IMO better than the first one. Good acting and CGI not overpowering.
New Midway movie is..
8,515 Views |
41 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Jaydoug
Hoping to see it tonight!
Encouraging.
Appreciate that
I too am a WWII history buff especially for the Pacific theater and really enjoyed the movie. I will see it again just to catch some of the details I may have missed before. I thought the cgi was pretty well done.
I'm glad they took the time to do their research on the ships & planes & depict them accurately like the towers on the IJN carriers Akagi & Soryu on the port side unlike Us ships on the starboard. Also, I was happy to see them using the TBD Devestators rather than TBM Avengers that were in many scenes of the original Midway movie. I was surprised there was not much coverage of the f4f fighter activity in the movie but they also had to cover a large timeline to fit it in 2hr 18min. movie.
I'm glad they took the time to do their research on the ships & planes & depict them accurately like the towers on the IJN carriers Akagi & Soryu on the port side unlike Us ships on the starboard. Also, I was happy to see them using the TBD Devestators rather than TBM Avengers that were in many scenes of the original Midway movie. I was surprised there was not much coverage of the f4f fighter activity in the movie but they also had to cover a large timeline to fit it in 2hr 18min. movie.
How's the cast and cameos? There's no way a modern Midway movie could be better than the original with everybody and their brother in it. Even "Ponch" was in the original.
I don't like movies that take liberty with actual facts just to make entertainment.
This one kept as accurate as I've ever seen with a modern "true story" to the history. Although they took liberty with the physics of the battles, of course.
Good movie.
This one kept as accurate as I've ever seen with a modern "true story" to the history. Although they took liberty with the physics of the battles, of course.
Good movie.
I thought the casting & acting of Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz was really good. Much better than I thought I would. He even bore a slight resemblance to the actual Nimitz. Dennis Quaid as Bull Halsey was good casting as well even though it seemed at times he was overacting to match the "scowl" Halsey always had.
Both versions of Midway have told the story right, with this one being perhaps a bit more accurate & in depth. Where this one wins hands-down is the accuracy in its depiction of aircraft down to the tail markings on planes from the Enterprise. The original movie relied too heavily on archival footage of aircraft that more times than not was completely wrong for June 1942.
Another pleasant surprise was all the Japanese verbage was in Japanese unlike the original movie where IJN commanders & sailors spoke in English. So be ready going in to read subtitles.
Both versions of Midway have told the story right, with this one being perhaps a bit more accurate & in depth. Where this one wins hands-down is the accuracy in its depiction of aircraft down to the tail markings on planes from the Enterprise. The original movie relied too heavily on archival footage of aircraft that more times than not was completely wrong for June 1942.
Another pleasant surprise was all the Japanese verbage was in Japanese unlike the original movie where IJN commanders & sailors spoke in English. So be ready going in to read subtitles.
Just got back. Agree with all the comments above. Thought it was B++ and an upgrade from the original. The CGI was well done and the movie was generally less cheesy than Pearl Harbor a la Affleck. Definitely worth seeing.
We need titan to chime in and tell us his opinion. As one of the authors of Shattered Sword, I would like to know what he thinks.
We need titan to chime in and tell us his opinion. As one of the authors of Shattered Sword, I would like to know what he thinks.
I actually saw it today. It was a mixed-bag historically, some really nice touches, and some really cringe-worthy ones. But let me emphasize up front enjoyed the movie, and found it a good historical fiction drama --- portraying a certain psychological truth about events from Pearl Harbor to Midway for both sides. Don't read the fiction part of the sentence and forget the `historical' part. What mean by that is the movie successfully echoes some of the facts of the battle in a very passable way, especially for modern audience attention spans and apparent preferences in pace of visuals. Real life personas are in the movie, but far less so their actual personalities. (Important exceptions -- Nimitz, Halsey, Layton, Yamaguchi, and Yamamoto seem in the ballpark) If you understand that difference, you can also see where some of the more critical or disappointed reviews are coming from. But you don't have to see the characters that way -- if you seem them as dramatizations, and not really intended as `X' the movie works fine.
Another thing that might really put off someone going to see a `Battle of Midway' movie is the shock almost complete absences of the events involving USS Yorktown. For any familiar with it, you will realize how stunning it was to not have the dive-bomb and then torpedo attack that cripples Yorktown, to see all that drama and the carrier listing with the new special effects--- you go in expecting that. Zilch. Not there. Even the 1976 movie had that in the script, but no model work to match. It jars deeply -- but by then you have realized something and it makes the movie more coherent: Put the title `Midway' out of your mind and think: "novelization/dramatization about "The Gallant aviators of the Big E" rather than thinking of the actual personalities involved. In fact, except for the characters built out of Layton and Gaido, it is *really* close to being a Dick Best & Wade McClusky interaction movie leading their squadrons aboard Enterprise.
That is to say this movie is CV-6 USS Enterprise-centric, to the point where Hornet and Yorktown make only momentary appearances. (They are important when they do, but its Enterprise and its pilots all the way) Once you realize you are seeing it from that pov only pretty much, you accept what you are NOT getting to see.
A similar truncation with the Japanese, and they also get less screen time (expected though). Akagi with Nagumo & Genda and Hiryu with Yamaguchi, carry all the attention. Soryu is almost entirely ignored--they at least show her afire and name her--but like Yorktown afire, you would hardly know was there otherwise. Kaga is seen as it is destroyed, but I don't think even named. Yamato and Yamamoto serve for the command pov.
But there are moments of real good short-hand too - the very abbreviated but nonetheless effective echo of the damage control drama the dive-bomb attack sets off on the Japanese carriers is shown. They also somewhat cliff-note effectively the complicated re-arm issue---it is stated to make the IJN carriers vulnerable, and later, as Akagi comes under attack, it is made explicitly clear by a hangar man "they need more time" Making clear still not ready to launch. The attempt to show the internal inferno of the hangar has a surreal quality, but the attempt to show it is what counts. Even that CO2 could not be used to fight the fire is mentioned.
There is a nice seen near the start of the movie that -considering its complexity -- neatly cliff-notes why the Pacific War begins (albeit in a very rudimentary, but true short-hand)
Pearl Harbor sequences ironically has the most number of just odd elements -- but its more going for a psychological impact. Aviation enthusiasts will find much to criticize about the flight operations, dives, landings, etc of the U.S. aircraft --- no denying that.
But its a visual feast and a good story --- and is a far better movie than the 2001 `Pearl Harbor' that many use as a warning benchmark.
And it is certainly no disaster like Last Jedi- -- this movie, unlike that one, I will go out fairly quickly to see again, and will buy its DVD.
And none of this is to deny some of the real slamming of the movie you will hear. But I am thinking more in terms of its value in making these events familiar again to a more clueless generation where polls show that Midway is not as familiar as would have thought anymore.
Go See It and judge for yourself
Just got to Hong Kong for work this week and it looks like Midway opens this Thursday. I don't know if that's in Cantonese or English. I'm going to Tokyo next week and I have a funny feeling it won't be showing in cinemas there.
My understanding is that this movie was financed with Chinese money. In the beginning you will see the logos of several studios or production companies that are obviously Chinese.
China does get a decent turn in the film for a few minutes featuring Jimmy Doolittle after his bailout as he makes his way through the Jap lines with help from Chinese rebels.
I read an article in the paper that this movie surprisingly took first place in an otherwise down box office weekend, and that it's already made - domestically - about $20 million against the $100 million it took to make. I guess that means that it's going to be fairly popular with Chinese audiences as well. I had no idea how interested they are in this story (though I can certainly understand why).
China does get a decent turn in the film for a few minutes featuring Jimmy Doolittle after his bailout as he makes his way through the Jap lines with help from Chinese rebels.
I read an article in the paper that this movie surprisingly took first place in an otherwise down box office weekend, and that it's already made - domestically - about $20 million against the $100 million it took to make. I guess that means that it's going to be fairly popular with Chinese audiences as well. I had no idea how interested they are in this story (though I can certainly understand why).
I thought it was well done. It was a little slow in the middle, but I understand movie making and the need to connect with the main characters. But historically, to the casual history buff like me, it hit all the highlights that I knew about the battle and the sequence of it while setting up what lead to the battle. I dont, however, know enough about all the details (what aircraft and people did what) to critique all that. I will leave that to the experts.
ALL THAT TO SAY, if you came in to the theater knowing nothing about the battle of midway, you can walk away with a great and accurate feel of what happened and - more importantly - with the intelligence and the sacrifices involved to make it happen.
my ONLY negative critique of the movie - the Nick Jonas scene and the language involved was unnecessary. I get that sailors talked that way, but you had a "clean" movie to that point. why is it necessary? Now I can't take my 10yo to learn about the sacrifices that generation made. I guess they figured with a PG13 movie, they had one F Bomb to use and chose to use it.
ALL THAT TO SAY, if you came in to the theater knowing nothing about the battle of midway, you can walk away with a great and accurate feel of what happened and - more importantly - with the intelligence and the sacrifices involved to make it happen.
my ONLY negative critique of the movie - the Nick Jonas scene and the language involved was unnecessary. I get that sailors talked that way, but you had a "clean" movie to that point. why is it necessary? Now I can't take my 10yo to learn about the sacrifices that generation made. I guess they figured with a PG13 movie, they had one F Bomb to use and chose to use it.
Brilliantly summarized. Its exactly how feel about the movie in the relation to the public. Its a good movie for making the events accessible. If someone's imagination is captured by the Doolittle Raid, they can go investigate it and won't have to come back to the movie saying it is 100% wrong ---- just "taking liberties". (Like of course the people on Enterprise knew about Hornet's B-25 deckload well before April 18 launch--- one can always nitpick to death. Movies have to short-hand and telescope time) For introducing man on the street below casual history buff level to the sequence of events from Pearl to Midway it works just fine. And hidden here and there in the movie are some really high detail gems that you don't find in off-cuff works. The sequence with Halsey and secret message from Nimitz---that's gold that is beyond the casual knowing, coming from books like First Team .Quote:
ALL THAT TO SAY, if you came in to the theater knowing nothing about the battle of midway, you can walk away with a great and accurate feel of what happened and - more importantly - with the intelligence and the sacrifices involved to make it happen.
By the way, the Chinese involvement really shows in the desire to mention the consequences to the Chinese helping the Doolittle raiders. That would never have been in there otherwise, but won't puzzle you when you realize the production involvement.
(What you will see are some big complaints on aerial maneuvers in actions and certain technical specifics -- not to mention how a given person's nature was totally different in some cases - but that comes under the good with the bad) again gigemhilo captured what it does well perfectly)
Anyway,
Go.See. It.
I went to see it last night as well...came away very impressed overall. I'm still sentimental about the original, as I saw it when I was 10 and it held alot of meaning for me. In some ways, I feel like the original had its moments setting up the battle a little better (as it didn't have to spend time on Pearl Harbor and other areas).....but in an age when there are few movies like this one even being made anymore...I thought it was outstanding!! The new CGI was very well done....and much better battle scenes than the old archive footage (sometimes inaccurate) found in the original! ONLY one thing I didn't like.....I didn't feel it was necessary to dedicate the movie to BOTH the Americans and Japanese who died in the battle...I'm still one-sided on that one, especially when you realize how they started it at Pearl....and some of the attrocities committed by them with our POW's. However, I guess in today's world you must be politically correct!!
Go see it!! You'll enjoy it!!
Go see it!! You'll enjoy it!!
Quote:
I didn't feel it was necessary to dedicate the movie to BOTH the Americans and Japanese who died in the battle...I'm still one-sided on that one, especially when you realize how they started it at Pearl....and some of the attrocities committed by them with our POW's.
I intend to see this movie, probably tonight, but I agree with your comment. My uncle class of 1928 was captured on Corregidor and died in one of their POW camps.
Well given the pronounced Chinese involvement, if they were willing to, that is enough. The full dedication went on to say "the sea remembers its own" ----- most of those officers and men had little say in their government's choices -- something like today. And many times today when the veterans from the opposing sides of a given action meet, they find a different kind of kinship and camaraderie.
The movie doesn't pull punches about atrocities either, even shows a Midway one.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I think I'm ok with a dedication to both sides. Seems to me I've seen other WWII movies that had a dedication to the Germans as well as Allied servicemen. The average soldier/sailor/marine/airman on both sides was doing the job their country asked them to do, and in many cases they were drafted to do that job. Both sides committed horrible atrocities, but since we won we kinda get a freebie on ours. Had we lost, men like LeMay, Bomber Harris, and other architects to firebombing would have been executed by Axis courts.
Yeah, if it had said "We dedicate this movie to Tojo and the military junta that controlled Japanese politics" then that would be different.
I kind of liked how the Japanese were portrayed in the movie.
I kind of liked how the Japanese were portrayed in the movie.
Let's just say it was refreshing to me to find that Mick LaSalle--writing for a San Francisco paper, of all places--concluded his review with this remark:
Quote:
It's also probably a mistake in strategy that Wes Tooke's screenplay keeps checking in with the Japanese side of the battle, with the officers and men on the enemy ships. Yes, the idea is to give an overview, but the notion that the other team had good guys, too, removes some of the urgency and rooting interest. It dims our recognition that these lovely, nice fellows would have loved to have bombed Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco.
One other thing that struck me - and this is coming from someone who isn't a historian and has limited knowledge of the Pacific Theater - was how "invincible" the Japanese were portrayed in the movie in the eyes of the sailors and airmen. How accurate was that? Obviously we know how much of a psychological gut punch Pearl was, but I didn't realize that we had so many doubts at that time.
It wasn't just Pearl---it was what happened to the U.S Asiatic Fleet and the combined European powers in the Philippines and Java campaigns --what the Japanese call the "First phase operations." Then you throw in Britain's veteran of facing down KM Bismark, the famous Prince of Wales - getting sunk two days after Pearl and by Japanese naval land based air seemingly easily. Finally what the Japanese did to the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean in April 1942. All seemed to be falling like dominos. Coral Sea was the first time this even seemed to be stoppable---and hardly anyone (on the Japanese side as well) had had time to learn anything of the battle of Coral Sea's trajectory to draw conclusions from it.Belton Ag said:
One other thing that struck me - and this is coming from someone who isn't a historian and has limited knowledge of the Pacific Theater - was how "invincible" the Japanese were portrayed in the movie in the eyes of the sailors and airmen. How accurate was that? Obviously we know how much of a psychological gut punch Pearl was, but I didn't realize that we has so many doubts at that time.
I don't mind how they were portrayed.....I even agree that some of them might be considered "honorable" in a sense. It's very interesting to see the strategy from both sides!! Of course, just like our soldiers, enlisted men only carry out orders! Many of them, if not most, probably participated in that surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that killed over 1,500 Americans.....and I don't find that very "honorable", but again I just didn't feel the need to 'honor" BOTH sides at the end of the movie. (The original was definetly dedicated to the brave AMERICANS who fought and died in the battle!) Just a little too politically correct!! Of course.....just my opinion.Belton Ag said:
Yeah, if it had said "We dedicate this movie to Tojo and the military junta that controlled Japanese politics" then that would be different.
I kind of liked how the Japanese were portrayed in the movie.
My one nit pick is they imply Spruance was in overall command of the battle. I believe Fletcher was in command until he had to transfer his flag from the Yorktown. Spruance took command of Task force 16 from Halsey.titan said:
I actually saw it today. It was a mixed-bag historically, some really nice touches, and some really cringe-worthy ones. But let me emphasize up front enjoyed the movie, and found it a good historical fiction drama --- portraying a certain psychological truth about events from Pearl Harbor to Midway for both sides. Don't read the fiction part of the sentence and forget the `historical' part. What mean by that is the movie successfully echoes some of the facts of the battle in a very passable way, especially for modern audience attention spans and apparent preferences in pace of visuals. Real life personas are in the movie, but far less so their actual personalities. (Important exceptions -- Nimitz, Halsey, Layton, Yamaguchi, and Yamamoto seem in the ballpark) If you understand that difference, you can also see where some of the more critical or disappointed reviews are coming from. But you don't have to see the characters that way -- if you seem them as dramatizations, and not really intended as `X' the movie works fine.
Another thing that might really put off someone going to see a `Battle of Midway' movie is the shock almost complete absences of the events involving USS Yorktown. For any familiar with it, you will realize how stunning it was to not have the dive-bomb and then torpedo attack that cripples Yorktown, to see all that drama and the carrier listing with the new special effects--- you go in expecting that. Zilch. Not there. Even the 1976 movie had that in the script, but no model work to match. It jars deeply -- but by then you have realized something and it makes the movie more coherent: Put the title `Midway' out of your mind and think: "novelization/dramatization about "The Gallant aviators of the Big E" rather than thinking of the actual personalities involved. In fact, except for the characters built out of Layton and Gaido, it is *really* close to being a Dick Best & Wade McClusky interaction movie leading their squadrons aboard Enterprise.
That is to say this movie is CV-6 USS Enterprise-centric, to the point where Hornet and Yorktown make only momentary appearances. (They are important when they do, but its Enterprise and its pilots all the way) Once you realize you are seeing it from that pov only pretty much, you accept what you are NOT getting to see.
A similar truncation with the Japanese, and they also get less screen time (expected though). Akagi with Nagumo & Genda and Hiryu with Yamaguchi, carry all the attention. Soryu is almost entirely ignored--they at least show her afire and name her--but like Yorktown afire, you would hardly know was there otherwise. Kaga is seen as it is destroyed, but I don't think even named. Yamato and Yamamoto serve for the command pov.
But there are moments of real good short-hand too - the very abbreviated but nonetheless effective echo of the damage control drama the dive-bomb attack sets off on the Japanese carriers is shown. They also somewhat cliff-note effectively the complicated re-arm issue---it is stated to make the IJN carriers vulnerable, and later, as Akagi comes under attack, it is made explicitly clear by a hangar man "they need more time" Making clear still not ready to launch. The attempt to show the internal inferno of the hangar has a surreal quality, but the attempt to show it is what counts. Even that CO2 could not be used to fight the fire is mentioned.
There is a nice seen near the start of the movie that -considering its complexity -- neatly cliff-notes why the Pacific War begins (albeit in a very rudimentary, but true short-hand)
Pearl Harbor sequences ironically has the most number of just odd elements -- but its more going for a psychological impact. Aviation enthusiasts will find much to criticize about the flight operations, dives, landings, etc of the U.S. aircraft --- no denying that.
But its a visual feast and a good story --- and is a far better movie than the 2001 `Pearl Harbor' that many use as a warning benchmark.
And it is certainly no disaster like Last Jedi- -- this movie, unlike that one, I will go out fairly quickly to see again, and will buy its DVD.
And none of this is to deny some of the real slamming of the movie you will hear. But I am thinking more in terms of its value in making these events familiar again to a more clueless generation where polls show that Midway is not as familiar as would have thought anymore.
Go See It and judge for yourself
Thanks titan. I knew I could count on you for a thorough and balanced assessment.titan said:
I actually saw it today. It was a mixed-bag historically, some really nice touches, and some really cringe-worthy ones. But let me emphasize up front enjoyed the movie, and found it a good historical fiction drama --- portraying a certain psychological truth about events from Pearl Harbor to Midway for both sides. Don't read the fiction part of the sentence and forget the `historical' part. What mean by that is the movie successfully echoes some of the facts of the battle in a very passable way, especially for modern audience attention spans and apparent preferences in pace of visuals. Real life personas are in the movie, but far less so their actual personalities. (Important exceptions -- Nimitz, Halsey, Layton, Yamaguchi, and Yamamoto seem in the ballpark) If you understand that difference, you can also see where some of the more critical or disappointed reviews are coming from. But you don't have to see the characters that way -- if you seem them as dramatizations, and not really intended as `X' the movie works fine.
Another thing that might really put off someone going to see a `Battle of Midway' movie is the shock almost complete absences of the events involving USS Yorktown. For any familiar with it, you will realize how stunning it was to not have the dive-bomb and then torpedo attack that cripples Yorktown, to see all that drama and the carrier listing with the new special effects--- you go in expecting that. Zilch. Not there. Even the 1976 movie had that in the script, but no model work to match. It jars deeply -- but by then you have realized something and it makes the movie more coherent: Put the title `Midway' out of your mind and think: "novelization/dramatization about "The Gallant aviators of the Big E" rather than thinking of the actual personalities involved. In fact, except for the characters built out of Layton and Gaido, it is *really* close to being a Dick Best & Wade McClusky interaction movie leading their squadrons aboard Enterprise.
That is to say this movie is CV-6 USS Enterprise-centric, to the point where Hornet and Yorktown make only momentary appearances. (They are important when they do, but its Enterprise and its pilots all the way) Once you realize you are seeing it from that pov only pretty much, you accept what you are NOT getting to see.
A similar truncation with the Japanese, and they also get less screen time (expected though). Akagi with Nagumo & Genda and Hiryu with Yamaguchi, carry all the attention. Soryu is almost entirely ignored--they at least show her afire and name her--but like Yorktown afire, you would hardly know was there otherwise. Kaga is seen as it is destroyed, but I don't think even named. Yamato and Yamamoto serve for the command pov.
But there are moments of real good short-hand too - the very abbreviated but nonetheless effective echo of the damage control drama the dive-bomb attack sets off on the Japanese carriers is shown. They also somewhat cliff-note effectively the complicated re-arm issue---it is stated to make the IJN carriers vulnerable, and later, as Akagi comes under attack, it is made explicitly clear by a hangar man "they need more time" Making clear still not ready to launch. The attempt to show the internal inferno of the hangar has a surreal quality, but the attempt to show it is what counts. Even that CO2 could not be used to fight the fire is mentioned.
There is a nice seen near the start of the movie that -considering its complexity -- neatly cliff-notes why the Pacific War begins (albeit in a very rudimentary, but true short-hand)
Pearl Harbor sequences ironically has the most number of just odd elements -- but its more going for a psychological impact. Aviation enthusiasts will find much to criticize about the flight operations, dives, landings, etc of the U.S. aircraft --- no denying that.
But its a visual feast and a good story --- and is a far better movie than the 2001 `Pearl Harbor' that many use as a warning benchmark.
And it is certainly no disaster like Last Jedi- -- this movie, unlike that one, I will go out fairly quickly to see again, and will buy its DVD.
And none of this is to deny some of the real slamming of the movie you will hear. But I am thinking more in terms of its value in making these events familiar again to a more clueless generation where polls show that Midway is not as familiar as would have thought anymore.
Go See It and judge for yourself
Titan, another Question: in your opinion, does the movie reflect any of the previously unknown info from the Japanese side? After reading Shattered Sword, I thought I sensed a bit of the new insights but would like to know what you think.
XUSCR,
) The sequence with the burning carrier (believe intended to be Kaga) where the show the hangar afire and the Japanese alarmed that the CO2 fire suppression system can't be used, and the other warning that the `gasoline is vaporizing' followed by a catastrophic induced av-gas vapor explosion that wrecks the ship -- that's pretty much unique to Sword.
) The clarity with which it is shown that Hiryu is close enough to see what is happening to Kaga and Soryu both.
) How clear it is made that Akagi needs more time to prepare for launch, that most aircraft in the hangars and she is not yet launching strike.
) The Makigumo scuttling Hiryu. Not the simple fact, which was standard, but very specifically the dialog and how they show the destroyer preparing torpedo action to port and the way they depict it. That they don't show that the first torpedo missed and it was the on fired to starboard that connected, was just short-hand.
) Not from Sword, but as mentioned - the good scene with Nimitz secret order to Halsey is from JohnLundstrom's First Team or South Pacific Campaign --top notch sources.
There are others, but since you could find them before in Lord's Incredible Victory or Glorious Page in Our History, or Gordon Prange's Miracle at Midway I don't cite them as definitely from it. But those above yes.
An ad-lib I really liked: Nagumo muttering "what do you think I'm trying to do?" in response to Yamaguchi's nudge to try to launch asap. It captured the fact that for one reason or another it wasn't proving easy to complete re-arm for ship attack and get the planes into the air.
p.s. Aviation and carrier experts will and are taking issue with the very "sci-fi" kinetic style attacks of the dive-bombers, and the far too acrobatic carrier landings, which are hard enough in reality and need no "hype". But that is almost inevitable these days.
Bearing in mind that the movie actually goes from a bit pre-war (1937) thru Pearl Harbor and ends with Enterprise return from Midway, and so just the last third of the movie is the Battle and would involve much of the book, the answer is Yes. There are indeed some elements and I kind of already mentioned them. But to re-emphasize what saw on first showing in no order of importance, and there might be more will see on return viewings:Quote:
Titan, another Question: in your opinion, does the movie reflect any of the previously unknown info from the Japanese side? After reading Shattered Sword, I thought I sensed a bit of the new insights but would like to know what you think.
) The sequence with the burning carrier (believe intended to be Kaga) where the show the hangar afire and the Japanese alarmed that the CO2 fire suppression system can't be used, and the other warning that the `gasoline is vaporizing' followed by a catastrophic induced av-gas vapor explosion that wrecks the ship -- that's pretty much unique to Sword.
) The clarity with which it is shown that Hiryu is close enough to see what is happening to Kaga and Soryu both.
) How clear it is made that Akagi needs more time to prepare for launch, that most aircraft in the hangars and she is not yet launching strike.
) The Makigumo scuttling Hiryu. Not the simple fact, which was standard, but very specifically the dialog and how they show the destroyer preparing torpedo action to port and the way they depict it. That they don't show that the first torpedo missed and it was the on fired to starboard that connected, was just short-hand.
) Not from Sword, but as mentioned - the good scene with Nimitz secret order to Halsey is from JohnLundstrom's First Team or South Pacific Campaign --top notch sources.
There are others, but since you could find them before in Lord's Incredible Victory or Glorious Page in Our History, or Gordon Prange's Miracle at Midway I don't cite them as definitely from it. But those above yes.
An ad-lib I really liked: Nagumo muttering "what do you think I'm trying to do?" in response to Yamaguchi's nudge to try to launch asap. It captured the fact that for one reason or another it wasn't proving easy to complete re-arm for ship attack and get the planes into the air.
p.s. Aviation and carrier experts will and are taking issue with the very "sci-fi" kinetic style attacks of the dive-bombers, and the far too acrobatic carrier landings, which are hard enough in reality and need no "hype". But that is almost inevitable these days.
Titan,
I've read many works on the Battle of Midway, but consider Shattered Sword to be the best, by far. I thought that I did see several things in this movie that were sourced from your book.
I also think your review is spot on regarding the movie. There are things that the movie is flat-out wrong about, that is true, but generally speaking, it does a good job of "cliff-noting" the history of this battle.
Regarding the aviation - I'm a warbird nut. So first and foremost, I was ecstatic to see this film portraying the correct aircraft. No Hellcats here as in the original movie. Got to see Devastators (being devastated). They even brought in the B-26 raid (although it was portrayed with far more aircraft than were actually involved) against the Akagi (I think that was their target but stand to be corrected). The dive bombing was very Star Wars-y and also very much incorrect. The Dauntlesses did not dive en masse as depicted, but rather went in one at a time. Still, the visuals were fantastic to watch even if not exactly accurate. There were some problems with the B-25s of the Doolittle raid that I've seen referenced in other reviews, but did not notice myself when I saw the movie last weekend (the complaint was the forward-firing upper turret guns being in place, which I don't believe those bombers had for that mission due to weight concerns). Another complaint has been that the Devastators would not have been loaded with the torpedo plus the two wing-mounted bombs - probably true, but I consider that to be a seriously OCD nitpick.
I would have liked to see a longer movie here. More time spent on the Battle of the Coral Sea, and more specifics as to what was happening during the Battle of Midway - which carrier was which, etc. And more than a mention of the Yorktown. Can we get some F4F Wildcats up in here?
Still, I really enjoyed the movie. The original was a long-time favorite of mine, but the archival footage, non-existent characters, and the garbage romance always induced eye-rolls for me when watching as an adult.
I've read many works on the Battle of Midway, but consider Shattered Sword to be the best, by far. I thought that I did see several things in this movie that were sourced from your book.
I also think your review is spot on regarding the movie. There are things that the movie is flat-out wrong about, that is true, but generally speaking, it does a good job of "cliff-noting" the history of this battle.
Regarding the aviation - I'm a warbird nut. So first and foremost, I was ecstatic to see this film portraying the correct aircraft. No Hellcats here as in the original movie. Got to see Devastators (being devastated). They even brought in the B-26 raid (although it was portrayed with far more aircraft than were actually involved) against the Akagi (I think that was their target but stand to be corrected). The dive bombing was very Star Wars-y and also very much incorrect. The Dauntlesses did not dive en masse as depicted, but rather went in one at a time. Still, the visuals were fantastic to watch even if not exactly accurate. There were some problems with the B-25s of the Doolittle raid that I've seen referenced in other reviews, but did not notice myself when I saw the movie last weekend (the complaint was the forward-firing upper turret guns being in place, which I don't believe those bombers had for that mission due to weight concerns). Another complaint has been that the Devastators would not have been loaded with the torpedo plus the two wing-mounted bombs - probably true, but I consider that to be a seriously OCD nitpick.
I would have liked to see a longer movie here. More time spent on the Battle of the Coral Sea, and more specifics as to what was happening during the Battle of Midway - which carrier was which, etc. And more than a mention of the Yorktown. Can we get some F4F Wildcats up in here?
Still, I really enjoyed the movie. The original was a long-time favorite of mine, but the archival footage, non-existent characters, and the garbage romance always induced eye-rolls for me when watching as an adult.
The lack of these things is why I think the traditional Hollywood studio would never make a big budget, epic movie like this anymore, and why it was bankrolled with Chinese money.Quote:
Still, I really enjoyed the movie. The original was a long-time favorite of mine, but the archival footage, non-existent characters, and the garbage romance always induced eye-rolls for me when watching as an adult.
Saw the movie on Saturday morning in Hong Kong. A couple of funny notes:
I loved the score and the Big Band music. If you go, stay through the end credits as there's a great Big Band number at the end.
For the amount of action and the sound/music, I recommend seeing this movie in the theatre.
They named a number of real characters who were portrayed in the movie but there were two Navy men from Waco, Texas (including an Aggie) who were shown but not named explicitly.
They showed Torpedo Squadron 8 and they showed the lone survivor (Ensign George Gay) floating, clinging to a cushion. In the original Midway movie they named him in a subtitle on the screen. I didn't know he was from Waco, or an Aggie until later.
But Ensign Gay was the second Waco son in the film. The first was not named, not mentioned but shown from the back (after reading the trials they went through to find the "unnamed Negro", maybe that's realistic). After the attack on Pearl Harbor, there is a scene where a bunch of sailors are lined up on deck receiving medals. The shot is from the back but, there is one African-American sailor on the deck receiving a medal. Again, not explicitly named but that is certainly a reference to Doris "Dorie" Miller who received the Navy Cross. His heroic action was portrayed by Cuba Gooding Jr, in the Ben Affleck "Pearl Harbor" movie.
Here's a pic from Wikipedia of Nimitz awarding the Navy Cross to Miller.
Here's a sample of the Big Band music from the end credits featuring a singer called Annie Trousseau. Enjoy.
And a little sweetener from her Instagram
https://instagr.am/p/B4Lj252JwAp
- They had a half-price matinee showing at 8:30am
- They don't have any previews, my movie showtime was 1105 and that's when the opening credits started rolling. Good thing I wasn't late. In Australia, they usually have about 30 minutes of preview and ads - no joke
- At the end, all of the Hong Kongers (called Honkeys locally) stayed for about the first 3-4 minutes of the credits. This is common in Burbank but I was surprised to see it elsewhere. After living/working in Hollywood, I always stay until the end of the credits now.
- The movie was in English with Chinese subtitles. The Japanese speaking scenes had both English and Chinese subtitles
I loved the score and the Big Band music. If you go, stay through the end credits as there's a great Big Band number at the end.
For the amount of action and the sound/music, I recommend seeing this movie in the theatre.
They named a number of real characters who were portrayed in the movie but there were two Navy men from Waco, Texas (including an Aggie) who were shown but not named explicitly.
They showed Torpedo Squadron 8 and they showed the lone survivor (Ensign George Gay) floating, clinging to a cushion. In the original Midway movie they named him in a subtitle on the screen. I didn't know he was from Waco, or an Aggie until later.
But Ensign Gay was the second Waco son in the film. The first was not named, not mentioned but shown from the back (after reading the trials they went through to find the "unnamed Negro", maybe that's realistic). After the attack on Pearl Harbor, there is a scene where a bunch of sailors are lined up on deck receiving medals. The shot is from the back but, there is one African-American sailor on the deck receiving a medal. Again, not explicitly named but that is certainly a reference to Doris "Dorie" Miller who received the Navy Cross. His heroic action was portrayed by Cuba Gooding Jr, in the Ben Affleck "Pearl Harbor" movie.
Here's a pic from Wikipedia of Nimitz awarding the Navy Cross to Miller.
Here's a sample of the Big Band music from the end credits featuring a singer called Annie Trousseau. Enjoy.
And a little sweetener from her Instagram
https://instagr.am/p/B4Lj252JwAp
good movie. enjoyed it. better than i would have expected from a modern ww2 movie.
cgi was over the top sometimes, as was the kill count in the air in some respects, but overall, they spent the time to make historically accurate planes and ships which is cool.
to me the most interesting thing is the freaking SCALE of what was trying to be done, compared to the hilarious resources devoted to it.
the pacific is HUGE.
there was no satellites, radio had only been around a while. even radar was new secret tech. just figuring out where the hell you are, what the weather is doing, and where the enemy is was a massive undertaking.
when the war started, the US navy had 138 total fighter pilots, with an average of 300 hours of flight training.
yes, the japanese navy and pilots were the best in the world at the start of midway. but you have to realize a freaking zero is made largely of wood.
the japs sent 4 main carriers, less then 300 aircraft, to do the job. in hindsight they'd have been much better off sending all 6. and i've never understood why they made a feint to the allutians if the goal was to draw our carriers to midway anyway.
we fought this battle with a hundred or so obsolete plains from midway and less than 300 largely obsolete carrier planes from 3 carriers.
that's it. that's what decided the fate between 250 million people in an ocean of 63 million square miles.
for a period of time after midway, the big E was our ONLY carrier in action.
but for perspective, by 1945 we had built 24 fleet carriers and almost 100 total carriers for the pacific fleet.
japan was only able to build 2 real carriers after 1941, and I am unfamiliar with any significant action they saw.
i did see this fascinating summary - the taiho was basically build to counter the lexington class. they managed to get one to see in 44. it sunk 3 months later - FROM ONE TORPEDO HIT by a US sub, the albacore. Apparently, a CAP pilot stopped a second torpedo from hitting the ship by suicide diving into the water in its path!
https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=ijn-taiho-aircraft-carrier
the other one was barely going to complete by 1945 but was also sunk by a US sub during sea trials.
bottom line, it is shocking what the japs accomplished with so few resources. and shocking how one sided production was after that.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/i/Fighter_Pilots.htm
we trained almost 200,000 fighter pilots during the war. japan 46,000, to much lower standards.
cgi was over the top sometimes, as was the kill count in the air in some respects, but overall, they spent the time to make historically accurate planes and ships which is cool.
to me the most interesting thing is the freaking SCALE of what was trying to be done, compared to the hilarious resources devoted to it.
the pacific is HUGE.
there was no satellites, radio had only been around a while. even radar was new secret tech. just figuring out where the hell you are, what the weather is doing, and where the enemy is was a massive undertaking.
when the war started, the US navy had 138 total fighter pilots, with an average of 300 hours of flight training.
yes, the japanese navy and pilots were the best in the world at the start of midway. but you have to realize a freaking zero is made largely of wood.
the japs sent 4 main carriers, less then 300 aircraft, to do the job. in hindsight they'd have been much better off sending all 6. and i've never understood why they made a feint to the allutians if the goal was to draw our carriers to midway anyway.
we fought this battle with a hundred or so obsolete plains from midway and less than 300 largely obsolete carrier planes from 3 carriers.
that's it. that's what decided the fate between 250 million people in an ocean of 63 million square miles.
for a period of time after midway, the big E was our ONLY carrier in action.
but for perspective, by 1945 we had built 24 fleet carriers and almost 100 total carriers for the pacific fleet.
japan was only able to build 2 real carriers after 1941, and I am unfamiliar with any significant action they saw.
i did see this fascinating summary - the taiho was basically build to counter the lexington class. they managed to get one to see in 44. it sunk 3 months later - FROM ONE TORPEDO HIT by a US sub, the albacore. Apparently, a CAP pilot stopped a second torpedo from hitting the ship by suicide diving into the water in its path!
https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=ijn-taiho-aircraft-carrier
the other one was barely going to complete by 1945 but was also sunk by a US sub during sea trials.
bottom line, it is shocking what the japs accomplished with so few resources. and shocking how one sided production was after that.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/i/Fighter_Pilots.htm
we trained almost 200,000 fighter pilots during the war. japan 46,000, to much lower standards.
our standards were to train our pilots to land, unlike the Japanese who taught theirs to only take offQuote:
we trained almost 200,000 fighter pilots during the war. japan 46,000, to much lower standards.
Currently Reading battle of midway by Craig Symonds. He spends some time talking about the standards for pilots between both nations.
According to him, the Japanese were extraordinarily selective in terms of who could go to aviation school and very few passed with a washout rate greater than 80%. This process made it impossible to replace pilots at a level needed to sustain a long war effort
According to him, the Japanese were extraordinarily selective in terms of who could go to aviation school and very few passed with a washout rate greater than 80%. This process made it impossible to replace pilots at a level needed to sustain a long war effort
Exactly. They didn't have WASPs or WACs or Tuskegee Airmen in Japan.
If you need replacements at scale, you've got to open up the applicant pool and possibly separate combat duties from non combat roles.
If you need replacements at scale, you've got to open up the applicant pool and possibly separate combat duties from non combat roles.
I liked it. The dive bombing scenes had me squirming in my seat.
Every once in a while it had a video game feel to it when the characters would meet, exchange a few lines, then a scene would happen.
However, the most important thing to me was that when it was over, my 16 year old son just sat there for a few minutes without saying anything while the credits rolled.
I finally said "These movies don't have post credit scenes like the Avenger movies".
My son was barely able to say the words "I know" without his voice cracking.
On the way home we were talking about the movie, the people, and the actual event and he said "During those dive bombing scenes, were your toes curling up like mine"?
The fact that it had an effect on my son in that manner is priceless.
Every once in a while it had a video game feel to it when the characters would meet, exchange a few lines, then a scene would happen.
However, the most important thing to me was that when it was over, my 16 year old son just sat there for a few minutes without saying anything while the credits rolled.
I finally said "These movies don't have post credit scenes like the Avenger movies".
My son was barely able to say the words "I know" without his voice cracking.
On the way home we were talking about the movie, the people, and the actual event and he said "During those dive bombing scenes, were your toes curling up like mine"?
The fact that it had an effect on my son in that manner is priceless.
What a wonderful moment to share with your son!
Featured Stories
See All
Elko: RB Moss out for remainder of 2024 season due to injury
by Olin Buchanan
No. 13 Texas A&M shocked by UCF in season-opening upset, 64-61
by Luke Evangelist
2026 Fairburn (GA) Langston Hughes TE Xavier Tiller commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
54:39
8h ago
2.7k
Aldo the Apache
2026 Fairburn (GA) Langston Hughes TE Xavier Tiller commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
109
GigEmADED
Lets be honest, this was a ride or die offense with Moss this year
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
98