Midway (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

Curious. In what way is the ‘76 version better @Robert Crawford and @Colin Jacobson

it seems so dated by today’s standards to me. With all the unnecessary subplots, romance etc.

Caveat: I've not seen the 1976 version since I watched the DVD in 2001, so I'm basing my thoughts primarily on my review from back then.

The 1976 movie is no classic, but at least it develops the characters. The 2019 movie gives you the loosest of frameworks for the roles and that's it - you don't know anything about them beyond the basics, and all come across as war movie cliches.

And it's not like the 2019 is all war all the time - it spends a decent amount of space with the Best character's wife.

I just feel like the 2019 doesn't do anything but hit basics and as a result, we don't invest in the characters beyond basics.

Also, we spend way too much time with the events that led to Midway. A short summary would've sufficed.

The titular battle almost feels like an afterthought! The 1976 movie got into that domain much better, IIRC...

 

[Worth]

It's been 18 years - one would hope the visual effects have improved.

I just find it more and more difficult to suspend disbelief with a lot of CG. The CG here looks more like an "artist's rendering" of planes/ships than the real thing.

That's not an issue solely with "Midway" - it happens with a lot of films...

I think much of the problem isn't the CG per se, but the way it's "shot." The "camera" is in impossible places, which emphasizes that what we're seeing isn't real. If they tried to mimic the way a scene would be shot in real world - from the ground, from a helicopter, mounted to the plane etc. - the effects would probably be a lot more convincing than they often are.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Haven't seen it yet as it hasn't gotten to the screens here (southern Maryland), but this version has to be better than the 1976 version that was painful to watch. On the other hand, this one does have Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz, which is a real knee-slapper of a joke.

 

[dpippel]

I think much of the problem isn't the CG per se, but the way it's "shot." The "camera" is in impossible places, which emphasizes that what we're seeing isn't real. If they tried to mimic the way a scene would be shot in real world - from the ground, from a helicopter, mounted to the plane etc. - the effects would probably be a lot more convincing than they often are.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding a LOT of CG virtual camera work in modern film, Nick. IMO filmmakers use far too much spinning, swooping, flying virtual camera. It immediately makes me realize that what I'm seeing on-screen couldn't possibly be real. It's almost become a cliche (see Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit films for perfect examples of what I'm talking about). I don't have a problem with these techniques when they serve the story, but I think CGI, generally speaking, would have a lot more realism if this wasn't so extensively overused.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD.

 

[Chris Will]

One thing the 1976 movie has that this one will never be able to match is a great John Williams score! His "Midway March" and "Men of the Yorktown March" are among my favorites by Williams.

 

[Tino]

I think much of the problem isn't the CG per se, but the way it's "shot." The "camera" is in impossible places, which emphasizes that what we're seeing isn't real. If they tried to mimic the way a scene would be shot in real world - from the ground, from a helicopter, mounted to the plane etc. - the effects would probably be a lot more convincing than they often are.

I kinda disagree with this. The directors job is to make the film as exciting as he can. Not necessarily “ real”. By employing exaggerated angles and cgi not normally seen puts you in that scene in way conventional shots can’t.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'll spend my time doing what I like, thanks.

Now we're at the point where I'm deemed a movie hater because I disliked a poorly-reviewed film from a much-derided director?

Seriously?

I apologize if my comment came across as mean-spirited; I meant it as some lighthearted ribbing. I wasn't seriously suggesting you give up watching movies. I just can't remember the last movie you actually had positive things to say about.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think much of the problem isn't the CG per se, but the way it's "shot." The "camera" is in impossible places, which emphasizes that what we're seeing isn't real. If they tried to mimic the way a scene would be shot in real world - from the ground, from a helicopter, mounted to the plane etc. - the effects would probably be a lot more convincing than they often are.

Maybe. I still thought they had that "concept art" look even when the movie didn't choose those "creative" camera options...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I kinda disagree with this. The directors job is to make the film as exciting as he can. Not necessarily “ real”. By employing exaggerated angles and cgi not normally seen puts you in that scene in way conventional shots can’t.

But if those choices take the viewer out of the story, then they don't work.

Is it more "exciting" to see the bomb's POV? I guess, but it's so gimmicky that it becomes a distraction.

And didn't Michael Bay do that first?

It's easier to accept that kind of work in fantasy movies than reality-based stuff, IMO...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I apologize if my comment came across as mean-spirited; I meant it as some lighthearted ribbing. I wasn't seriously suggesting you give up watching movies. I just can't remember the last movie you actually had positive things to say about.

I don't always comment on the flicks I see theatrically. Of my last 5, I liked 2 - "FvF" and "Doctor Sleep" - while I thought 2 were flawed but interesting - "Terminator" and "Lighthouse".

Only "Midway" was a clunker.

I'm probably more likely to comment here on movies I don't like because I want to offer a contrast. Reviews here tend toward the happy happy joy joy side of the street, so I don't usually see a reason to join the club, but if I don't get the praise, I'm more likely to remark...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm probably more likely to comment here on movies I don't like because I want to offer a contrast. Reviews here tend toward the happy happy joy joy side of the street, so I don't usually see a reason to join the club, but if I don't get the praise, I'm more likely to remark...

Fair enough!

 

[benbess]

There's a Netflix series called Greatest Events of WWII in Colour, and episode 4 is on the Battle of Midway. Original footage (colorized) is combined with solid narration and interviews with experts, such as one of the authors of the acclaimed book telling the story from the Japanese side titled Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway.

 

[Tino]

There's a Netflix series called Greatest Events of WWII in Colour, and episode 4 is on the Battle of Midway. Original footage (colorized) is combined with solid narration and interviews with experts, such as one of the authors of the acclaimed book telling the story from the Japanese side titled Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway.

Just started watching this yesterday!

 

[YANG]

​

 

[Edwin-S]

This finally made it to my neck of the woods, so I wen to see it. It is a more traditional 50s-60s type of war movie, without the angst of characters ruminating on the horrors of war and how they don't want to be there.

It doesn't waste a.lot of time developing characters back stories, because who the characters are doesn't matter. All that matters is what they do in the battle.

It is an old-fashioned war movie created with a lot of modern technology. Frankly, I found it to be better than the original film.

 

[MTrotter]

I finally saw this a few days ago and there were only five people in the theater. I'd agree with Edwin about the character development, which to me was minimal in the beginning, but did get better as it went along. I thought the aerial action was really well done. I also thought they did a little better job(than the earlier Midway) of bringing out the sense of dread and urgency that gripped the country after the Pearl Harbor attack. I liked the way they began the story even before Pearl Harbor and traced the arc of the conflict between the US and Japan as it lead up to all out war.

 

[MartinP.]

I have not seen this yet, but I will at some point. I'm aware of it's poor reviews. In that vein, this is my favorite quote from one of them: "Midway's main source of intrigue centered around whatever New Jersey-ese accent British actor Ed Skrein is attempting as dive bomber Richard Best." LOL!

 

[Tino]

I have not seen this yet, but I will at some point. I'm aware of it's poor reviews. In that vein, this is my favorite quote from one of them: "Midway's main source of intrigue centered around whatever New Jersey-ese accent British actor Ed Skrein is attempting as dive bomber Richard Best." LOL!

The reviews may have been weak but audiences that have seen it apparently loved it.

Critics Consensus

Midway revisits a well-known story with modern special effects and a more balanced point of view, but its screenplay isn't quite ready for battle.

43%
TOMATOMETER
Total Count: 138
92%
AUDIENCE SCORE
Verified Ratings: 11,494