Warbird Information Exchange

Saw "Midway" this evening. My impressions, posted on the WIX Facebook thread:

It was OK. Certainly nowhere near as bad as Pearl Harbor, but nothing to write home about. Dialogue was cheesy and characters shallow, but the actors did a decent job. CGI could have been better..the animators (and director) should have spent more time studying actual airplanes and looking at original archive footage. To me, the planes either seemed to be whipping around and maneuvering way too fast, or were way too bunched up and moving far too slow. It was nice to see them make an effort to get mostly the correct types and markings for a change (the B-26 Marauders were a nice surprise.) Now, I never served in uniform, so this may be way off base, but I just didn't get the overall feel that these guys were in the military..they just didn't seem to act or talk like members of a military organization. But again, that's just a personal impression. Finally, I know it's a delicate balance trying to make a historical/militay movie that manages to explain things without getting bogged down in exposition, but for the average person who doesn't know much of the history, the movie made it hard to follow what was going on from a tactical perspective. For all its faults, I think the 1976 "Midway" did a much better job laying out the cat-and-mouse game the two forces were playing. I first saw that one in the theater when it came out, and even as a 12-year-old who knew nothing about the battle, I had no trouble following what was going on. But again, today's audiences would be bored to tears by a movie like that. Overall, it was reasonably entertaining, and I didn't notice any really egregious errors. There are plenty of little things I could nit-pick, but at the end of the day it's just a movie. It's probably a bit too shallow for us enthusiasts, but it wasn't really intended for us..it was aimed at a mass audience who don't really know or care about the historical and technical minutiae. Hopefully will inspire at least some viewers to take an interest in the history and dig deeper.

Disclaimer: these are just the impressions of a casual warbird enthusiast/model builder. Veterans and folks actually in aviation would probably have their own takes on the movie, which is just fine.

SN

I saw the movie tonight and I was pleasantly surprised. Based on the cheesy CGI from the movie trailer, I had very low expectations. Overall, I thought it was a very good movie and very entertaining.

Some random thoughts about the movie:

1) The movie had a very serious dramatic tone - no humor and no underlying "love story".

2) The script was well written (though inaccurate at times) and it kept my attention throughout.

3) The CGI was a mixed bag. There were some scenes in the movie where I thought it could easily pass for real life. Some of the detail in the carrier scenes early on in the film were quite visually stunning. But yet, there were other parts that looked like they took "the cheap route" by going across the street to ILM's low budget competitor.

4) No crappy "romantic" interludes or "love storys" in this movie. Yes, there were a few woman who played pilots' wives portrayed, but their roles were support only and ancillary to the main storyline. The women were definitely not the main focus. In other words, this is a "normal" movie without an underlying cheesy "romcom" theme.

5) There were a few technical inaccuracies, including markings, insignias and paint jobs on the various aircraft on both the Japanese and American sides. I only know this because of my warbird knowledge. To the average movie-goer, they would have been none the wiser.

6) The main historical theme of the movie was fairly accurate in the grand scheme of things. Certain details and micro-storylines have "dramatic license" added to keep the viewers' attention. I don't think that detracted from the movie however, especially if one viewed this movie from a non-historian viewpoint. If one is going to make a dramatic movie such as this, some historical concessions have to be made in order to keep the viewer entertained.

7) Some of the aircraft on both sides were equipped with anti-gravity devices that allowed them to defy physics. There were several scenes where the aircraft flew normally, but many more where they did not.

8. Some of the shots were way, way too busy and had literally over 100 moving elements within the frames to depict hectic, frantic action scenes. Again, Hollywood artistic license at play. Apparently movie producers have learned nothing since "Pearl Harbor" was made almost 20 years ago. Remember, the same guy who made "Independence Day", also made "Midway".

9) Overall, I thought it displayed a respectful theme and attitude towards our Veterans and history. It was a Veteran positive movie even though it still suffers from some of the same issues of previous war movies.

10) Even though this suffered from many historical inaccuracies, I thought the difference was night and day from "Pearl Harbor". "Pearl Harbor" was extremely cheesy and completely disrespectful to our Veterans, in my opinion. I thought "Midway" was much more respectful, though at times, inaccurate.

Summary:

If you go into this movie with no preconceived notions about history or Hollywood's long past of historical inaccuracies in war movies and just want to be entertained, I think you will be pleased. It was very enjoyable to me and I would go see it again.

If you go into this movie with an eye toward historical accuracy and expect a "docu-drama" type movie in the vein of "Tora, Tora, Tora", you will be disappointed.

Overall, I give it a "thumbs up".

Thanks OD and others for your reviews. Nice to hear from folks that actually went.

I think I will give it a shot on the big screen. I will promise to Mrs. San Diego89 not to rivet count and just enjoy it for what it is.

Enjoying it for what it is, is fine. Got no problems. Proclaiming it for what it isn't is what bothers me. Call it "Carrier Attack" or "Dive Bomber" or something else but not "Midway" .... because it's not Midway.

FWIW, If I'm going to proclaim to be an advocate of Historical facts, then I'm going to be an advocate for portraying History factually. But that's just me.

Anyone else who has other thoughts or doesn't care one way or the other is by all means entitled to it all day long. But that's not me.

2 cents

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

Just saw it last night - no regrets on the money spent but it’s not a movie like “The Longest Day” that I’ll watch over and over. Some thoughts:

Lots of CGI SBD’s, some Devastators, and I think I even saw a flight of Vindicators (L-188 thought so too), but not a single Wildcat on the ships or on Midway. Plenty of Zeroes on the Japanese side. Curious, is all.

For those who stay throughout the credits to look for familiar names, the only one we recognized was Craig Hosking. Not sure what his job was since I don’t remember any real planes. Presumably he was there to say, “wait a minute, planes can’t do that”. IMO, he could have piped up a bit more frequently.

Just my cent-and-a-half.

_________________
Chris

Of all the war movies in the last 20 or so years, this was actually one of the more accurate ones (minus the CGI crap).

But it helps to understand the perspective that they chose to tell it through. It is essentially a portrayal of the buildup to the Battle of Midway and battle itself as seen from the perspective of the Enterprise Air Group, and specifically VB-6 and VS-6. And I suspect they chose those units to focus on since there at a lot of stories including two autobiographies (Dickinson and Dusty Kleiss).

In that light, I don't think it was an inaccurate movie at all. The characters and stories (with the obvious exception of the two dead stick carrier landings) were real.

Haven't seen it yet but it's hard to believe there are no Wildcats? So no Jimmy Thatch and no mention of the Hornet Air Group's flight to nowhere and losing all their fighters? Nothing about the slaughter of the Brewster Buffaloes ? Or the two other survivors of Torpedo 8 ??

If this movie makes people dig deeper about the battle of Midway then perhaps it will serve a purpose.

Again, it helps to understand that it is told through the perspective of the pilots of VB-6/VS-6. The viewer is made aware of Yorktown and Hornet, but very little is shown from their perspective. Not sure why they left out any mention of fighters though.

I'm waiting for "Ford vs Ferrari". I've got all the books.

Just my guess, putting in the fighters would mean a lot more CGI which would increase the cost of the film.Their main concern is profit, not accuracy.I'm going to see it tomorrow because my daughter(she's 24) wants to take me, otherwise I probably wouldn't go.A daddy/daughter day is always good.

Saw it today and thought it was a well done movie. It's not perfect...the acting was a little "cheesy"...but overall, well worth the ticket price. I thought the flying scenes, even though they were CGI, were spectacular. The mini-bios of the main characters at the end was a nice touch. If my father was still alive, he would have loved it.

_________________
"Everyone wants to live here (New Jersey), evidenced by the fact that it has the highest population per capita in the U.S..."

I saw it today.
Turns out, it wasn’t too bad. It was clearly filmed in a studio with lighting that didn’t look right for outdoors, and there were some historical issues with vehicles, airplanes and personal equipment (post war mermite cans in the John Ford scenes and several '43/later wheeled vehicles really stuck out for me), but generally it wasn’t too bad. I think they did a great job of how it must have looked for the dive bombers attacking the Japanese carriers.
I consider the ticket price as money decently spent.

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)

I too was expecting more about Gay and VT-8. In a “all gave some” story, They “gave all”. I was downright mad for part of the movie.

Went last night with a Marine buddy and we both agreed it was a good movie worth the admission price.
There are a couple scenes where it looked the American or Japanese planes had a “1,000 Plane Raid” but the detail on the Dauntlesses and Devastatirs is fantastic. I’m a huge Jimmy Doolittle fan and that part of the movie alone made it worthwhile for me.
They got a couple things wrong of course, but so much of it looked really great. When was the last time a movie was made that had B-26 Marauders in it?

Also, the movie brought to my attention that we need to get the rest of the Dauntlesses and Wildcats out of Lake Michigan and into museums and private hands.