64 replies to this topic

[james127]

I went and saw the movie Midway last night. Spoiler alert: Japan loses.

 

To me, it was just ok. If I'm going to compare it to other WWII movies that involve air and naval combat, I would say that it's light years better than Pearl Harbor but not nearly as well done as Dunkirk. I liked how they used modern technology to recreate the battle scenes, but found the dialogue and acting to rather wooden at best and almost cartoonish and cliche' at worst. Overall grade: C. It's worth seeing, but I'm still waiting for "the one" that's going to get the Pacific War right in every way.

[Bob Hudson]

 but I'm still waiting for "the one" that's going to get the Pacific War right in every way.

 

Technology has allowed them to create some incredible combat simulations in the movies, but the writers of so many films seem to have few clues about recreating the emotions of war and combat. 

 

They should have watched this first:

 

 

[rooster77]

"Spoiler alert: Japan loses"

 

LMAO !!!!

[rooster77]

 

Technology has allowed them to create some incredible combat simulations in the movies, but the writers of so many films seem to have few clues about recreating the emotions of war and combat. 

 

They should have watched this first:

 

 

 

There ya go!!
 

[Navybean]

I watched it opening night and I feel it was well worth the ticket. The movie covered a lot of the history and had a lot of the original characters not mentioned in the earlier Midway movie.
The one curiosity of the movie for me was the movie covered the TBM torpedo squadrons and the SBD dive bomber squadrons but not really a single reference to the F4F fighter squadrons?

[warroom1]

John Ford is a classic ,hollywood could learn a lot from these great old films, too much negitive vibs.

[Bob Hudson]

I will say that I have seen some impressive computer-generated images in recent years in War Horse, Red Tails, Dunkirk, Catch 22, come to mind, but even the earlier Saving Private R and Band of Brothers which were able to have some big detailed panoramas of heavy action not possible without CGI. Pre-CGI if Hollywood needed a bomber formation in a movie, they inserted that grainy washed-out 16mm footage shot by the Signal Corps. Same sort of thing for big beach landings: they used military stock footage which was shot on cameras often used for home movies.  John Ford's movie shot on the "low resolution" 16mm film shows once again that content matters most. Imagine a John Ford war movie with the incredbile image quality of today's movies!

 

So many movies don't need a theatre size screen to enjoy them, but not having seen Midway yet, is this one that should be seen on the really big screen as opposed to waiting for it to start streaming to our TV screens?

[james127]

I will say that I have seen some impressive computer-generated images in recent years in War Horse, Red Tails, Dunkirk, Catch 22, come to mind, but even the earlier Saving Private R and Band of Brothers which were able to have some big detailed panoramas of heavy action not possible without CGI. Pre-CGI if Hollywood needed a bomber formation in a movie, they inserted that grainy washed-out 16mm footage shot by the Signal Corps. Same sort of thing for big beach landings: they used military stock footage which was shot on cameras often used for home movies.  John Ford's movie shot on the "low resolution" 16mm film shows once again that content matters most. Imagine a John Ford war movie with the incredbile image quality of today's movies!

 

So many movies don't need a theatre size screen to enjoy them, but not having seen Midway yet, is this one that should be seen on the really big screen as opposed to waiting for it to start streaming to our TV screens?

 

I didn't walk out of the theatre feeling like I'd wasted my money, but in hindsight, it wouldn't hurt my feeling to wait for the small screen either.

[MAW]

I saw it last night. Theater, surprisingly, was about 2 1/2 rows shy of a sellout.

I give it a B- overall. I'd like to give it a B, but it's just not quite there.

Most of it was good or respectable. They crammed a lot of stuff into that film....from pre-war, to Pearl Harbor, to The Solomon Islands, to Doolittle, to Midway.

Cool to see the planes and ships, although so many scenes were really "crowded" for effect.....lots of ships visible, a hundred planes, tons and tons of antiaircraft fire...

Whatever the navy tan uniforms were made out of, there were a lot of really wrinkled ones. Somebody should use an iron sometime.

Overall it was enjoyable...I could be talked into seeing it again, although the preview for the 1917 movie really looked incredible on the big screen. I'm psyched to see that one.

[MattS]

Saw it last night, really enjoyed it! Dialog was not the greatest, action scenes were engaging, story line was accurate. Well worth a watch, the audio system in the theater was in overload with all the explosions throughout the battle sequences.

 

Few complaints: Depictions of historical people without any mention of who they were. The admiral who loses his command after Pearl Harbor I assume was supposed to be Kimmel but it's never stated (even though he has dialog including the "make by successor listen to you" advice to Jim Layton). The admiral that gives Nimitz his new posting I believe was Ernest King, never specified though. The surviving torpedo pilot who watches the attack on the flattops from the water is George Gay (I assume) but he's never identified. It took half the movie to realize the admiral hanging around Nimitz was Ray Spruance. No names, introductions, or anything. Like how hard would it be to have the admirals shake hands with someone and introduce themselves?

 

Second, no fighters at all. The entire battle was Devastators and Dauntlesses, didn't see a Wildcat anywhere. Maybe too many blue planes would confuse the viewer. 

 

Third, why didn't Doolittle have any rank insignia on his flight cap? Oversight by the prop/costumer departments I guess. 

[Bluehawk]

I always get excited to see it when a new military film comes out of Hollywood... maybe not so much this time.

[MattS]

John Ford is a classic ,hollywood could learn a lot from these great old films, too much negitive vibs.

 

I was pleasantly surprised to see John Ford portrayed in this movie!

[mikie]

"Spoiler alert: Japan loses"

 

LMAO !!!!

Oh man!  You ruined it for me!  

Mikie

[willysmb44]

The script was a little creaky and the acting was a little over the top, but I can think of several WW2 movies lately you could say that about.

Other than postwar Mermite cans, several 43 or later vehicles, I think the uniforms were the best of all the WW2 movies in the last few years other than "Red Tails" (which had the right gear but a truly dreadful script). The airplanes acted oddly in CGI in some places but many of the ship scenes looked great. The 'low lighting CGI on a set' film work was obvious, though.

All in all, it was way better than I thought it'd be. Not the best WW2 movie I've seen by a long shot, but it really had its moments.

Third, why didn't Doolittle have any rank insignia on his flight cap?

None of the Army flyer had rank insignia.

[Garandomatic]

I just wish the 25s weren't J models. I did enjoy it overall though. Just think CGI people need to play fewer video games!

[scottplen]

For me it was just OK ! I actually prefer the original one !
The acting was over the top and tried to jam too much earlier stuff in . They could have kept it to more details on the battle of midway.
So a dud IMO.

Edited by scottplen, 11 November 2019 - 07:25 PM.

[RobL]

 

MattS, on 11 Nov 2019 - 09:01 AM, said:

Third, why didn't Doolittle have any rank insignia on his flight cap?

None of the Army flyer had rank insignia.

 

A quick note:  it wasn't until August 42 that Army regs specified that officer insignia of grade be worn on the garrison cap.  Doolittle Raid predated that reg.  

Rob L.

 

[kammo-man]

Military times does a stellar rewiew.

[themick]

So, hypothetically, were I not a militaria collector and thus having no knowledge of what insignia should be worn or where, and that sort of thing, do your think I would like the movie, noting that I do like "war movies.".?

 

Steve

[MattS]

So, hypothetically, were I not a militaria collector and thus having no knowledge of what insignia should be worn or where, and that sort of thing, do your think I would like the movie, noting that I do like "war movies.".?

 

Steve

 

For action, explosions, planes getting shot down, and battle scenes, I thought it was a great war movie. 

[MattS]

A quick note:  it wasn't until August 42 that Army regs specified that officer insignia of grade be worn on the garrison cap.  Doolittle Raid predated that reg.  

Rob L.

 

 

I stand corrected. 

[pararaftanr2]

It may not have been regulation yet, but clearly, many of them did wear their rank insignia on their overseas caps. Doolittle being a notable exception, however.

Attached Images

• 

[TBMflyer]

Most if not all of those are unit DI's, I think the 17th BG.

Mark

[Mr.Jerry]

I didn't see it yet, (I was there for JoJo Rabbit) but I really liked their promo pieces!

Attached Images

• 

[sgtdorango]

Captain Jerry!!