Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since you've seen it three times, perhaps you can confirm for me that the movie depicted a Japanese plane launching a torpedo, while flying between two American ships berthed in Pearl Harbor. That would make no sense at all because a torpedo launched from such a position would either go out to sea and hit nothing, or hit the berthing dock (depending on which way the ships were facing, you couldn't tell by what was depicted.)
The Pearl scenes had a bit of the video game feel to them. Mostly they showed strafing rather than bombing. I suspect it was because they felt that they had come up with cool strafing effects, so why not indulge?
I don't recall seeing a torpedo launched in the way you describe. I won't say for sure that it didn't happen, but I didn't notice it if it did. But you are certainly correct in that it would make no sense to do it like that. The view of this scene was looking southwest down Battleship Row, with the Arizona on the right and the Vestal on the left. The attacking planes that flew low between the rows of ships would have been heading northeast. Any torpedoes launched in that direction would have passed harmlessly by the battleships at anchor there and ended up impacting against the shore, presumably causing no more damage than maybe cracking a dock.
You're also right that most of the attack, as shown, consisted of strafing. This seems fitting, given that most of the Japanese planes depicted were Zeros. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any dive bombing either. There was some horizontal bombing, however, including the one that plastered the Arizona. (I believe that this is factually correct. IIRC, it was a horizontal bomber that scored the devastating hit on the Arizona IRL.)
I thought it was well done and pretty well followed historical events. Much better than the 1976 version, although that one had a star studded cast.
I am 52. My dad was a Navy man, '46-51. He was radioman first class on a PBM seaplane. He had tons of stories, and my relatives saw more direct action with the Army and Navy, respectively. I do think my dad's love of naval aircraft fostered my interest. I knew the difference between a Douglas Dauntless and a D3A1 "Val" dive bomber by the time I was 10. And why the Devastator TBD was hopelessly outclassed at the time of Midway. They were wiped from the sky by A6M Zeros.
"The Devastator proved to be a death trap for its crews: slow and hardly maneuverable, with poor armor for the era; its speed on a glide-bombing approach was a mere 200 mph (320 km/h), making it easy prey for fighters and defensive guns alike."
Spoiler
I thought Midway was very good. They went minimal on the drama, with a couple minor subplots related to interesting and real characters, not made up pretty boys and gorgeous phony nurses. Few A-list actors other than Woody Harrelson who played a convincing Chester Nimitz. Various online analyses suggest they did a tolerable job on realism and detail, with a couple goofs of course.
I'd give it a solid 7/10, if anything I was disappointed they didn't have enough time for certain elements of real life. Next think you know, Hiryu survives, launches a strike, and cripples Yorktown (fatally, it turned out). They sort of blew that off. Couple other things were blown off or mentioned in-passing. There wasn't enough time, if there's an 'uncut' I hope it's 4 hours like Gettysburg (1993).
Focusing on McClusky and Best was a really good idea, two of the most interesting real-life characters. Only two men have ever successfully bombed two separate carriers, a helluva brave feat, and Best dropped the hammer on both Akagi (and sank it) and Hiryu later.
Lots better than that Terminator garbage, which was a surprise. I've seen more movies than usual this Fall: Joker, Terminator, Midway. Joker was superb, Midway was good, Terminator was mediocre and after I left the theater I was just pissed off at the 'woke' BS that drove that whole script.
They got McClusky's wound right, and that his gunner shot down one of two pursuing Zeros. Real life can be "exciting" and I don't know why Hollywood changes details like that, just to show nances with gorgeous nurse girlfriends as the most interesting thing going, shooting up A6Ms with obsolete Curtis Warhawks. Riiiight. Pearl Harbor was a real, real bummer back c. 2001.
McClusky, through his intelligence, courage and sheer luck, had thus made a vital contribution to the outcome of this pivotal battle. For his actions, which turned the tide in the battle,[2] McClusky was awarded the Navy Cross
I do not understand why the critics bash this movie.
In the first place, it is entertainment--not a documentary, so it is not exactly accurate. Want the truth? Read a book by an expert.
The dialogue is not bad. No worse than most movies and war movies (like westerns) are not expected to have sparkling creative dialogue.
Excellent acting all around, characters were not supposed to be deep and interesting. In real life, maybe they weren't..
I was surprised only 1 actress here, Mandy Moore. I usually don't watch war films but I will see this one again. those who will wait for the DVD don't know what they are missing.
I do not understand why the critics bash this movie.
In the first place, it is entertainment--not a documentary, so it is not exactly accurate. Want the truth? Read a book by an expert.
Perhaps your misunderstanding is related to not reading the criticisms carefully enough. We have no complaints about the general historical accuracy presented, and in fact have been complimentary with regard to there not being anything false in the narrative.
Rather, the criticism was in the film's choice of neglecting a more comprehension explanation of what was going on, in favor of the Pearl Harbor and Doolittle raid scenes. I'm familiar enough with what actually happened, to know that an audience for this movie who came without that familiarity, would be getting a rather confused idea about the events. They rushed through some narrative which needed to be expanded and clarified.
I saw it today, and found it entertaining and somewhat informative. I did appreciate the pictures and epilogue info of some of the real participants. I found the CGI to be acceptable and even enjoyable.
What I really appreciate, is the service and sacrifice of so many. When I left the theater, I had a renewed appreciation of those involved in this conflict.
The critics have not been kind to Midway, by and large. But if this particular review is anything to go by, the problem is at least as much about the critics themselves as the movie they are critiquing.
Every character is basically just a Strong White Man Defending His Country
Imagine that, a war movie about an American victory that shows Americans defending their country. What's up with THAT?
Quote:
Dick Best (I CANNOT GET OVER THIS NAME)
I highly doubt that this reviewer is aware that this is the REAL NAME of a REAL PERSON who REALLY played a major role in winning the titular battle.
Quote:
Midway makes sure, though, that every American is provided moments of heroism, while the Japanese are mostly just there as screaming, mocking villains who jeer at the American pilots before they’re killed.
I don't recall any Japanese screaming, and the only mocking was one of the officers opining that Americans are not brave and that an enemy pilot's near-crash on his ship must have therefore been due to his controls having been disabled. This underestimation of American courage was VERY common on the part of the Japanese in the early stages of the war, though being brought face to face with the "Yanks" at Midway went a long way towards dispelling this type of condescension.
Quote:
But that too feels like part of the political game Midway is playing, this idea that the world was better back then because of men like Dick Best, men who were straightforward in their whiteness and their straightness and their Americanness.
Sure thing. The reason we remember Dick Best is because he was a straight white American, and he was straightforward about it. Helping to win the Battle of Midway apparently has nothing to do with why we should honor him, especially in a movie entitled Midway.
And to end on this "high" note, we have here a couple of comments from people who apparently are incapable of seeing anything beyond skin color and sex:
Quote:
I'm no longer watching WWII movies, American or British, that don't acknowledge how many Black and brown men fought alongside all the Heroic White Men to help them win the war, and how many white women and Black/brown/indigenous people worked at all government levels to aid in the war effort.
1. The movie showed the Chinese (you know, those non-white, non-Americans) as being very heroic in guiding Col. Doolittle to safety, at great cost to themselves.
2. Show me ONE black man who in actual fact contributed to America's victory at the Battle of Midway in any role beyond that of serving food in the mess hall. This is not a criticism of black men, but rather of the segregation that prevented them from participating in any meaningful way. Nevertheless, facts are facts . . . and the fact is that Midway was won by one single demographic group: white men. For those who are upset by this fact, suck it up and learn to deal with history as it was, not as you wish it had been.
Quote:
This looks so dumb.... I couldn’t even make it through the preview. Enough already of movies praising white men for being white men.
The greatest thing about white men is that they are white men. Oh, and that they won the Battle of Midway. That was pretty cool too.
I just saw Midway on BluRay. Loved it. I thought the CGI was great. I thought the story and acting was great.
Did the critics like it? Don’t know, don’t care. Was it absolutely, completely historically accurate in every detail? Don’t know, don’t care. Did they miss some of the scenes that were meticulously and tediously told in the 1976 movie? Don’t know, don’t care. Were the dive-bombers going in at a preposterous 75-90° angle? Don’t know, don’t care. Looked realistic to me.
Did they spend a lot of time on Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle raid? Yep. Guess what? Don’t care. Keep in mind folks, that gives the movie some historical context. Trying to appeal to a generation of millennials who have no idea what Pearl Harbor or the Doolittle raid was. You go into the kind of detail the 1976 movie went into and millennial’s eyes will glaze over and they’ll hit their phones. (Yep, that’s something moviemakers these days have to take into consideration.)
One thing I did learn (that I don’t remember beingdiscussed in the 1976 movie, although it’s been a while since I’ve seen it) is that Bull Halsey missed Midway because of a skin condition (although Nimitz says in the new movie it was Shingles and Wikipedia says it was Psoriasis). I had no idea Halsey missed Midway. So I learned something. Was it Shingles orPsoriasis? Don’t know, don’t care.
I also don’t see the point of the people at the beginning of the thread, piling on about how it “looked awful,” and “CGI sucks,” and “it looks like a comic book.” And they hadn’t even seen the movie! CGI is here folks. And it’s here to stay. And it’s getting better all the time. My advice to you: Learn to live with it. Or stop going to see movies.
I remember people whining about how historically inaccurate Titanic was when it came out. Was Titanic completely and historically accurate? Don’t know, don’t care. As far as I could tell, it got the basic facts right and it was a terrific move.
All in all, I thought Midway was VERY entertaining. When Dick Best was dive bombing the Japanese carriers, I really got the feeling of what it could have been like. Had me on the edge of my seat. Something else I learned: Dick Best was a true American hero. I didn’t get that from the 1976 movie.
More advice to folks who know a LOT about a particular subject: leave your fact books at home when you go to see a movie. If you go tosee a big Hollywood film expecting exacting historical accuracy, you’re going to be disappointed.
--
Last edited by Bill790; 02-25-2020 at 01:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
