vironpride I attended a symposium, dinner, and talk-- in Alexandria, Virginia, in October, 1990, sponsored by Virginia Bader, cousin to the legless RAF ace, Douglas Bader. She had invited General Adolf Galland and Air Vice Marshall Johnnie Johnson and their wives as guests of honor. I was too shy and in awe of General Galland, so I never actually met him (something I shall always regret), but I did meet AVM Johnson. I said, "I am honored, sir," and I meant it. At the talk that followed the symposium, someone in the audience asked Johnnie Johnson what he thought of "Piece of Cake" (which I had seen). He said, "It was bullshit!" Whereupon General Galland and the whole audience simply cracked up. He was there, so I guess he should know--

The_Other_Snowman I've read several conflicting reports about the accuracy of Derek Robinson's novels. Some veterans claim that the pilots of the RAF never behaved in such a loutish manner, while others say that "Piece of Cake" is closer to the truth than most people would like to admit. Robinson researches all his books, and states that everything in them actually did happen at some point, and that he only dramatized reality by putting all the characters and events into one story. Characters like the cad Moggy Cattermole, the unbalanced Flash Gordon, or the abjectly terrified Pip Patterson are the same kind of people you'd find in an English public school -- just like the real pilots of the Royal Air Force. Robinson's artistic license places them all in the same squadron, but I don't doubt that men like them did exist in the war.The behavior of Hornet Squadron's pilots on the ground does not diminish their heroism in the air; the fact that they held off the Luftwaffe is proof enough that they deserve our respect, regardless of what they were like in person. The flawed humanity of its characters makes the sacrifice of the real pilots much easier to understand than if they were portrayed simply as selfless heroes, even if we would be more comfortable remembering them that way.The flying scenes in this series are definitely above average and should be enough to recommend it to aviation enthusiasts. A few clips here and there come from 1969's "Battle of Britain", but for the most part the scenes of Spitfires taking off and landing or flying in formation are all brand-new, including some low-level stunts involving bridges. These were real stunts performed by a real pilot -- they found the longest single-span stone bridge in the country, and flew a real Spitfire under it. It's a hell of a scene.Apart from all that, the series is very well done. The acting is great all round, particularly Neil Dudgeon as Cattermole and Richard Hope as Skelton. The script is funny and extremely quotable. After the squadron adjutant reads Churchill's speech out loud -- "Never was so much owed by so many to so few" -- one pilot asks, "Does that mean we can go home now?"

pepperanne14 I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.

spitfire-4 "Piece is Cake" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.In the March 1989 "Aeroplane Monthly", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less."There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job..."...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'."Beamont was, in his own words, "a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time". Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot."Piece of Cake" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...