Midway (2019) Film Thoughts

[Hedeby]

So have just got around to watching the 2019 Battle of Midway film and wondered what the rest of you thought about it?

Personally found it extremely watchable throughout and it seemed to be pretty good historically, obviously loads of CGI but seemed to work pretty well, big bonus (unlike Pearl Harbour) is that we don’t have a two hour love story getting in the way of the action. Anyone who hasn’t seen it should give it a go, good use of a couple of comfortable hours.

What does anyone else think?

[Baxter]

I will probably watch it again. Not very memorable but reasonable entertainment. I do wish they would make one about the raids on Cuxhaven in WWI.

[camelbeagle]

Overall I thought it was good. I picked it up and 1917 and added them to my personal movie collection.

[gully_raker]

Have not seen it yet. Seems to have dropped off my Radar. Will have to check out JB Hi Fi.
How did it compare with the original Movie?

[Stumptonian]

I got it from Amazon and watched it in early June on very close to the anniversary date.
I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
CGI but that seems to be what you get these days.

As Hedeby pointed out

big bonus (unlike Pearl Harbour) is that we don’t have a two hour love story getting in the way of the action.

Been over 40 years since I saw the original, Baz.
I seem to recall Tora! Tora! Tora! outtakes and colourized original war film, as well as a romantic side-line.
From what I remember, I think this one is better, but maybe I should try the 1976 version again.
I see it's pretty cheap on Amazon.

On another note, I think I need to get my Tora! Tora! Tora! out of shrinkwrap ...

[Jager]

From my posting on the other thread:
Just got back from seeing Midway. The acting was good, if the lines given were sometimes a bit
stinted and cliche. The attention to period was good to very good.
The action was, charitably, cinematic; plane and ships flew/sailed way too close, and the action looked like a video game. Understandable today, unfortunately.
The storyline kept quite well to history; again, understandable compressions of the timelines, and what people would have known and said. Nothing too jarring. Pluses for having Admiral Halsey relieved just before the battle with shingles (written sources say severe dermatitis), and Best leading 3 SBD's of Bombing 6 to the Akagi after McKlusky lead both bombing 6 and scouting 6 at the Kaga.
All in all, a good war movie. Probably re-watchable too.

Minor personal quibbles:
Zeros stafing battleships, and causing huge explosions.
Where were all our Wildcats! Not a single one.
The Japanese 2-engined bombers had twin-tails, so must have been meant to be Nells (they weren't very recognizable on screen), but they should have been (at least in the Marshal Island attacks) Bettys, with single tails.
They had B-26s attacking from Midway (Yah!), but way too many of them, and doing level bombing, not torpedo bombing. The near-miss on the Akagi's bridge would have been better from sealevel, and the strafing run by the Susie-Q on the same was surely worth 30-45 seconds of CGA time.
Karl

[gully_raker]

I watched the recent Midway movie a couple of days ago & then watched the old original one last night & I must say that apart from the unnecessary "love story" & the fictional Capt Garth (Charlton Heston) I thought the Non CGI action was far better as most of it was from actual war footage.
I also thought the way it showed the thinking from the Japanese side fleshed out the story.
Would be interested to hear anyone else's opinion if you re watch the original & compare!

[Naharaht]

I have watched Midway on dvd both the movie itself and the extras. It is certainly a watchable war movie and I feel that it gives a good representation of the parts played by the featured characters but it does not include everything that happened during the battle, which would have required a much longer film. I think that the actors were well chosen for their roles. The extras revealed that they built non-flying replicas of a Dauntless and a Devastator from scratch to use on set, which I hope have found a home in a museum somewhere, but they borrowed a real flying Mitchell bomber, which explains why the Doolittle Raider aircraft were the wrong mark with the dorsal turret further forward.

I think that a veteran fighter pilot from the battle would be disappointed that the Wildcats were not even mentioned. There was no explanation for that in the director's commentary. The only reference to fighters was when he said that Wade McClusky started as a fighter pilot. The picture did have a smaller budget than was originally envisaged, which might go some way to explain why.

Both this film and the Charleton Heston one have their good and bad points but I am happy to own both to complement each other.