Jump to content


Photo

Movies


  • Please log in to reply
7435 replies to this topic

#7301 NickM

NickM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,280 posts

Posted 10 November 2019 - 2139 PM

Just got back from Midway.  It's OK.  It felt a great deal like a standard recounting of events-style war movie.  Acting was passable, CGI had that glossy look of B-level work, probably because the budget was comparably low for a movie with tons and tones of  CGI.  It didn't dehumanize the Japanese and gave them a few solid moments of character work, especially Yamamoto and Nagumo.  Personally, I thought the way they did it was probably the right choice, you go from 1937 through Pearl Harbor to Coral Sea to Midway.  Without that I suspect most people would need five minutes of a title crawl to fill them in so they understood the battle.  It also subtly poked holes in a few pieces of the mythology (Torpedo 8 dragging down the fighters, etc.).  Several off the battle scenes were actually fairly exciting.  It also doesn't show everything moment by moment so you don't see Yorktown being hit and such things.  I also like how it showed the attack of the Nautilus and how it drew the destroyer behind instead of just showing the trailing destroyer.  

 

Personally, anyone who thinks its worse than Pearl Harbor probably hasn't watched that movie in a long time from where I'm at.  No love story, minimal jingoistic BS, and while CGI they are the right planes and ships. The Pearl Harbor attack is both more condensed and vastly more watchable.   They do put small bombs on the Devastators. . .  

 

It's not great but it's solidly OK.  I suspect part of the problem is that it's almost more of a docudrama; the actors are there to propel the plot and not a whole hell of a lot else.  

It had some scenes of Zekes chasing Dauntlesses thru mountain passes--did the movie show anything about the early airstrikes that went from Pt Moresby to hit Lae/Salamaua (I think?)?


  • 0

#7302 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,219 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 1102 AM

Coverage of pre Midway events on the screen is an interesting approach, and one that appears to have worked. 1937 implies a Sino Japanese War angle, which sounds interesting as well.

Looking forward to it a little more than I was before.
  • 0

#7303 nitflegal

nitflegal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,778 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 1121 AM

It touches on the war with China a little. The prologue in 1937 is a naval attache meeting with Yamamoto and gently covers the need for oil in Japan and the repercussions if Japan is puched against the wall. There are a couple of scenes with Doolittle in China that give some background on the situation in China.

I find myself appreciating the movie more as I think about it simply because it aims to be a basic and fairly solid recounting of the events and pulls it off competently. Considering what an agenda laden mess it could have been I'm rather grateful they aimed for what they did.

For what its worth, my wife and eldest daughter really liked it and they have been subjected to more documentaries and impromptu WW2 discussions than any family member probably should be. . .
  • 0

#7304 nitflegal

nitflegal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,778 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 1126 AM

As an aside, I really need to logon via a pc. I lose track of stupid spelling errors when posting from my phone. . .
  • 0

#7305 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,977 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 1153 AM

posting from phone or computer the thought police at Google report you every time you mention one of the Japanese carriers sunk at Midway because it tags you as a deplorable Trump supporter who wants to Keep America Great Again!


  • 0

#7306 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,357 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0346 AM

I haven't watched the Midway movie and I won't be paying to watch it anytime soon (or ever at all). That said, given a ton of money, the following is my Vision™ of a movie on the Battle of Midway -

 

*all the studio logos etc is shown, like usual*

 

*black screen*

 

*words appear*

 

"On 7 December 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. It sunk X ships including Z-number of battleships."

 

*text fades out*

 

"Fortunately, the US Navy's carriers were not at Pearl Harbor."

 

*text fades out*

 

*black screen gives way to a graphic map of the Pacific, showing big red arrows of Japanese campaigns*

 

"The Empire launches a series of campaigns. Malaya. Singapore. The Philippine Islands. All fall in the face of the Japanese war machine."

 

*map focuses on the Coral Sea*

 

"But not all goes well for the Empire."

 

*short montage depicting the Battle of the Coral Sea is shown*

 

"The Empire feels its first sting in the Battle of the Coral Sea. While the US Navy loses an aircraft carrier, the USS Lexington, it showed that the United States was not out of the fight."

 

*text fades out*

 

"The Battle of the Coral Sea taught the Empire what must be done to dominate the Pacific."

 

*text fades out*

 

"The carriers of the US Navy must be destroyed in one decisive battle."

 

*text fades out*

 

*scene opens with carrier operations*

 

*accurate portrayal of the battle takes place in the next 110 minutes*

 

No romance. No "stirring portrayals of patriotism." No drama. Just show both sides preparing for the battle, doing battle, and disengaging.


  • 0

#7307 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0430 AM

Never happen Tomas. Because, you know, audiences are not smart enough to grasp facts without chiselling them in their forehead. Apparently.


  • 0

#7308 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0809 AM

Has anyone seen this?


  • 0

#7309 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,518 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0927 AM

The CGI in 'Midway' was all about the wow factor, because strictly accurate portrayal of events is spread out and boring to many.  That said, accurate depictions of historical events is important to me.

Impossible science fiction?  Go for it!! In that case, it adds to the fun. :)


  • 0

#7310 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0952 AM

They managed it in 'The Dambusters'. The real problem I think is that obsession with CGI weds them in the reality of their imagination, rather than what is possible. Its possible to make reality look exciting, without being over the top.

 

OTOH, its not going to be easy to find a flying Devastator, so....


  • 0

#7311 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,567 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1026 AM

I really liked the dogfights in Dunkirk. Very slow, noisy and underwhelming compared to the Star Wars kind of stuff we are used to. And I suspect much closer to the real thing.
  • 0

#7312 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1032 AM

Yeah, it was very well done.

 

I still think Battle of Britain takes the cake for the best air combat scenes, with all due respect to Top Gun. Mind you, they had to declare much of the airspace over Southeast England off limits so they could film it.

 


  • 0

#7313 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,090 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1221 PM

Has anyone seen this?

Yes.
Can not say I liked it. It may have something to do with me not knowing much about the Henries and Dauphenes.
As far as films go, "Outlaw King" was much better imo.
  • 0

#7314 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,219 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1728 PM

"The carriers of the US Navy must be destroyed in one decisive battle."

 

That movie pitch nailed it.

 

I can picture Darryl Zanuck smoking a cigar, and saying "make the picture" afterward.


  • 0

#7315 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,567 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1739 PM

Yeah, it was very well done.

 

I still think Battle of Britain takes the cake for the best air combat scenes, with all due respect to Top Gun. Mind you, they had to declare much of the airspace over Southeast England off limits so they could film it.

 

Spain too.  This is Fuenterrabia (France can be seen across the bay), a couple of miles from where I was born.

 


Edited by Mikel2, 12 November 2019 - 1743 PM.

  • 0

#7316 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 13 November 2019 - 0302 AM

Is that right? I never would have guessed. :) I guess that makes sense in that a good half of the aircraft in the film belonged to the Spanish Air Force.

 

 

 

Has anyone seen this?

Yes.
Can not say I liked it. It may have something to do with me not knowing much about the Henries and Dauphenes.
As far as films go, "Outlaw King" was much better imo.

 

 

I was afraid that would be the case. From what ive heard of it, they have been pretty cavalier with the history, even allowing for the fact its based on Shakespere's Henry V which took a few liberties with the reality anyway.

 

Not to worry, at least Ive got this version to console me.


  • 0

#7317 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,090 posts

Posted 13 November 2019 - 0642 AM

"The King" definately shows more, and better looking, armor, and fighting than Branagh. Ben Mendehlson and Sean Harris are also good.
But when I see the trailer, it looks much better than the finished product.
  • 0

#7318 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 13 November 2019 - 0644 AM

Its a shame, its about time we had a good movie about the hundred years war. In truth, a TV series like the Crown would probably be a better approach than a single film.


  • 0

#7319 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,671 posts

Posted 13 November 2019 - 0933 AM

Its a shame, its about time we had a good movie about the hundred years war. In truth, a TV series like the Crown would probably be a better approach than a single film.

 

 

Exactly 116 episodes!

 

 

Wasn't there the armagnac-burgundy war at the same time?


  • 0

#7320 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,709 posts

Posted 13 November 2019 - 1010 AM

 

Its a shame, its about time we had a good movie about the hundred years war. In truth, a TV series like the Crown would probably be a better approach than a single film.

 

 

Exactly 116 episodes!

 

 

Wasn't there the armagnac-burgundy war at the same time?

 

 

Yes, I believe there was, around the same time Henry went to Hafleur.

 

Apparently the French have setup a museum at Agincourt to offset the negative publicity from 600 years of English propaganda, and are hopping mad about the film. So I guess its filled a useful function at least. :)


  • 0