, a well-respected British historian, wrote the script. I was not disappointed; it was a very enjoyable film for me.

I had also seen earlier this year "The Imitation Game" featuring Alan Turing and his team of British mathematicians and codebreakers at Bletchley Park, and the parallels with "Castles" are striking. Both films have groups of unconventional geniuses monitored by class-conscious representatives of Britain's ruling circles and sequestered in rural hideaways where they work under great pressure to help win the war ("Imitation") or prepare for war ("Castles"). Robert Watson Watt, played by Eddie Izzard, is the Alan Turing of "Castles", and although not as eccentric as Turing, is sufficiently unconventional to warrant suspicion and doubt by those in the British government in the late-30s who must trust him with their scarce resources. His idea is to use a series of radio beams: (1) of sufficient strength to echo off incoming objects, e.g., bombers, at a sufficient distance, (2) and of sufficient number to ascertain their direction. The senior officials want him to use the nation's top physicists from Oxford and Cambridge to assist him, but Watt is an engineer for the Meteorological Service and wants to use his fellow "weather engineers" who can think outside-the-box. He gets his way against the rigid class structure of pre-war Britain, and for my money the visible drama of demonstrating radar's efficacy in detecting planes from 60 miles out (as shown in "Castles") is more striking than the drama that unfolds in "Imitation" where the group is finally able to read a coded message. The end of "Castles" shows how well radar has been integrated into RAF's Fighter Command by taking us inside their command centers that are ready to scramble fighters at the first ping on the radarscope on the eve of the Battle of Britain (when the Luftwaffe had three times as many planes at the outset).

Modern wars, for better or worse, are said to be won with economic production and technology, and it's thus gratifying to see little-known figures like Watt featured in a film like this. It's sad to compare, however, that Watt was rewarded with a knighthood in 1942 for his pre-war development of radar, while Turing, pledged to secrecy by the British government for his war-time codebreaking, was not honored during his lifetime and apparently committed suicide.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
For something so important it wasn't very compelling
imattheendofmytether5 September 2014
Not knowing much about how radar came about (although knew of the significance) and being a fan of Mr Izzard I was keen to watch this docu-drama. They were honest from the start saying this was based on true events, but the events you see have been made up for TV. Well, that's fine and fair enough.

But as soon as it started I felt my attention slip, Eddie Izzard was good, his accent went from Scottish to American can back again which I found funny. But he came across as a nice enough chap enthusiastic about his job. I didn't care much for his wife, and assumed that they didn't have children but lived that experience through his nephew?! That's when it hit me, if these things matter I clearly am not enjoying this programme.

I fast found myself confused by who everyone was, what became of the mole, or the guys who worked for him. I didn't care much about Robert's personal circumstances and was surprised he was surprised things didn't go according to plan. His team were good sorts, but I guess they all enlisted bar one?! I don't know I was out of the room at that time.

I understand the writers didn't really know how they got to a successful radar station, but the "eureka" moments were plain dull. I had hoped that Taffy was having a flash back from WW1 and was going to put them all in jeopardy. But no...

I wanted to like this, but it was just too dull, like boiled meat and potatoes. Shame for something so momentous and unsung. If you don't know about the birth of radar and don't want to be spoken at for an hour, this will give you all you need to know in a softer 1 ½ hours.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Really enjoyable film - especially if you love the development of technology
joffday14 November 2014
I guess I enjoyed this film because of its theme - RADAR - rather than the cinematic dimensions. I worked in the BBC's engineering department many years ago and could identify the challenges of inventing something new with limited resources.

Having said that I thought Eddie Izzard did a really good job despite other people's criticism or his wobbly accent. His acting was believable and carried the passion that Robert Watson-Watt must have had to press through to an operational system. I liked the themes of teamwork, toxic relationships, camaraderie, not giving up, working to deadlines.

As another reviewer mentioned, there was good use of symbolism if you were open to see it. The weakest part for me was the relationship between Robert and his wife played by Laura Fraser. Seeing her again made me want to watch the wonderful 'A Knight's Tale' with Heath Ledger.

I guess the technology challenges added to the score for this. If you like that kind of thing this is a good film to watch.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An Original Story about One of the Greatest Technological Discoveries!
hammondjh-004798 February 2024
This film is an absolute MUST-SEE for historians of WW2 and fans of war films, but if anyone is expecting to see Eddy Izzard in his paint, pearls and pretty dresses, you're in for a shock! What you'll see is a very handsome man who is a wonderful actor giving an account of a very little-known man whose ingenuity helped save Great Britain in its darkest hour. The discovery of Radar is an interesting and absorbing account of that man, Robert Watson-Watt, who in the 1930's overcame class prejudice and government red tape to build a team who gave us Radar and against all odds, proved that your position in society was as valuable to Britain's defence as the next. Backed by superb actors like Julian Rhynn-Tutt and Alex Jennings, this story is brought alive in a way not even Hollywood could equal. Okay, this short film was made in 2014, but what's the betting there's a producer or director out there in the UK or USA, working on a WW2 blockbuster? It may not come for 10 or 20 years, but come it shall. It has to - it's too greater story to be kept to the small, flat screen. Judge for yourselves.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good intentions squandered by weak script
lfribeiro71 July 2019
What could have been a fascinating tale turns out, regrettably, to be a pile of slush. Fine cast can't overcome a weak script by the brilliant historian Ian Kershaw. Not only does he fail to create rounded believable characters, but he is unable to capture a substantive explanation for how the men are developing their theories. All reduced to blackboard scribbles. It's not an easy thing to present complex science to a credible plot for lay viewers, but Kershaw's version collapses into the simplistic and flat. It just leaves the film empty. If you want to see a great film on a war-time pressure cooker for inventors try The Dam Busters (1955), directed by Michael Anderson. Another absolutely brilliant one about scientific war time geeks is The Small Back Room (1948) by the startling, inventive and fun duo Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. They nail all the quirky Britishisms and get the romance right too. Kershaw might've taken a few tips from these tremendous scripts and films.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Brilliant insight into the Research Process
svtcobra33128 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I like to compare this film to The Imitation Game since, at its essence, it's essentially the same story... and from the same period. With lives in the balance, a problem must be solved, and no hardware exists that can solve the problem. This film is about an idea becoming reality. The path of which is delightful, especially for those of us who have tried to bring an idea into real products. This path involves frustration, persperation, insperation, reappropriation, indignation, deception, and non-appreciation. The demo to the RAF officers was LOL and inspired. This film is about an idea being examined, funded, repackaged, fought, lied, stolen, and backstabbed over. The idea evolves, political forces are brought to bear against it, and sheer willpower can't solve the problem of hardware that doesn't exist. How does one solve a problem with what little expertise that any person has? An academic person knows a lot about one little thing, so how does a non-academic, with a thin knowledge of several things, engage in physics research? How can they hope to succeed?

This film had excellent production values, though the ww2 aircraft were all wrong. Come on, guys, CGI a few Hurricanes. A big part of the story was how long it took the Hurricanes to get to altitude, and how little fuel they had left once they got on station. Tell that piece of the puzzle.... reedit the film to include that scene... I can wait... Side note: The protagonist's family life was a jewel of a sidestory. The actress is simply stellar and gave real humanity to the film. The phone call scene was absolutely brilliant. Watch out, Kierra, there's a new actress in town. j/k

SPOILERS: 1. Come on guys, it's 1940 and a squadron of late-war Spits are taking off to great Jerry, I almost felt sorry for the krauts. 2. Dutiful wife is so perfect... then she's gone. This is only interesting if the protagonist or viewer is warned that she will leave "unless". Instead, she soldiers on throughout the move, then gives a written "see ya".
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
High cinema in an unlikely package
trentongauthier30 January 2021
For a TV movie, this was just outstanding. The sense of place and excellent pacing along with that distinctly British outlook mean that it is movie that will stick with you as though you lived it.

The only misstep for me was an overemphasis on Wattson's domestic issues. I think this was probably an executive decision to pander to a stereotyped female audience and felt completely out of place.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Of zero interest if you're technically or historically inclined
name99-92-54538926 February 2020
There are many interesting aspects to the story of radar, everything from the initial idea to the Chain Home concept to the cavity magnetron to the organizational structures used to co-ordinate the data from the various stations. But practically none of this is mentioned in this movie; instead there's an obsession with petty human drama (mostly fabricated).

If you want to learn anything beyond the utterly trivial regarding radar or its history, look elsewhere. And if you want petty invented drama, you can find it done better anywhere from soap operas to reality TV to most movies.

So why exactly bother watching? Why indeed...
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A SILY TREATMENT IS NOT WHAT THIS TEAM DESERVED.
baroncoco6 October 2018
But all the silly BBC can give.. "Imagine a war where no on dies": it's moronic PC stuff like this that is all the BBC can offer? Not that there cant be light moments, but: this is just not right.
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Chris 'Bob' Morshead
mark-9640625 September 2022
Good to see Bob popping up and making a career after his navy experiences. The Navy certainly helped with his acting abilities have travelled around the Bahamas and other scenic areas, spending much time in the sea.

His focus then was not really radar or history but swimming which he seems to have put to good use in this movie. His awareness and familiarity with radar certainly seems to have provided a cameo role for him, but it would be wrong to assume he has any air force background when whatever short service career he had was spent in the Royal Navy trying to justify his position and learning to swim for hours at a time.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed