the critics hate it. the audience likes it.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/midway_2019
shareYeah, trailer looks very same-same.
share
MovieChat Forums > Midway (2019) Discussion > the critics hate it. the audience likes ...
“Midway” chooses to stick to the facts and is thrilling from beginning to end. The main cast members are all real-life figures and there’s a tribute to each at the close.
It is superior to the 1976 movie because Roland Emmerich had the CGI technology to pull off the battle scenes which take place in & above the Pacific Ocean near the atoll of Midway, which is located a little over a thousand miles west of Hawaii. The flick successfully takes the viewer right into the midst of the fight on the water, in the air and under the water. It’s exciting, horrific and revelatory.
Stick to the facts?
LOL!
It barely touched on Nagumo's dilemma when they key scout plane failed to report on the NE leg. Then, it does report US ships, but fails to mention whether or not any carriers are present, forcing Nagumo to keep changing his tactics, & leading to the rearming of the strike group. Very little about the degree of sacrifice the torpedo bombers made in drawing the Japanese CAP low & leaving them vulnerable to the dive bombers. The losses of the TBD squadrons was on level with those of kamikazes later in the war.
On the US side, one would think Spruance was in overall command of the task force, when actually Fletcher was. Of course it was Spruance's decisions that led to the victory. Fletcher really played no significant role. But the the end, did anyone wonder why Halsey's was lionized, fifth star & all, but no fifth star for Spruance (also won another key victory at the battle of the Philippine Sea)? Perhaps because the key to Spruance's victories, as shown in Midway, was restraint. Congress limited the US Navy to four fleet admirals only. King, Leahy & Nimitz were obvious choices. The fourth was between Spruance & Halsey. & Halsey had better press (not to mention more support in Congress).
The title of this thread is ironic, inasmuch as sailors were said to love serving under Halsey, while Navy officers preferred Spruance....
I appreciate the erudite points. Filmmakers only have about two hours to tell their story -- in this case a four-day battle, as well as the build-up, which includes Pearl Harbor -- so they have to focus on the basics and omit the extraneous or whatever would prevent the story from being compelling.
I meant "stick to the facts" in the sense of the basic facts of the battle & set-up without throwing in a fictional love story à la "Pearl Harbor" (2001).
I thought it was great! Very impressive keeping all the story threads together. And, one of the few times in recent movie history where I was genuinely riveted to the film.
share