Midway - The Curse of Emptiness | Anatomy Of A Failure

[@Jemoto-wn3nw]

It makes sense that the sailors just stare at it because that’s what happened at Pearl Harbor

[@robinsattahip6269]

Yes, I wished it had not re-done the Pearl Harbor attack for the 1000th time, but it was still excellent.

[@gregghanson6095]

it makes no sense that the actors didn't act.

[@robinsattahip6269]

@@gregghanson6095 Great movie and I knew a lot about the Midway battle going in, but never heard of any of the actors anyway. Cagney is dead, Eastwood and Hackman are too old, and that was the end of important actors.

[@mafiacat88]

Yeah but it's worth pointing it out as a flaw because of the medium. If it was a documentary, then yeah they should be just standing there-as is historically correct. But this being a action movie makes things different. Rather than showing what happened it should instead try to convey the feeling of it happening. Audiences have certain expectations, and even if those expectations are not realistic, things feel fake if they aren't fulfilled. It's like how movies in space should have pretty much no sound if they were being realistic, but that would make them feel staged, so that muffled sound is added. By making the movie less realistic it's making things more immersive, and therefore makes it feel *more* realistic. In this case people don't act rationally in extreme situations, or if they don't have the information we have (in this case that it's the japanese) they don't act how we would. So we as watchers are shown danger-the planes-and we expect the people in the movie to react to the danger, that's what makes it feel dangerous. Even if it's realistic, having no reaction from those guys feels fake, and kind of kills the feeling off danger in the scene as a whole.

[@Jemoto-wn3nw]

only problem with the movie is you kind of have to know a bit about this time in history to fully enjoy it

[@coverart4229]

Midway seems to have been made for the WWII nerds and historians in mind. A lot of it was historically accurate, and it seemed to be caring more about showing the accurate war story rather then a generic action film. In that way, I say it was successful. The people who wanted to see the movie, saw it. Those who might not be interested, weren't. Yes it cost money for the company, but to those of us who wanted a movie like this, it was worth it.

[@zahylon5993]

exactly my thought. I love history about the pacific war...so this movie was pure fanservice to me because I already knew most of it. But for anyone else, it was a boring hell.

[@changleon7441]

Yeah i had a great time in the theaters seeing this great battle unfold. It’s not about characters, or any specific events. Things don’t happen because they logically should happen. This is especially true in the battle of midway, where the two sides are all guessing. THINGS JUST HAPPEN, and it doesn’t always follow a complete character arc, or have a satisfying plot. It HAPPENS, and that’s how it is. Because of the confusion, there are a lot of parts in Midway when both sides are not making any real progress because they’re guessing, but I’m really glad the director chose to put it in instead of cutting it out. You can take this part of history as an outline to create something unique, like Dunkirk, or you can tell it as it is, like Midway. And in general, a film is just an mp4 file. You can do whatever you want with it. In this case, not having a tight plot and polished characters are completely acceptable, so I don’t think it should be automatically judged for just because it doesn’t check these boxes.

[@trevoryin]

The problem is that movie crammed Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Doolittle Raid and Midway all together. A little bit here and there, nothing in detail. Not much space to tell the story of the people involve. I like history and I know the story. This movie is like overall view of the history I already know...

[@slappy8941]

Rather then? Then what? What happened then?

[@sirboomsalot4902]

I agree, I loved it has it showed a bunch of stuff I didn’t think it would (like the B-26 Maurader almost hitting the carrier). And honestly, I think that’s what historical films should do. Why would someone who doesn’t have any interest in history see a historical movie?

[@Dolotraveller]

"He looked at the attack for 10 seconds before screaming INCOMING!" That's more realistic. You don't see enemies blasting navy ships on the regular. You definitely go through stages of disbelief and shock before you can realize what you are seeing is real. Then to find the proper words to say to let everyone know of the incoming danger.

[@filmandfirearms]

Considering they didn't see it coming at all, it would be like if sailors today suddenly saw Russian SU's flying towards them. They first had to realize it was an attack, which immediately posed the questions of why Japan was attacking them before they could start to really grasp what was happening and respond accordingly

[@krispybananaz]

Lol really? How many sneak attacks have you lived through to know that 😂 and even if that’s realistic that’s just bad story telling.

[@Dolotraveller]

@@krispybananaz I've been ambushed, and that's a surreal experience. I can't imagine being ambushed on friendly territory. Imagine being in a bar and some random person you've never met punches you in the back of the head. Are you instantly going to know what's going on? Or are you instantly going to snap into action?

[@koeyguilbeau443]

@@Dolotraveller while this movie sucks, I do agree with you

[@tglake2894]

I swear if people made Saving Private Ryan today they'd say Tom Hanks being shell shocked and staring around Omaha Beach in that scene was unrealistic and the movie was bad because of it haha

[@ryancallsin]

Simple answer: no one wants to watch a PG-13 war movie. “Aw heck! I’m hit! Gosh darn it, I’m goin’ down!!!”

[@peterschadenberg9045]

You seem to live in a universe where Dunkirk, War Horse, or Wonder Woman does not exist.

[@doritochipgamer474]

Dunkirk and War Horse were great

[@austinryan9382]

Real war movies a gruesome and unforgiving! Rated R is a must... lol @ Warhorse and Wonderwomen!

[@doritochipgamer474]

Austin Ryan I totally understand you. The brutal ones capture the realism of war. I was just saying that not all pg-13 war films are bad.

[@AnnaDraconida]

@@austinryan9382 WW was a comic book movie not a war film and Warhorse was an "animal movie", so yeah

[@austingx8295]

So as a history nerd, I loved this movie, recognizing characters and thinking, “Hey that looks like Nimitz.” and then hearing his name made me happy.

[@ph89787]

I actually don’t mind Woody Harrelson’s portrayal.

[@Sshooter444]

Too bad he's the only one that they made look like the real person

[@albay543]

Based

[@g.d.graham2446]

I could see that

[@MrAlcidas]

Yup. Woody Harrelson looks a lot more like Nimitz than Henry Fonda did in the 1970s version.

[@gustavomazonave8536]

Im military myself. I watched this movie feeling every tension the characters were feeling. Hell, half the characters died in the movie! And i can say i really cared about the main protagonist. Well, i know it isnt a movie for everyone, but i really liked the idea of making an historical accurate movie like this!

[@vlad78th]

But it's not even historically accurate.

[@ryannoblec.2599]

@@vlad78th Its more historically accurate than that shitty "Pearl Harbor" with Ben Affleck

[@trinalgalaxy5943]

My main issue was the movie was more interested in hitting the events rather than telling the story. the story of the Battle of Midway is what makes it so interesting. Events including Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, even the Doolittle raid, not just because they were the cause of the battle, but also because they were the reason it was fought the way it was. Without Pearl Harbor or the loss of the Lexington, you dont know why Midway was do or die for the american navy at that stage of the war. instead, Midway moved so fast that you get glimpses of battleship row interrupting 2 characters we will never see again. we get a glimpse of a carrier burning (multiple times) without showing us why it happened (done very egregiously with Yorktown) or why it matters (Lexington). even the attack on the island/ship dont give even a remote clue as to the grander picture of what was happening? is it a fighting retreat? are we stalemated? are the americans pushing the attack? why is this battle important to the story of midway? none of these questions are answered unless you KNOW what King, Nimitz, and Halsey were doing and their strategy. The only event they spend even a second glimpsing that big picture was the Doolittle Raid where it is only to tell that it was justification for the next major offensive action by the Japanese Navy.

[@michaelusswisconsin6002]

@@vlad78th more historically accurate than Pearl Harbor. And it did had historically accurate scenes like how the bombers found the carriers and how USS Nautilus was part of that whole event.

[@MonsieurDeVeteran]

@@vlad78th it is VERY historically accurate... go and watch from the channel History Buffs his 2 videos where he disects the movie... hell, even that scene where the guy jumps into a parked plane on the carrier and shoots down the enemy plane was REAL! It wasn't some Holliwood BS, it was actually real! Only "innacuracy" was that the guy was so scared about what he did, that when someone told him that admiral wants to see him, he ran away and hid somewhere, so people had to find him and drag him to the admiral :))) where, again, he was promoted.

[@ryuman757]

Plot twist: The main characters are the events themselves, and all the humans are just side characters, lol.

[@wesch6354]

I was going to say something similar. He says there were no established characters on midway to care about. But the movie spends a decent amount of time before hand saying the Japanese are planning on attacking the island. Which establishes the island and the battle its self as a character sort of.

[@rsacchi100]

@@wesch6354 I think you and ryuman757 are hitting on an interesting point. In fiction Luke Skywalker & company would all be at every venue, drive every type of vehicle, and sink all 4 carriers and avert the destruction of the U.S. carriers right in the nick of time. Real life battles are much more complicated. Individual soldiers and sailors normally have cameo appearances. That is a problem for film makers who make films about historic battles.

[@TubeTopics]

Yep, I thought the same. The war was about many people, not just a few and I guess that was the point of the film.

[@ryuman757]

@carlos Rivas Figure what you said would be more directed to the person who made the video 🤣 We're the ones trying to make sense of how the movie was done in respect to what the OP was talking about with the movie not caring about the characters.

[@n.d.m.515]

@carlos Rivas I wasn't invested in the movie the first time. Lots of cool fight scenes, but no personality. If I stopped at the one view I would agree with this video. The second time I saw it was more enjoyable. This time I could pay less attention to the spectacle and focus on the characters. They are there and now memorable. A huge problem for viewers is this isn't a character study. It's a retelling of an actual set of events with real people. Personality depictions were subtle. This is not Pearl Harbor the movie.

[@diraska]

History Nerd Pretension Incoming!!! During the actual attack on Pearl Harbor, there are multiple accounts of many people responding like they did in the movie. More than one soldier/sailor said something like "jesus christ! This Training Exercise has screwed up!" Or "This Training Exercise went bad quick!" or seeing the bombs underneath the planes remarked that someone made a mistake and put real bombs on during a Training Exercise. Moral of the story, the movie's depiction is fairly on point (bad acting aside) Sailors really did stare dumbly at the oncoming planes even after explosions and bullet fire. No one, and I mean no one, had an easy time catching on to the fact that the Japanese Navy had just snuck up on the main US Navy base and just declared war. By bombing them. End History Nerd Pretension.

[@michaelwills1926]

Derek Koshinski totally concur. 👍🏼

[@mathewhex7045]

Oh yeah I absolutely agree, many under thirty don't know a lot of this because it's not taught in school consistently anymore. My girlfriend did not know who goebbels was and I got kind of pissed off not at her but the failure of her system to pass on such basic god damn information.

[@EstellammaSS]

they could have expanded upon the care-free attitude of the US sailors more. Which would make the scene a lot better. There are ways to present a boring thing in an interesting way, the movie just fails to deliver

[@fraztov]

Agreed 100%

[@TankUni]

I stopped watching when Filimento criticized the film for showing crew not believing what was happening and not reacting straight-away. If he got that so wrong out of the gate, why continue.

[@barbarossavr]

Honestly I like how you brought up Dunkirk in the beginning because they're opposites, but not for the way you meant. Midway keeps to historical accuracy but isn't that good of a story whilst Dunkirk isn't historically accurate at all but sorta has a decent story (I can't get over the fact that in Dunkirk they keep saying there are 300,000 men on the beach and almost straight after, a shot shows that they beach us virtually empty lmao)

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Nah Screw that claim entirely as Dunkirk WAS "historically accurate" for the most part of the movie. That's a horrible claim to make when all the time and effort put into it's historical context of the film so saying it's "Dunkirk isn't historically accurate at all" is just yes the whole "300,000" claim was jarring because that clearly wasn't showcased in the beach at all as it was near empty when it was filled WAY more than that (along side with the dunkirk town needing to be bombed and trashed around from all the warfare happening around them but it still looked amazing as it was actually filmed on set beautifully shot and filmed) but that issue doesn't take away from all the other historical accurate great assets to the film as a whole and you're not proving anything at all when saying the movie isn't "historically accurate at all", because it IS and VERY much in ALOT of areas and for MOST of the entirety of the film's runtime. And Dunkirk's story wasn't just "sorta has a decent story" as that's just wrong and untrue. Dunkirk's plot and story was a simple story but told in great way from the fantastic cinematic filmmaking because Dunkirk actually SUCCEEDS in it's survival thriller concept entirely which makes it a fantastic cinematic film and one of the best war movies around.

[@kbanghart]

As far as the beach scene I just figured all the soldiers were out of sight from the camera

[@bocahdongo7769]

It's just the first (or maybe several times) the Nolan decision by not using CGI backfired horribly. Now, either you guys defend Nolan or History, pick your poison.

[@aznthy]

you need pills

[@JjackVideo]

I don't disagree with anything you said in this video, but as a WW2 nerd having read about the Battle of Midway for decades it was great with a visualization of the attack. You're right about the fact that we don't care about the individual soldiers, but they managed to give a great overview of a messy engagement. Call it a guilty pleasure of mine.

[@abdoel.effendy]

Yep, this film was made for specific audience and it failed because of it. The problem is having such narrow audience wouldn't help to getting those 9 digits budget back. I watched this when it was come out with my friend, and to be honest i'm napping in middle of movie while my friend had binge watching it.

[@LuchesChan]

You know, as a fellow history nerd, the moment I saw them making this film, I personally felt that the filmmakers shall have just follow it from the POV of the crews of USS Yorktown. From the rush and repairs from the Battle of Coral Sea, to it's eventual sinking. That will make quite an epic story.

[@Spider-Too-Too]

it's an awesome history film

[@eugene12310mobile]

@@abdoel.effendy you see Rolland Emmerich isn't even caring about if its gonna make a buck back. He produced this film all on his own, he is a history buff and this is his love letter to it.

[@revvingnoodle7192]

With a war as massive as the pacific war, it is just too difficult to talk about a specific character, but i really enjoyed it as it did refer to historical events of significance, also helped that the wrecks of Kaga and Akagi have been found before the movie was released

[@nicksouthwell9393]

At least it didn’t turn a national tragedy into a fricken love story like “Pearl Harbor”. That movie was terrible! Midway at least wasn’t fake.

[@stephensdygert7600]

Midway is a masterpiece. Made in the style of Tora×3

[@CAPDude44]

Eh, just looking at this it seems super fake

[@lordbrain8867]

@@CAPDude44 it actually is pretty accurate for a war movie. Many of the extreme scenes in it, like a heavy bomber crashing next to Kaga, actually happened

[@CAPDude44]

@@lordbrain8867 releasing bombs at 200 ft? Massive gasoline fireball explosions? Launching torpedoes from a five degree bow angle? Intentionally flying as low as possible? That's not realistic.

[@wayannurlangga4439]

Midway is a great movie. Don't know why it got some negative review.

[@Camolicious223]

im in the navy. my navy buddies and i were pretty psyched watching this movie. it wasnt an amazing, jaw-dropping cinematic masterpiece, but it was cool seeing our history on the big screen.

[@samuelzuleger5134]

Comparing this to the 1976 iteration, which would you say is better? Not trying to be a jerk, just curious. I personally prefer 1976, but that is because I am a pedantic history buff obsessed with the details.

[@tamilly7941]

@@samuelzuleger5134 Man the one from 1976 was more drama than the history of it

[@TheTechNopal]

A lot of seamen on screen

[@vstar7196]

The “history” as presented in this box office bomb is incorrect. So many Americans have a warped perception of their history today because they get their education from Hollywood. Read a book to better understand Midway.

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

@@vstar7196 Could you present some of your argument?

[@Spider-Too-Too]

92 rotten tomato audience score. I think midway captures exactly what war film buff loves to see in a war film.

[@MalfosRanger]

Went to see it three times, the latter two with fellow pilots and my family.

[@rebeccamorningglory6011]

I agree. The target audience of this movie seemed to be people who want to learn about history and they loved it. I took my younger brother to see it expecting to be board but found myself enjoying the film more than I thought. I cried several times all watching it too. Maybe I am just an emotional movie goer, but I did feel for the characters on the screen and didn't feel the "emptiness" of characters that was described.

[@jeremyO9F911O2]

The problem is Filmento clearly isn't a war film buff. Hell he calls the Navy Seamen "Army guy". What the actual fuck?

[@badream64]

@@MalfosRanger not so sure about those sideslips under the deck then popping up and landing on the deck without any power. The last bit, as the plane disappeared under the deck to its landing on the deck, was obviously for cinematic effect. The more accurate way to depict it would be to just sideslip down onto the deck? Great movie though, so not deserving of this poor movie review. It is full of real life characters facing uncertain futures, and historical events, which actually explain why Midway happened and happen like it did. I think Midway tied in the characters and history beautifully. Check out the history, I think you will not find many errors in the movie, I admire and respect that. To summarize, Filmento, your review of this great film totally sucks

[@benshakespeare268]

@@jeremyO9F911O2, Filmento is correct. Aside from this being mentioned in the movie. Those were indeed US Army B-25s, launched from a US Navy aircraft carrier in the "Doolittle Raid".

[@dziedzicart]

Such a lost opportunity to say "In box office return it only did... mid way."

[@hotel3667]

The incoming already came, sounds like porn hahaha.

[@amadeokomnenus1414]

clever

[@T3AMCXMCHUCK]

Filmento: "It's a blank loaf of bread, what else is there the see or say?" Me a frenchman: How dare you!

[@xtwzyz9000]

as a Chinese I'm just kind of tired of movies randomly throwing "Chinese elements" into their plots to somehow win over the Chinese audience, like if you are going to do it, at least make it fit inside the general theme.

[@THE_BEAR_JEW]

Lol, I'm not Chinese but I agree. As a viewer, you can really feel it when they're pandering to you or a particular audience.

[@moviemanreviews5577]

But didn't this movie do that?...

[@rogeriomiranda779]

I feel the same, Pacific Rim 2 was shit becuz of that, i think, also Ironman 3 could'nt have a badass Mandarin cuz they were afraid of dissing the chinese audience, no one cares about the arabs but don't ever fuck with china

[@Killerbee4712]

@@rogeriomiranda779 there are so many chinese people. think about alll the money it hollywood could make with the chinese population

[@rogeriomiranda779]

@@Killerbee4712 this is trash, Mulan might be good becuz the movie is all about that theme

[@Durendal1]

Just because it has a big budget doesn't mean it's a "blockbuster" in style. This is a historical movie with a high budget. And as for every historical movie, like Tora!Tora!Tora! (not saying it is as good) it's more focused on history than themes or character. The theme that links all these people is history. They were real. And he depicts them as history remembers them. So yeah, all you say is true, but the movie purpusfuly didn't do that because it wasn't what it was trying to do. Which, from Roland Emmerich, is a pretty big thing.

[@kevinwang9069]

Personally I disagree with his main point that this movie lacks a theme, because as you say the theme is history. However, I hated this movie because the point he makes about it lacking "plot" is totally spot on. There are so many scenes where the consequences or significance of the events are even mentioned, let alone explained/elaborated on. Yorktown was repaired in 72 hours to be ready for Midway. So what? They just show it being sunk later. Nothing major about how Yorktown's squadrons played a key role in the battle, or the fact that it was there in the first place is a big reason why the Japanese counterattack didn't do nearly as much damage as they thought. Stuff like that made me feel like this movie was the worst of both worlds: it fails as a historical piece because it fails to put context to a ton of the facts that they put on screen, and it fails as an action film because they didn't take extra creative liberties to tie the events and people together (not to mention the cheesy one-liners and poor acting/writing).

[@Durendal1]

@@kevinwang9069 I totally agree, the story is like a time arrow in a history book, just going foreward from event to even and expecting their significance in history to be enough for us. But that's not a blockbuster problem, that's the point I was making. Except maybe the one liners, but at the time we didn't see them as one-liners, that's a recent term, they were just things cocky people said. What I find ironic is that it's exactly what he asks for in each of these videos. I mean he's been letting go a little of liberties for the sake of storytelling, but he hate averything that is a bit more dans pure history. Now he know what that would be like. And he doesn't like it.

[@DrThunder88]

Tora!Tora!Tora! still had some artistic liberties taken with it, and the directors framed it with two stories of people caught in military bureaucracies. Yamamoto was convinced the attack was folly, but, despite his naval preeminence and knowledge of the US, the government would not give him leave to cancel the attack. Similarly, Bratton and Kramer knew the attack was coming, but, due to circumstances out of their control, they couldn't get the message across. They both had the curse of Cassandra in one way or another, and the tension builds as they realize they're running out of time to convince their superiors. There are several subplots in the film, but they can mainly be summarized as "here we are having a humanizing moment before the battle...and now here we are in the battle". That's sort of what Emmerich tried to do with Midway, but Tora!Tora!Tora! avoids the trap Midway fell in by not trying to make those characters much more than a point of reference for the audience to jump into during the on-screen chaos. We don't see Fuchida talking to his wife at home. We don't hear about how Outerbridge's father was a merchant ship captain in Hong Kong. There's just enough to show where they are and what they do in the grand scheme of things, so when the fracas starts the audience isn't totally lost. There's

[@martinsmolik2449]

The thing is, the two movie styles can be done well together. Exhibit A: Dunkirk.

[@luiszuniga2859]

documentary ≠ movie

[@gannonwoods2456]

Take a drink every time he calls sailors "Army men" or "soldiers."

[@timonsolus]

Some (non English speaking) countries do refer to navy sailors (and also airmen) as ‘soldiers’. Generally countries with a huge, very long military tradition on land, but only a relatively small or relatively recent military tradition at sea. Their naval personnel are called ‘soldiers’ just because they are military, and calling them ‘sailors’ would imply (in their language) that they are civilian sailors and not fighting men/women.

[@Blackjack621]

Based on the numerous errors in Midway I don't think the movie gave a shit about history.

[@tehyrphoenix7100]

@@timonsolus Still shows a lack of understanding of the basic context of the film. Along with not understanding the significance of including the Doolittle Raids or the American losses prior to Midway. The theme for this movie that the reviewer is missing is that it is the turning point of the war. Up until Midway, every single battle had been a Japanese victory, or at least a draw. Not gonna say that the movie didn't have major pacing problems or narrative issues, but the idea of showing a hopeless situation prior to the first major victory is a sound concept.

[@MrFixIt74Fun]

@@timonsolus The Doolittle raiders were "U.S. Army Airman" being delivered on a Navy ship?

[@Fastphil007]

Don't forget mega boats, lol

[@checkmate058]

Midway is why i dont think a 100% accurate film is a good idea. Often real life does not have begining middle end with charicter and suspense and payoff. Real life war is usually a buch of random people who got assigned to fight trying to not die while doing whatever little job they were assigned. Quarter sturn gunner, relay radio engineer, navagation cartographer. Just little people doing little jobs that make up a whole army. Thats why fiction woven in real plots is my prefered. Saveing pvt ryan or 1917. Make the war a situation and the story about people in that situation doing something small but personaly meaningful.

[@giuseppetiso531]

I agree, but I think a successful accurate war movie puts us in the shoes of a fictional character who the writers can play around with. As soon as they start relying on historical figures it starts to go downhill.

[@zoggybread9073]

I think a movie where the protagonist follows blind orders could work, but I don't think that was what they were going for here. They could tweak it a little so it could service the real people and still have the structure of a movie.

[@giuseppetiso531]

Zoggy Bread I think that the main problem was a lack of theme, though those elements would definitely improve it

[@checkmate058]

@@giuseppetiso531Yes! and usually the historical figure isnt that intersting. Like the people who planted the flag at MT Surrabachi. They were just the random joes who were lucky enough to not get killed on way to top. Although Flags of our fathers was literaly a war film about how the realities of war can be less impressive than the fantisy the media would like you to belive. Pvt. Ira Haise, one of the men to plant the flag, on iwo jima, was a war hero so he must of been very intresting person right? No. When returned to the states he was a drunk and died uneventfully. So the dream of a good story being historic is a dream. I think Midway was actually a really good at being historic. It historicly recreated all the events that occured. It was a factual list of stuff that happened. None of the people involved in say the attack on perl harbor were pilots in the doolittle raid. The men on the ships in the harbor were sailors not pilots. But in Michel Bay's pearl harbor movie he put fighter pilots in bombers. Not accurate but more importantly it told a story.

[@ermacjones4821]

Not everything has to be the same. I don't really like these kinds of movies anyways, but it's stupid to demand that every movie has to follow the same structure. It looks a lot better than most of the garbage being pumped out these days.

[@misfitrobot]

This was one of the most historically accurate movies I've ever seen. I saw it twice in theaters and couldn't believe how well they brought all of these real events to life. It is a true shame the movie lost money, it belongs on the History Channel more than a summer blockbuster.

[@stephensdygert7600]

Agreed 100% I thought it was a masterpiece! In the style of Tora Tora Tora. No bull blank love story. Like Pearl Harbor.

[@davidsprenkle2641]

Did it lose $? It's already taken in 123.3 million.

[@anthonydominguez4744]

David Sprenkle 123 mil is so bad...and really low for a blockbuster like this

[@steveclark5206]

misfitrobot I think this will be a talked about movie for years. As a WW2 history buff, I enjoyed it. They were able to pack a lot , the Pearl Harbor attack, the Doolittle Raid, the battle of Midway and code breaking into a relatively short movie. The story line and character development will be confusing for anyone who doesn’t know the real history though. I just watched it on video and my kids paused it a couple of times and asked me some background info. The big one they asked was about Doolittle because it confused them why Army bombers were on an Navy aircraft carrier. But it peaked their interest and now they’re watching some documentaries about Midway, Doolittle and code breaking. So while Emmerich might get a lot of hate, his movie will hopefully intrigue people enough to watch and/or read about the history of the war in the Pacific.

[@anthonydominguez4744]

Steve Clark I don’t think you understand ... this movie is already forgotten . Like you guys the don’t care about the art of film but care more about the history (which is fine ) are the minority in the box office I promise you . And a films success no matter how objectively“good or accurate “ they may be , are measured by two ways , 1. Box office ( it did horrendous and it didn’t even make back what it cost ) and 2 . Academy awards and I guarantee you a cgi mess with horrible acting and writing like this won’t even get nominated .

[@mrhorse6587]

This is one of the most historically accurate films Hollywood has ever made. Love it.

[@Pucaramodels]

It's really not. For example the pearl harbor scene is not accurate at all, if you want an accurate films you can go watch tora tora tora or maybe the battle of britain. Not this.

[@Rob-vc6xw]

Are you serious ? I could not disagree more. For starters this movie is rated PG 13. Not R. A WW2 movie can not be historically accurate and be rated PG 13. This because Historical accuracy is a wholistic thing and this movie fails on several aspects. So while it is very accurate about the order of battle and names of some sailors and pilots. However the dialogue and the way to characters act is very strange. For example, this movie has no strong profanities, the F word is only said once. Do you think the Battle of Midway was fought with the F word only said once ? How accurate is that ? Also there is basically no racist language used towards the Japanese which if course completely ridiculous and a total fiction. And lastly and this is not as important as the fantasy dialogue issue, but there should be way way way more smoking cigarettes in this movie. A few background characters smoke and a few officers smoke but it just not reflect the reality that existed at the time. Also the Japanese are not shown smoking which is of course ridiculous. Japan has always had one of the most highest rates of tobacco usage and during WW2 it was more than common place for Japanese officers to smoke. So this movie does the weird thing of getting the hard details right while ignoring all the easy details. I can forgive a film that does use the exact same style of rifle or anti aircraft gun as was used in the war. I can forgive a film getting a few uniform details wrong. I can even forgive a film getting a few dates wrong. But a WW2 movie about major battle with only ONE F word. 1 !!!!! I can not forgive that. That is just not possible.

[@wrayday7149]

The film goes out of the way to mess up historically intense events. Billy Mitchel's raid for instance, there was no wall of water at the end of the flight deck. Historically footage you watch his plane drop below the deck out of sight and 10 seconds later appear as it flies off. They do that for almost every major event for no real reason.

[@e.g.o.m.e]

@@Rob-vc6xw I stopped reading at you complaining about them not saying the F word, it was an amazing movie and it didnt deserve hate

[@e.g.o.m.e]

@@Pucaramodels it was better than the movie named pearl harbor at least

[@therealrooster]

"It's a blank loaf of bread, what else is there to think or say?" **heavy breathing in german**

[@Natibert]

So true!

[@tubbalcain]

I didn't know that you can even breath in your own language, hehe

[@fixxxer525]

He keeps referring Sailors as Army men too, smh.

[@ericmin1454]

Personally, as a history nerd, I'm just happy somebody actually went out their way to make a film about ww2 naval combat with great attention to historical accuracy. But I think that is the problem of the film. The film has an identity crisis. It's a Hollywood film but not really for your average audience. It's more like a cult classic which was made with the expectation that the audience had a great amount of knowledge about the Pacific War and only those people who had that specific knowledge could answer the questions like "why the hell they showed us the Pearl Harbour attack and the Doolittle's raid if this film is called Midway." , etc.. I can say that the characters in the film were actually not bland or empty, but only if you know about their background. I actually felt for several of these characters quite a bit, like Yamamoto, knowing that he was an Americaphile and the fact that fighting the Americans was not his intention in the first place but here he was anyways, or like Spruance, who was thrusted onto the position of command just before the battle and the situation was very difficult for him because his expertise was not naval aviation and he was kind of an introverted pessimist, or like Bestman, whose acts of bravery was made all the more emotionally impactful, knowing how other groups of planes from Enterprise and Hornet had f**ked up their attacks and escort duty so badly. If you look at the problem in this way, you would actually realize that all those meaningless side plots, like the Pearl Harbour attack and the Doolittle's raid, or small talks between characters, or some random submarine, were actually futile attempts made by the film to explain what is even going on and why a battle in Midway was about to happen. They were poorly intergrated history lessons that wanted to help the audience but only to bore them and turned the entire film into a chore. It's like the film Dunkirk but the first half of thr film was about the Battle of France. The problem would be alleviated greatly if half of the film was condensed into several lines at the start of the film like Dunkirk did. Then the film can have more time to concentrate more on the Battle itself and character-building. It's really a shame that they can actually make something out of it with the material as the history was quite epic itself, but failed because of deciding on the priority of the film.

[@jeffbenton6183]

This is the kind of story that needs an HBO show, not a single movie.

[@markdayell61]

Historical accuracy? We must have seen different movies. This had so many glaring problems I had a hard time watching it. I would have loved to have seen it handled more like the 1976 film with updated information gleaned from Shattered Sword. A movie called Midway that had more about the Battle of Midway in it. As far as your historical accuracy goes, where did you see any American carrier born fighters? I saw none. When a torpedo plane aims to hit a Japanese ship, does it aim right for it like in the movie, or does it lead the ship? And how many American planes were shot down by AA in the movie (I counted over 2 dozen)? Now how many were shot down by AA in the real battle (2 American aircraft were confirmed to have been shot down by Japanese AA fire, an SBD and a B26)? When Dick Best dropped his bomb on the Hiryu, did he glide bomb or dive bomb? If he glide bombed it like in the movie, it would have skipped right off the deck. And those are just the surface errors. I lost count of how many inaccuracies were in the movie. I was looking forward to it and got the Roland Emerich standard of crap.

[@A_Box]

@@markdayell61 From what I saw in the movie, he clearly dive bombed, the footage make it look it was almost vertical. What are you talking about?

[@markdayell61]

@@A_Box He dove at the ship then pulled up and glide bombed over the deck almost level on the Akagi. What are YOU talking about? That didn't happen, it was purely for dramatic purposes, and in real life the bomb would have skipped off the deck. I called it glide bombing just to make my point about how silly it was.

[@A_Box]

@@markdayell61 Just checked the sequence again. The bomb is dropped (while still diving), then the plane pulls up. I heard that there are some minor inaccuracies in this movie but this is not one of them.

[@florentinosantana1407]

I have watched this movie several times and I have experienced deep emotional reactions every time. The loss of a friend to combat action, surprise, and betrayal of the attack at Pearl. The disappointment of the “Big E’s” crew at not being able find the Japanese fleet immediately after the attack. Admiral Kimmel’s sense of failure and sorrow over the losses in his command and a disastrous end to an otherwise illustrious career. The sheer commitment to service, determination, and ingenuity from the volunteers of Doolittle Raid, a suicidal mission, just to be able to show the middle finger to the Japanese. Then COL Doolittle’s realization of Japanese treatment of Chinese civilians. Admiral Nimitz’s ability to deal with ambiguity in the fight for intelligence on the Japanese fleet. The loss of the Lexington, heavy damage to the Yorktown, and the superhuman efforts to get her back to sea. All those were just the stage setters for the main event, the battle over Midway. The sense of sheer loss of personnel and materiel of the initial attack off the island of Midway with little effects on the Japanese was palpable. Their sacrifice kept Japanese carriers from being able to launch aircraft. Admiral Nagumo’s failed assumptions regarding American carriers and his decision to rearm his planes shows us how luck in the shape of your opponents mistake can change the fortune of a battle. One can cite the courage of pilots such as CDR Wade McClusky’s decision to continue searching for the Japanese fleet while considering the risk to his pilots if they ran out fuel. One can cite the guts dive bomber pilots, like Dick Best and Dusty Kleiss, who endured the terror of an almost 300 miles per hour dive through flack to deliver a bomb on to a Japanese flat top, as intense an experience as a man can endure. I also cannot imagine Dick Best’s leadership challenge of having to round up the remainder of surviving pilots after the first strike to go back out and do it again the same day. I guess one must have a sense of being on the arena to fully appreciate the feelings. Maybe some younger people, with lack of interested in history, do not appreciate the epic efforts of a team of American fighting men that transcended the importance of individual characters. The Battle of Midway, which turned out to be the turning point of the war in the Pacific, was the focus of the movie.

[@ONW4V3R]

I think Midway was a really good rendition of, well... The battle of Midway and also Doolittle raid and pearl harbor. However, it was just that. A rendition, not a movie. And that's why it failed as a movie. For an history buff like me, this kind of films are really good, or bad depending on how they render events we already know of. But for it to have importance, you need to look for the "events" themselfs and not the "humans". In history we know about the 150 lost attack planes on the IJN carriers or the 16 B-25 sent from USS Hornet in the Doolittle raid. Not the humans behind all thoses events. Exemple: the scene which the bomber takes off from the carrier is empty to you, and most people watching tbf, because nobody remembers flight deck crew n° 865 but the miracle of the event. The Doolittle raid where ground-based army bombers took of from an carrier for the first time in history, to attack mainland Japan only 4 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Take off that was only tested on a normal airfield with paint at the supposed end of a flightdeck. That's the event. And the scene fells emply of you don't know it (and that's not criticism). Which, I agree, makes a really bad movie if you don't know about said events. but IMO it's still MILES better than having a superman protagonist that participate in both pearl harbor, battle of Britain and some other shits (huh 2001 Preal Harbor ). As for the "blank" and bad acting... well it's just bad lol.

[@willthorson4543]

3 That should have bern a movie by itself and therein lies the problem with midway.. There were several key moments that all of them should have been separate movies crammed into 2 hours. Qhat you mentioned about the do little raid was the classic movie, 30 seconds over Tokyo. Even midway got the raid wrong. Dolittle and his entire crew survived, not just him. It's one thing after another with this movie.

[@jar985]

i never heard of midway before this movie

[@tehbonehead]

TEN minutes of them "practicing" the carrier takeoffs, removing all the armor and defensive guns, the pilots sweating, the engines being thrashed... just that little time could have showed the stakes and served as character development at the same time.

[@adammalone3414]

@@tehbonehead que 80s training montage

[@tehbonehead]

@@adammalone3414 🤣🤣🤣 "Eye of the Tiiigeeeerrr!"

[@choueric3381]

This movie felt like a live action Wikipedia page. Yes, a lot of things happened and I was duly informed, but ultimately I remembered nothing.

[@kidmiic1733]

Based off the first 6 minutes of this video this movie looks like a bad history channel performance

[@WheeledHamster]

After I seen the dude running out and using his binoculars for the 5 time I literally clocked out. It just constantly go from action to people talking over and over and over.

[@gig2734]

Well formulated.

[@kysike666]

Good Observation

[@Predator42ID]

@@kidmiic1733 Actually its not, having seen it in theaters its accuracy to the events couldn't have been better. The Cgi while noticeable was actually quite decent and better then the other films I've seen. I've seen plenty of war films and I can tell you right now Midway did our boys justice in that its not only entertaining but portrays the events better then even We Were soldiers did and that is saying alot. Go and see for your self for it is a very good movie.

[@Fordo007]

It's always infuriating when critics look at historical films and say something wasn't realistic or didn't happen... when that's what actually happened. Real life is often stranger than fiction. Tons of historical movies have to have real life events removed from the movie just because critics and audiences wouldn't believe it happened even though it did. For me anytime I read a review of a historical movie and a complaint is made that something wasn't realistic... when it was... their review loses meaning. If you do a review and claim something didn't happen in history, research it first to prove if the film was wrong. That said the 1970s Midway movie was still better.

[@willthorson4543]

Except nothing actually happened the way it did in the movie. A bunch of star wars space battles masquerading as ww2 air battles. Its a joke.

[@Samm815]

I disagree about the 1970 movie. They used a lot of stock footage from John Ford.

[@luggilu7864]

Yes but the visual presentation was far from accurate, way to many flak clouds (inly know the german term flak-Einbrecher) wayyy to many gasoline explosions and fighters going in between battleship row over and over and over again, alone is kind of sttupid as theres no reports that happened. Also its not reported that the fighters actually went for the sailors aboard the ahuos with their guns, at least no where near as muhc as shown in the movie. The entire thing feels like someone read up on the battles depicted and thaught "ok but what if it was directed by Michael bay?" instead of also depicting what the war LOOKED like.

[@Samm815]

@@luggilu7864 Pretty sure in English we just call it flak.

[@jimjacobs2817]

I recall that test audiences thought the end of Ron Howard's film Apollo 13 was unbelievable. I mean how could Lovell, Haise and Swigert possibly survive, right?

[@andrewtaylor940]

There is one minor... no actually MAJOR problem with your analysis. And it’s one that frequently comes up when translating actual historical event. Things that happened to real people. Often well documented things, to a Hollywood movie. Midway did something practically unheard of for Hollywood. They largely stuck to the known historical characters, and their own words and actions. Well documented and recorded. And that’s the strange thing. Everything that seems an over the top Hollywood moment. Bruno Gaido jumping in a parked plane to shoot down a bomber. 5 minutes, 5 miles, 5 degrees, etc. Pretty much any consequential line or action was real. Patrick Wilson’s character is not down in Pearl dodging bullets and bombs because Lt Commander Layton, in 1941, was not at that place yet. The movie is amazing for just how much it gets deeply, respectfully right from the history. But they did this at the cost of the generic Hollywood character arcs and ginned up emotional events. The only character that they “Hollywooded up” a bit was they turned Legendary Director John Ford into comic relief. Everyone else they left to their own words and records. It’s actually rather remarkable. It’s like the best History Channel documentary piece ever made. It’s astonishing respectful even reverent to the men that served fully preserving their stories. Why they tried to make it a $100 million theatrical blockbuster is anybodies guess. If you remember that horrible Ben Affleck Pearl Harbor movie, that butchered the actual events and shit on the men that served and died there in favor of Hollywood action spectacle, this is the complete opposite of that. For good or ill.

[@johnathanarcher6999]

Andrew Taylor it’s interesting you say “at the cost of generic Hollywood arcs” and “ginned up emotional events”. I assume you’re thinking of Pearl Harbor, and if so, granted. But maybe you just proved why an approach like midway’s doesn’t make for a great movie. Real life doesn’t play out well on screen, since things don’t happen at the times we need them to, and characters don’t really have the conversations that translate well to a screen in an engaging story.

[@andrewtaylor940]

@@kcsellingpage653 It's the eternal question regarding using History for Entertainment. How accurately and respectfully do you treat the history? Pearl Harbor may be a great fun action movies. But it is an appalling insult to the actual men who fought and died there. Midway may be a bit meh as a Cinematic Blockbuster. But it went out of its way to remain insanely true to the actual historical record, and the participants. The weirdest thing with Midway is every single thing in it, that seems like an absurd Hollywood insertion, is actually true and remarkably accurate. Things like Best identifying his friend from the class ring. True. Everything with Bruno Gaido true. Most of the Layton scenes were 100% accurate, save a small bit of exposition they gave him. (which comes from written reports at the time). Woody Harrelson's Nimitz may seem a very subdued aw shucks kind of guy... but that was Nimitz. Dennis Quaid could have been Halsey resurrected. They got the historical figures mannerisms down with astonishing accuracy. (I'll give you the actor they had playing Spruance was a block of wood.) But that's the problem. They are portraying real people as they were doing amazingly difficult things. And not as Hollywood Heroes. It;s kind of sad that we very rarely get a movie or production that does both. Midway also loses a bit due to it being more than a bit unfocused. It bounces around trying to show a broad overview of the early Pacific War, from the pre-war causes, to Pearl, to the Marshall and Gilbert raids to the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo to Coral Sea to Midway. And it ends before Midway is finished! It was too much for a 2 hour movie. And it's focus on Enterprise was the wrong dramatic choice for Midway. Enterprise would be the one to do if this was a multi part high end miniseries ala Band of Brothers. Enterprise was the ship that saw it all and did it all. And the movie would have worked better as that, a miniseries following enterprise from day one until the end of the war. For a Cinematic Midway movie they should have centered it on Yorktown. And given a bit more time to the Japanese. Follow the crews as they dealt with things going wrong. With the ships on fire. Focus on Yorktown and Akagi. They have marvelous written accounts from men and pilots on both ships.

[@EstellammaSS]

It just delivers poorly. Look at Tora Tora Tora for example, it’s also a really faithful recreation but is far more enjoyable. Actually showing the Japanese strike group forming above the carrier to build tension prior to the attack, making us know one of the flight leads for us to care etc would all make the Pearl Harbor attack scene a lot better. I would just remove the Doolittle raid entirely from the movie and instead focus more on the lost of US carriers leading up to midway and the miracle Yorktown repair. And end with the passing of torche from Yorktown to Enterprise. Making the comeback from the brink of defeat the main plot point. This movie tries to be a documentary and a block buster at the same time, which is just not going to work. The acting is sub par and the thing they do is cringe. The movie tries to do too much

[@RobbieSongwriter]

Watch Montemayor's documentary explaining the battle of Midway. There was much more than adequate real life drama to create an entertaining yet accurate film. All that Pearl Harbor, Doolittle Raid, Marshall Island stuff robbed too much time.

[@TheCultureCommentary]

Keep filming!!!!!!! - John Ford (after their camera setup was strafed by japanese fighter)

[@ragnar-usa3639]

Thank God this movie didn't have idiotic love triangle like '' Pearl Harbor '' .

[@thestorm99]

That was one thing I did like about Midway. It wasn't bogged down with superfluous sideline relationships.

[@liabw05]

KZbin Account it worked because it was the early 2000s

[@N8PlaysGames]

Pearl Harbor is a better movie, even with the cheesy love story

[@twintyara6330]

People nowadays don't want love, they just want action and explosions. So technically speaking Midway was a successful movie

[@kalvin1123]

Dunkirk: I don't remember any of the characters' names, but I still remember them. I also felt being dropped into a desperate situation. And I learned about the magnitude of the rescue.

[@lordfrz9339]

My only complaint with Dunkirk is you only see a couple hundred people on the beaches, it should have been packed.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@lordfrz9339 That was a bad decision on Nolan's part to eschew CGI altogether rather than just trying to keep it reasonable. It's not really practical to do a large-scale war movie today without CGI, you don't have the dozens of real airplanes or the tens of thousands of extras (usually donated from some dictator's army) that made films like the 1969 Battle of Britain or 1970 Waterloo so visually fantastic. Bit other than that it was a great movie.

[@jeremyO9F911O2]

I can't tell you many names, but I can tell you how they relate to the story and each other.

[@eliaspeter7689]

Dunkirk was a pain for me to sit through... It was way too "artistic" and the unnecessary jumping in time was confuseing as hell.

[@royfr8136]

Dunkirk was dogshxx

[@ivancerecer5758]

Joseph Joestar: I'll never forgive the Japanese!

[@Ferrebsol]

They stole my daughter!

[@KentuckyStateofTheLevant]

Also Mr. Joestar: Huh...this Tomoko gal is kinda cute

[@patrickbutler4894]

My Father joined the US Navy in 1939 and fought in the Pacific until 1944. He hated the Japanese until his death!

[@DickDiamond74]

@@patrickbutler4894 my foster father built planes for the effort and my foster mom was aux 1st class.... never hated the Japanese. War is ugly but hatred leads to mistrust which leads to war... a lesson which i keep to this day.

[@happysaladd8951]

*oi, Josuke*

[@asianbandit4054]

Should be a trilogy. Film 1: Peral-Harbor to Dolittle Raid Film 2: Midway to Guadalcanal Film 3: Leyte to Okinawa

[@raymondyee2008]

That would have been a better idea.

[@moviemanreviews5577]

I actually think this one was better than the old Midway movie. Tora Tora Tora is still the best tho!

[@jokarpinski22]

I loved it. But I am one of the 2% of guys left today that still likes war movies.

[@joshuaosborne9203]

Steve Sherman yooo chill my dude.

[@revvingnoodle7192]

I quite enioyed it, i agree that it is far better than the first midway, and it felt to be a bit inspired in tora tora tora when using historical aspects, though it is difficult making an appealing movie if you're not a history fan, and unfortunately it's a real thing that war is brutal and not everyone gets to die in a blaze of glory and many die as an unknown soldier or just another number, i do agree that due to the importance of the events, several movies would have been needed, i was more compelled to watch it when i found out the wrecks of the carriers Akagi and Kaga have been found, of which only those interested in history would know their importance

[@revvingnoodle7192]

@Steve Sherman i believe he referred to tora tora tora as in how it was made and it's historical accuracy, i also believe it's the best movie about the pacific war, and unless you are a history buff you can enjoy them but if we agree that many don't know or care about it makes it a difficult sale

[@moviemanreviews5577]

@@revvingnoodle7192 Really? I didn't know about that. That's incredible! Do you know if they are gonna be put in some form of museum? I watched this movie bc I knew of the battle of Midway and I find the tactics used especially interesting as well as how much luck played a part. It truly is an incredible battle and I wish the film would have done a better job showcasing those very important details. The original did a pretty good job at that but I hated the added subplot of the Japanese girlfriend. I get why it was there but just didn't find it interesting and felt it was just tacked on. This one didn't have stuff like that but it was missing character development. Its a tough balancing act for sure.

[@dlbutters7164]

3:48 the *LAG* was crazy back then.

[@unoriginalname9556]

@@revolverswitch seems like you're forgetting the African servers

[@drosera88]

While watching "Midway," I felt like I was watching a big-budget Civil War reenactment. It lets you experience history first-hand, but that's all it really does. The action scenes are more suited to a documentary rather than any sort of dramatic film.

[@toxicmasculinity3976]

"the incoming already came" thats going to be taken out of context.

[@tubbalcain]

A dirty mind is a joy forever 😝

[@novichader]

That's a line from Age of Ultron, OR, is it the 1st Avengers film?

[@wanderinghistorian]

"What news?" "Four carriers sunk Mr. President." "But we only had three!" "No Mr. President, Japanese carriers." That's from a History Channel documentary and was not a real conversation but dang it still feels good to hear those turning points.

[@jeffmoore2476]

This IS the most accurate depiction we can see!

[@kennagel8088]

A lot better than the 1977 version that's for sure

[@TheBibleonly]

Uh no no Yorktown no accuracy

[@Hanakin-Sidewalker]

@@TheBibleonly The Yorktown was in it, though, albeit briefly.

[@TheBibleonly]

No the Yorktown was not. In reality the pilots clamored to avenge the Yorktown in the movie they instead had an existential crisis.

[@GeraltofRivia22]

@@TheBibleonly the Yorktown was present in the movie, though the stuff about being repaired during battle and "sunk" twice by the Japanese was left out. The movie is less "Midway" and more "USS Enterprise".

[@writingref]

The dude who was friends with Yamamoto was not at Pearl Harbor - this film got the lost part of extremely historically accurate - unlike the Michael bay Pearl Harbor So what you really need to talk about if your problem is protagonist point of view and perspective is how to do that AND be historically accurate For a battle like midway what you are asking for as far as “character arcs” is impossible It was equally as good a film as Dunkirk which was also historically accurate but Nolan drew the crowds What you want is something like 1917 or saving private Ryan where all the “characters” can be loosely based on real people but be totally fictional characters But that’s not what this movie set out to do - it wanted to tell the real story and as a history buff I really appreciated that (Expect I wanted more Yorktown stuff. There was so much more to the story of the Yorktown than what we got)

[@mitchellhorton9382]

But it's supposed to be entertainment not a history lesson.

[@ermacjones4821]

@@mitchellhorton9382 no, it's supposed to be whatever it's made to be. If the director wants something to be historically accurate, then that's what it's supposed to be. There's no reason something can't be a "history lesson", as well as entertaining. Regardless of whether or not you like it, it is entertainment. I don't like these kinds of movies, but that doesn't mean it's not entertaining, this guy who commented obviously liked it, and appreciated it for being accurate.

[@Switchfork]

Well, I hope the director isn't disappointed that it did so bad then. If he wanted to make a purely true to real life movie, he could have just made a documentary.

[@mitchellhorton9382]

@@ermacjones4821 Nah bro, a major motion picture is supposed to be entertainment. I guarantee they didn't get $100 million dollars for an informative historical film.

[@ermacjones4821]

@@mitchellhorton9382 it is entertainment, you don't seem to get that. I'm glad they actually had the balls to go after a target audience who would appreciate the movie they wanted to make, instead of trying to water down their movie for a wide audience of morons who are only entertained by impossibly dumb shit. It doesn't matter how much a movie makes, that's not an accurate gauge of how good the movie is. Look at Marvel's garbage, it's just a bunch of mediocre movies that make tons of money. Scarface only made $65 million, after spending $25 million making the movie. A $40 million profit for one of, if not the greatest, movies ever made clearly shows how little the total profit of a movie means when it comes to quality. Even adjusting for inflation over the years, that $40 million wouldn't even be equal to $100 million today.

[@T2266]

I actually saw this movie, and guess what I do have an opinion: It's the best movie Roland Emmerich ever made for the entire past decade.

[@kevinpogue7294]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement then.

[@T2266]

@unforgettably pretentious It's not meant to be a complement fo the movie, but to talk shit about Emmerich.

[@MalfosRanger]

I agree and everyone I took to see in three viewings enjoyed it as did I.

[@briandeluca4318]

T2266 yes it’s a great movie.glad someone else sees it too.

[@T2266]

@@briandeluca4318 I wont say it's "great" but it's alright, and consider what a train wreck Emmerich's filmography has been for the last decade, it's even more astonish how it doesn't suck.

[@dryleopardd]

The smoke in this movie is the most realistic I’ve ever seen in a movie

[@commodoreNZ]

I've never seen a battleship burning either ;)

[@HeathsHobbyLobby]

The problem with this movie is they didn't advertise it! No one knew about it.

[@snowwann273]

for real! i only had seen a advert for it cus i was at the movies to watch something else and it was like coming soon and stuff and my and my younger brother was like OH HELL YEAH. it was a great trailer! hell i forgot what we went to see cus of the trailer!

[@HeathsHobbyLobby]

@@snowwann273 I only know about this movie because i recently got into home theater and a lot of home theater KZbin channels was talking about how great the Atmos sound was. Never once seen an AD for it. And the the picture video and sound quality is amazing in this movie! It wouldn't be the same without a good sound system. This movie was ment for theaters wish I would have gone to IMAX to see it, but I didn't even know about it.

[@xOogieBoogie3x]

It was advertised pretty heavily, actually. It was just a bad movie.

[@snowwann273]

@@xOogieBoogie3x how was it bad for you? Also due to the lack of TV and radio and youtube ads, its a challenge for me to see any trailers or ads without specifically look for them.

[@maxis2k]

I saw plenty of TV ads for it. I just didn't care because it looked exactly like Pearl Harbor. Like, as if it was made by the exact same people. And I don't want to relive that.

[@roboslacker5593]

One of my High School teachers saw this film when it came out, and a bunch of times after that. He's seen the film in the theater at least 10 times (He goes to the theater a lot), and for a few weeks after he first saw it he'd start of the class by talking for a few minutes about this film He has nothing but praise for the film, how it depicts the events of the battle. I remember once, he mentioned seeing some little ship manuever or something in the film, looked it up, and found that it was accurate. I suppose this film is really a documentary.

[@spinyslasher6586]

Its a documentary with historical accuracy and shitty acting.

[@markwilliams2620]

A documentary? With a 20mm Oerlikon on the Arizona? Not.

[@HarverTheSlayer]

Yeah, they wanted to make a "shiny action documentary film", but forgot that it had to actually be a decent movie. Actually, this might have worked much, much better as a series.

[@mglenn7092]

Mark Williams an attempt at a documentary with shitty acting that got a lot more of the history right than Hollywood usually does but intermixed enough blatant errors to be really annoying to history buffs anyway.

[@xOogieBoogie3x]

It's still a pretty hollow movie.

[@popeyes_chicken3809]

the point of the movie is to depict the battle of midway in the most accurate way possible

[@laurocoman]

That's BS! There are a bunch of things you can say about good or bad bread!

[@adnannaemaz1989]

Bitchslapped is it milk...is it brown...is it fresh or processed

[@Jirujan]

this movie is just showing us an 'EVENT', not 'STORY'

[@salthesadmanshark5645]

It actually makes sense if you think like that 🤔

[@Killerbee4712]

an event is a story in it's own right

[@clementj]

@@Killerbee4712 um, not really. An event is just an event if it were told by a news reporter but it can become a story if it were told by a storyteller who can build it up from beginning to the end to be interesting.

[@yanjirujan193]

@@Killerbee4712 imagine yourself watching Avengers Endgame, but we only see the beginning, and then jump to the time travel event, and then jump to the final battle when Dr.Strange summon everyone. Just like this movie, no 'story', just some 'event'

[@MyWifesSon69]

Jirujan doesnt matter, the way it was shot is boring. Dunkirk had less explosions and yet its better

[@d4lphin4v5]

I felt nothing during Dunkirk either, both have the exact same issues... By the end of the film you don't even remember the name of the characters you were supposeds to get attached to

[@themanwithallthewrongopini3551]

Dunkirk clearly shows it wasn’t meant to be about the characters specifically. There’s a reason it had so many characters and switched so frequently. Dunkirk probably isn’t for everyone though. I mean it’s kind of a different format than most movies. Midway felt like it tried to create a connection between the characters. Midway was an ok movie for me since it was an action movie. It’s entertaining for the action and battles, which it does well.

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

can;t agree at all. Dunkirk was excellent because you just wanted the little guys to survive regradless of knowing who they are.

[@jonathanrupert5592]

I was in tears after both movies.

[@GeraltofRivia22]

@@Bobspineable an event it sucked at showing. A few hundred guys on a near empty beach? Lol. 3 planes dogfighting? Lol.

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Uhhhhh NO, That's NOT it at all as Dunkirk you don't need to know about characters, you just care about them as you follow them around and DON'T want them to die from the enemy and that's enough. You "felt nothing" during Dunkirk "either" is you not getting the point as you don't need to understand a character's entire persona and history to not want them to die. You're not supposed to remember the names or given their "names" either at all in Dunkirk as you're not given their names, they're just supposed to be nameless soldiers that you don't want to die and just survive as that's the whole point and theme of the movie. Not fighting the enemy, just surviving from them. They do NO "both have the exact same issues" AT ALL because Dunkirk actually SUCCEEDS in it's survival thriller concept entirely which makes it a fantastic cinematic film and one of the best war movies around.

[@Zelielz1]

The movie didnt have marketing!! What the hell! It was a good movie

[@1Orderchaos]

naw it was just another boring ww2 movie

[@ethangooch1819]

This movie was terrible and I like ww2 history

[@thomasmarren2354]

I personally enjoyed Midway when I saw it in the theater. I have to disagree with you as the emotion of the characters and the plot are not the point of a historically accurate and action packed film such as Midway in my opinion. Besides I already felt something for Ed Skiren and his co-pilot because both were Zapan and Hugo in Alita Battle Angel which was one of my favorite movies and Filmmento covered it in a positive light. I also felt something for Nick Jonas's character too as he shot down a Japanese Kamikaze bomber and later sadly was drowned by the Japanese. The fact I remembered those details proves your point wrong about Midway not being memorable movie.

[@DSBJR22]

This movie may not work for you. But I love it, it holds such a special place in my heart. This was the last movie me and my dad went to go see in theaters together before he got sick with cancer and passed away last month. Even though he never served he respected the hell out of our armed forces, and he was so well versed in anything WW2. He watched WW2 documentary’s every night, he was so interested and awed about how the allies stoped the worlds worst fascist regime of all time and I just remember him being in awe of this movie. RIP Dad 🕊 and thank you for teaching me why history is so important.

[@albay543]

I am sorry your father passed away, i hope that you are alright

[@humoristhumanist470]

You could say all that for “Tora Tora Tora” yet TTT was an amazing movie! It’s not always about the characters. TTT did not have amazing characters. It has historical accuracy and big budget effects and it was great.

[@joukopentikainen2360]

TTT had plot. It was a game of chess between the US and the Japanese told from the perspective of a few individiuals. It is also kind of weird how I felt more tension in TTT when the Japanese ambassador tried to deliver the declaration of war than in most scenes from Midway

[@samuelzuleger5134]

Is no one going to mention "Midway?" I mean, the 1976 version that was actually a sequel to "Tora Tora Tora," with the same cast, equipment, and even scenes that both movies shared? The reason I didn't watch the 2019 "Midway" is because I saw '76 "Midway," and this modern one wouldn't be any better...at least as a history nerd.

[@willthorson4543]

@@samuelzuleger5134 except the 76 midway was a horrible movie. Lazily made with documentary films spliced into scenes from several movies dragged down by a dumb love story and bad 70s hair cuts.

[@mosedavid1]

@Eesma Aura2nd Dunkirk was just awful! The 1958 version was made with guys who were probably there, it had a story line and it wasn't full of whinging millennial types who were supposed to represent the highly trained professional British army. I love most of what Nolan has done but that film, as a Brit myself, was a huge huge disappointment.

[@filthydisgustingape5354]

@@mosedavid1 The total lack of the German Army surprised me (and the narrative wasn't too clear that Germany had totally outfoxed France and Britain and hemmed the BEF onto that beach)...but the Luftwaffe was present--kind of a faceless enemy, machines coming to kill you and that was effective. That being said, the air sequences were pretty good. It related how, in the sky, one moment you're alone, the next, the Me109 has just shot down your flight leader and you didn't see ANYTHING. BUT for the acting job, my favorite was the old gent from the fleet of 'small boats': he told the shell shocked, hypothermic British soldier that they were going back to Dunkirk--we got a job to do, Lad. He was not of the age to have grown up at the time, but he sure embodied that 'Can Do' Spirit.

[@lpj2216]

"the curse of emptiness" I think you could say that of every Roland Emmerich movie.

[@Quincy_Morris]

An excellent film. One of my favorite war movies. Really scales things up to show the big picture. Something a lot of historical films miss. Wish more war movies were like this one.

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

The movie depicted the events as they happened. The characters an events run like 95% true to life. If you're not a fan of the history then you wont like this. It's not a traditional movie and I don't think it's fair to hold it to the same lense. The movie prioritized respecting history over movie tropes.

[@jeremyO9F911O2]

Exactly!

[@zad_rasera]

Fimento always reviews through a storyteller perspective.

[@deriznohappehquite]

Shane The Stoic it seems like a docudrama, rather than an actual drama.

[@JiriSusta]

I consider myself a history fan (WW2 especially) and did not like it. Why? Just few examples. Look at 1:30 in this video: 1.1 Attacking Midway with torpedoes? Like, seriously? 1.2 Should not these Kates torpedo-and-LEVEL-bombers have more altitude for bombing? And then look 1:33 - 2.1 Those B-26 bombers were suposed to attack with torpedoes, so why the hell are they so high? (You can see a japanese flattop down bellow). 2.2 There were only 4 (FOUR!) B-26 commited in this battle actually, how many of them are shown in this shot?! There are plenty of such just-for-effect shots with no actual foundation whatsoever.

[@jeremyO9F911O2]

@@JiriSusta anything outside the American bombers from Hornet and Enterprise is a crap shoot cluster fuck. You basically see no American fighters, and there are too many A6 zeros and never A5 fighters. Zeros were far less common that early in the war.

[@RebeldryversGarage]

Every movie fails for the same reason: A failure to create characters that the audience has any emotional investment.

[@johnharris6655]

Halsey, Nimitz, Spruance, Fletcher, Rochefort, Layton, McClusky, Waldron, Best, the emotional investment is what these guys did to win the war.

[@RebeldryversGarage]

@@johnharris6655 We are not talking about the actual people who fought the war. No one argues that those men and women were the greatest generation.

[@damanbhashaphranglyngskor1102]

Yeah cuz the point of the movie was about the events and not introducing stupid characters and a stupid love story like pearl Harbor

[@filmandfirearms]

@@damanbhashaphranglyngskor1102 If you wanted to watch something about the events and nothing else, just watch a documentary. There's probably a million of them out there about the Pacific campaign alone. You don't need a love story to have a great movie. To Hell and Back is a perfect example of a great war movie that still mostly just showed the real events. There were some things that were inaccurate, like Murphy having been wounded 3 previous times before his Medal of Honor action, but the movie was genuinely pretty realistic and a good movie on top of it. It's possible they cut down on the shear number of his incredible actions both because it would seem unbelievable and because it couldn't have been easy for Murphy to recreate all of the things he'd seen

[@trinalgalaxy5943]

@happy face The story of Midway is compelling in and of itself. Of 2 navies jockeying for positions that would define the rest of the war in the pacific. The Japanese trying to get their decisive battle while the american navy desperate to catch the japanese and remove their carriers, while not losing the ability to fight themselves. every event from Pearl Harbor to the Coral Sea lead to and defined the battle. the problem with the movie is it gave a slideshow of these different events without any connections between them. it was too interested in hitting these events rather than telling any story, let alone the story of the Battle of Midway.

[@michaelcubed]

For me it was the protagonist's accent. He's a British rapper trying to sound like a Southern New Yorker and it just... doesn't sound American.

[@timonsolus]

Michael Cubed : The accents of Americans 80 years ago were a bit different from the accents of modern Americans.

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

British rapper? I know so little about this film I’ve no idea who is in it.

[@soulofastro]

@@timonsolus yeah no. That was just the worst Jersey accent in recent memory.

[@andreraymond6860]

@@Jabber-ig3iw Ed Skrein is not a rapper. He is a classically trained British actor. Perhaps you are mistaking him for Nick Jonas, the singer who plays one of the gunners from the Enterprise.

[@masonbutler4015]

As a sailor, Im upset he referred to them as "Army Men"

[@Joe-ok8ql]

Me too, dog. There were some Marines in the movie and got called soldiers 😔

[@Joe-ok8ql]

@its yaboii They're troops or sailors. They literally cannot be Army men since they're in the Navy not the Army.

[@oddjob914]

Same thing

[@kinocorner976]

I think it’s an insult to call sailors “Army men” visa versa. The point is that’s like calling an electrician a Carpenter.

[@Joe-ok8ql]

@its yaboii I guess English also isn't a European language, huh?

[@gilbertponder5307]

You do realize that there is a storytelling and thematic point to having the sailors standing around bewildered during the opening moments of the Pearl Harbor attack, don't you? It isn't a mistake by the director; it plays out as intended on screen. You can dispute the artistic choice, but it wasn't something that was blundered into without thought. Oh, and sailors are not soldiers. Good breakdown overall, though.

[@thecaptain5026]

You can clearly see the sailors standing around, standing in front of a greenscreen. Lol. The timing of their reactions don't even match the impacts. No they didn't expect it, but its just poorly executed.

[@bogdangabrielonete3467]

@@thecaptain5026 What the Captain said. I mean yeah sure there is a delay in realizing whats going on, but when you register a fleet of planes, and then said planes begin to shot, and explosions are already taking place, and you still haven't reacted yet... poor timing

[@Lucas_Antar]

Gilbert Ponder navy seamen are sailor soldiers.

[@padmac8176]

I agree. Pearl Harbour was a surprise attack, the sailors were in stunned disbelief as to what was happening. It took a few seconds for them to process it before reacting. That was well known. So when they were standing around like planks of wood as the attack unfolded that was actually true! I haven't seen this movie yet but I imagine the clip he showed here to be historically accurate.

[@ThugShakers4Christ]

Do you really think we expect suspense in a scene from a famous raid that was successful? The suspense in that mostly comes at the end of the mission

[@unoriginalname9556]

9:29 The Gallant aviator: "we will be the first enemy in Japans history to hit their home territory" Mongolian empire: are we a joke to you?

[@madensmith7014]

Laughs in Divine Wind

[@misfitrobot]

He's referring to Mainland Japan both Mongolian invasions where stop by hurricanes. It's where "Kamikaze" comes from. it's a Shinto wind spirit that looks after Japan. 90% of the Mongolian fleet was wiped out in a hurricane the battle happened on the shore, it was Bloody but the emperor city was never invaded.

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

"Successfully"

[@fmikuru]

and then they died in a tornado

[@yohannbiimu]

4:37 "...these army-men..." are SEAMEN. They are IN THE NAVY, not "the army."

[@NightBirdZ33]

That bothered me too, as a former SAILOR, which is how members of the Navy are referred. Btw, Seaman is an E-3 paygrade which refers to a specific group of Navy personnel.

[@victorwaddell6530]

I'm wearing my Crackerjack Dress Blues , wearing a Dixie Cup , and someone asks me if I'm a soldier . Nope .

[@yohannbiimu]

@@NightBirdZ33 Ooops, my bad. I was a Soldier myself...not an "army-man".

[@earlphillips7228]

Basic research would have made this content creator not look a fool. Is he from a country without a Navy or without internet??

[@jeremyO9F911O2]

RIGHT!!!!? That was the moment I knew this review was pointless. If you can't understand that, you can't understand who this story is for.

[@philnorfleet1371]

Wow. This is one of the few times where I completely disagree with you here. I get the feeling you're also not familiar with the actual history behind this movie because I was very surprised at how historically accurate it was. This isn't a movie about characters; it's a movie about an EVENT, a battle that changed the course of the war in the Pacific. The actors are playing real historical people, not fictional characters that you can force into a plot narrative. These events happened. So this movie is essentially just a blockbuster documentary, not a piece of fiction.

[@florinivan6907]

The acting is by the numbers the dialogue sucks everything has a been there done that feel to it. Its not awful just bland.

[@michaelahellmich7843]

I think he mentions, that it might be historical accurate (People, events, places, etc. ...), but as a film it just fails. As others have written: It's more a documentary than a blockbuster movie. As such it lacks the things, that make a movie dramatic, its story coherent and the people recognisable for the normal moviegoer.

[@yekevin]

I was really waiting for this movie, but living in Japan, this movie was never released nor was it even promoted (rightfully so). But, having found a copy of the movie, I really enjoyed it! It was entertaining and filled with a ton of major battles that we hardly get screen time for about the Pacific War.

[@exactpeak5995]

Yay censorship

Why half the movie had moon rune subtitles. If I can watch space battleship yamato they can watch midway.

[@bocahdongo7769]

@ Or just you know Kancolle

[@GeraltofRivia22]

Why "rightfully so"? This movie actually portrays the Japanese, especially the Navy, in a pretty positive light and even dedicates itself to both the American and Japanese sailors at Midway, which is kinda disgusting considering the horrific shit the Japanese did.

[@yekevin]

@@GeraltofRivia22 Yeah, I agree. The Japanese did some horrible things. To further clarify my point, there are three things you forgot to mention that also happened in the movie: the bombing and killing of Chinese civilians, the murder American POWs, and the end splash screen of how 250,000 Chinese people died helping with the Doolittle Raid. I think those points were enough for the Japanese entertainment industry to sweep this movie under the rug.

[@moviemanreviews5577]

I'd rather see History Buffs take on this movie...

[@PrinceJackTheFirst]

Lol, I made the same comment! I deleted it now.

[@ronannababao3501]

I'm actually waiting for that but will not rush him so he gets it right. Not like @Filmento here who didn't even mention the first Midway film released in 1976 in this video.

[@PlaceholderHistory]

Ronann Ababao Lol, Filmento reviews the film itself. He’s not gonna cover the history behind it because he is reviewing the story, visuals, editing, etc. History Buffs focuses on the accuracy and history behind a film. You’re comparing an apple to an orange here.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

He made a video before it came out and said he would like to do a video on it

[@LOTR22090able]

He should make a single video about both movies. Doing a compare and contrast between the two. The Heston one gets some things right that the new one gets wrong and vice versa

[@Macro105]

I liked Midway, it showed the Japanese Navy as a formidable foe not just evil maniacs. The movie was about the event not the people, which is fine to me. An event doesn't have emotion, it's just something that happens. Also I'm just happy people still make media about WW2 because the entire thing fascinates me. I'm sitting there like, "That's the Yorktown" and "Yo that's Yamamato". If this movie got one person to Google "Pearl Harbor" or "Battle of Midway" I thank it for that.

[@Joko_P]

Yup, this movie made me googled the Battle of Midway and found out another 2-part video on KZbin explaining the Battle of Midway from Japanese perspective. I'm surprised that even the movie almost got all the small detail correct. For example, that moment when McClusky and almost every plane went for the closest Japanese carrier instead of going for the furthest one, I didn't notice it in the first place. But after googling and watching that 2-part video, I finally noticed it. Or when Nagumo had to made a very risky decision, in my first time watching it I didn't think of it too much. But after watching that 2-part video, I finally realized why he looked so concerned, almost anxious kinda way.

[@wjzav1971]

Yes, I saw Midway. All your points are valid. Still, I very much enjoyed this movie as a spectacle war movie. And sometimes, that's all you want.

[@bargainbin6162]

Also I blame the bad advertisements for putting Midway 2019 under the radar.

[@ras_732]

But on the other hand, it topped the Box Office on Veteran's Day weekend, beating out Doctor Sleep (Which was tipped to be Number 1).

[@bargainbin6162]

@@ras_732 At least it made a few achievements.

[@NiloWafer19]

I'm seeing a lot of people commenting that "This movie is more about historical accuracy than anything else, so it's okay." It really is too bad, then, that if historical accuracy was in mind, that they would cram this movie full of so much plastic CGI, horrendous writing, and 1-dimensional stereotypes, that it comes right back around to being flat-out unbelievable. Through and through. The movie never even sits in any one place (like world-building, suspense, character development or study) for more than like 5 minutes. Just flat out action with some smart words in between, to keep it all chronological. It's like this was made for 12-year-old history book nerds with the attention span and artistic lens of a lemon.

[@sallygirl1012]

How are we gonna develop real people who some are dead. It strictly history

[@filmandfirearms]

@@sallygirl1012 They don't need to use real people. Plenty of great war movies create entirely fictitious characters, usually an amalgamation of various notable people, and put those characters in a real situation. That's who goes through the development. Real people don't follow character arcs like film characters, that's why any true story has to break from the source material a bit to make a good movie. 1917 is a good example of that in recent years. Characters that were invented from a collection of different war stories, placed in a real situation, and it was an incredible movie. When armies include hundreds of thousands of men, sometimes even a million or more, it's easy to insert one more squad without it seeming odd at all

[@TimoCruz177]

damn, and here I was thinking it was such a good indie film after I watched. Its a pretty good movie despite all the cliches, way better than that Pearl Harbor movie

[@MrSirwolf2001]

You should watch Tora Tora Tora and the 1976 Midway movie.

[@samuelzuleger5134]

@@MrSirwolf2001 SSSSHHHHH!! Don't tell Hollywood that those movies were made and are way better. They might stop patting themselves on the back for "finally" making films about these "forgotten" historical events. Definitely don't bring up "The Tuskegee Airmen." It would disappoint the crew of "Red Tails" to find out their film had been made already, and it was done better.

[@MrSirwolf2001]

@@samuelzuleger5134 then we surely should not mention "Destination Tokyo" and 30 Seconds Over Tokyo"

[@FxnWaySheGoes]

Pearl harbour was bad. but cant fault the action set pieces. Blows midway out of the water

[@filthydisgustingape5354]

@Gerrit Peacock Best if they followed a line spoken by Dr. Benton (Eriq La Salle) on ER; his character spoke to another African American surgeon who was assigned to the ER, and Dr. Benton told him many people think Affirmative Action allows minorities to 'skate' thru med school so His (the new doctor's ) performance must be of SUCH HIGH caliber there must not be even a shadow of a doubt as to his abilities.

[@Rokkator]

Think of Midway as a cinematic documentary. When you expect amazing plot points or fantastic reveals, heroic figures who react immediately to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor... it's no longer realistic. Most men DID stand in stunned silence just watching the Japanese planes bomb their ships for most of the first attack wave. None of them could have EVER imagined that this moment would happen, and they were slack-jawed at what was happening. The sailors' reactions in that scene, while boring & strange cinematically, are EXACTLY what happened in real life. Also, in real life, the motivations for the various characters would have been just as varied, big and small, as shown in this movie. Things in real live are very complicated, nuanced, and bland. It might not make good cinematography, but hey, that's how things are in real life. As a lifelong WW2 history buff, and one who has read numerous books about the war in the Pacific, my complaints weren't the characters, because I ALREADY understood their motivation and feelings. My complaints were more like: "that plane couldn't do that in real life, -grumble grumble- stupid hollywood". So I completely understand that for a non-WW2 Pacific war history buff, this movie would be strange, disconnected, confusing, and possibly even boring. I really wish they'd cut half of the main characters out of the movie and focused much more on the rest. I agree with all of your comments and criticisms, but you're expecting a big blockbuster hit movie. This... thing... is actually a cinematic documentary masquerading as a blockbuster movie. It's not very well put together, and it isn't able to come remotely close to explaining how ridiculously important some of the various events in this movie were. Still, I liked it. Keep up the good work!

[@rileybeckham560]

As a fellow WW2 history buff, I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

[@torcaace]

@@rileybeckham560 As a jack of all trades history buff i agree. Filmento reviews movies that have traits that only blockbuster movies have. The movie was aimed to entertain history buffs. It was basically an action packed documentary. Filmento is not a person that likes history that much so he didn't emphasize on the stories the film told, but instead to the flaws of what made it a movie. When i saw it with my friend who knows next to nothing of history and had to be lectured about what he saw by me every 3 minutes, i realised that i was looking at a documentary and not a brilliant war drama of cinematography like 1917. That movie was awesome. Although i don't remember most of the names, apart from Yamamoto, Nimitz, Best and that Roy guy who got incinerated at the beginning, i remember the plot very well and i enjoyed every moment of the movie. Both Midway and 1917 were great movies of 2019. The first emphasized on the events that took place and the faces that did things in them, while the second is all about the surroundings and the aesthetic of ww1 trench warfare and infiltration of enemy lines.

[@chunkycornbread4773]

As a history fan i loved this movie

[@sallygirl1012]

Agreed

[@xanax-j6c]

Same

[@GarfieldRex]

Can we have a 90s films month? Analysis of older films, maybe from the 80s too.

[@MoLetalis]

I liked Filmento's video on Heat (sound/realism). But I'd like to see an analysis on Saving Private Ryan (plot/theme) or Jurassic Park (visual storytelling).

[@mnslife8160]

I can't remember shit after watching this movie cause of the non existent character development

[@Spider-Too-Too]

BUT i remember EVERY detail about the history of midway. It;'s a history film

[@thorstienn2317]

Luckily you can learn all about practically every character on wikipedia. Unfortunately real people (even war heroes etc) dont tend to have large arcs of character development in relatively short periods of time.

[@eugene12310mobile]

Because you are never meant to try and find it. The movie is literally like a drama-documentary

[@michaelsimarmata5880]

I see that you don't know shit about character development Cause there are plenty of them in the movie

[@charlescalthrop2535]

I remember specifically this one scene where the rogue pilot guy is given command of a squadron and is giving a little speech. And then he is called away by some other guy telling him about the guys doing the Tokyo Bombing. He was literally called away from his own character development in service of a character that has no effect on the plot as a whole. Then later in the film, the rogue pilot stated how he has been tough on them as an officer, and I was yelling at the screen in my head, “I would have liked to have seen that!”. The problem is this film doesn’t focus on a few characters and instead tries to tell as many parts of the story as possible even if they are of no relevance to the main plot line.

[@kye4216]

The reason the soldiers don’t react is because that’s what happened in real life. None of them could believe what was happening

[@Soguwe]

Weeell, you obviously never ate a good bread in your life. Truly good bread does not need anything else, it is a marvel of taste in itself. Blank loaf of bread is something positive, something with a story to tell. Every wrinkle in the crust is a respectful nod to the farmers, millers and bakers that made this bread possible. If you don't have anything to say about the bread you eat, you didn't really eat it

[@onkelpappkov2666]

I get all French when I hear generic US white bread being equated to actual bread. I'm not French but I start ptoo-ing and cursing les Américains while whirling a baguette for some reason. Don't get me started on cheese, putain, incroyable!

[@greatstate58]

I didn’t even watch the movie i just got that vibe from the trailer.

[@ericgarcia4745]

I got that vibe too

[@RetroAmateur1989]

I thought I was watching a world of warships trailer

[@robitpower]

I personally don't think this movie even needed to exist. The reason why no one seems to have an opinion on it as a movie is because Midway is just an up-budget documentary. There is no story, nothing meaningful that you can't just read in a book about the exact same thing. All other amazing movies set in the cinematic marble of World War 2 have some element of fiction about them, because they know that if they just retold one story that everyone with a vague interest in history has heard of, then there's no need to make a movie, just make a documentary. Hacksaw Ridge is a unique example of staying as close to the truth as possible because it was one of the most outlandish stories that really happened, so much so that they had to forgo certain events in fear of it being called too unrealistic. The WW2 movies that stick so close to the truth are focusing on stories the general audience and even some history buffs never heard of, and it gets them interested to know that most, if not all, of the events really happened. With Midway, however, it's just Midway. There's no special story that you get to learn yourself that you were never told about in school or on the History Channel. It's just a "closer" look at Midway. Take into comparison a movie like Saving Private Ryan, which is historical fiction at it's finest. It's taking real moments, establishing them as close to the truth, and sliding in a story that would fit within that setting. The film makes an effort to portray Normandy as close to the truth as possible so that you know this is grounded in a real historical event, and from there you can enjoy it as an event that, within all realms of possibilities, *could* have happened, in some universe not unlike our own. You can use your own historical knowledge before watching to know that when they mention Ryan was with the 101st Airborne, that he's well into enemy lines because that's what you know what happened, but the movie doesn't leave that unsaid and clarifies for people who don't know what being in the 101st means in this context. Movies based on history that stick with you and get recognition are ones that use history as a backdrop to tell a functional, fictional story that everyone can be invested in because it has roots in a historical moment, or ones that use the most balls to the walls real life story that sound more fitting for an actual movie that really happened, and make people invested to learn about this untold story presented in a way that's more fun than going to school or reading a book.

[@medijate]

I genuinely didn't know this movie came out.

[@libertyrae1351]

Midway's biggest issue was marketing.

[@stephensdygert7600]

Its A+ a masterpiece..The guy doing this video is full of blank

[@Horatio787]

Dude, you could've just said, "Directed by Roland Emerich." and left it there.

[@raw6668]

The problem with Midway is trying to do a movie in an event that was months in the making. The war started for the US due to a surprise attack by the Japanese which put them in the back seat. The battle on the airfield was a showcase of why the Americans adopted dive bombing, for their torpedoes were terrible and would only be corrected somewhat in 1943, after the Battle of Midway. The air raid of Dolittle Raid was not only a moral booster but convince the Japanese to attack Midway in the first place to build a beachhead to prevent further attacks. The Yorktown attack was setting the stage as it shows how desperate both the Americans and the Japanese were. The Americans needed a big victory and the Japanese needed to destroy the carriers to prevent future attacks on Japan. The racism both sides showed to each other, and the Japanese brutality set the mindset where victory over the other was the only option. Understanding that you not only know why the Japanese attacked Midway but the action both sides took during the battle. The problem was the movie should have been a mini-series similar to the Pacific. There was just not enough time to establish everything, including the characters to be enjoyable for a casual movie audience, but it tries to do so in a single movie.

[@thursdaythought7201]

They way that he is complaining about the movie makes me think that he needs to rewatch the movie. The main pilot doesn't hate the Japanese- at least not blindly- he is just cocky and wants to win at all costs. The movie has many themes because it covers many aspects of the pacific theater and covers both sides of the war. You cannot expect a movie with such a wide scope to have a single overarching theme. Also you mention how the Doolittle raid meant nothing in the story line but if you pay attention you learn that the Doolittle bombing is what caused the Japanese navy to be aggressive enough to engage the Americans at Midway.

[@belluh-1huey102]

Finally someone that knows something about each cutscene

[@kristopherloviska9042]

Everybody hated the Japanese during WWII.

[@conraderson9121]

If it’s too wide of a scope for a main theme, then it needs to cut back. Edit: Also, as said in the video, Dunkerk did it fine.

[@proximacentauri3627]

​@@conraderson9121 The main theme of Midway is authentic portrayal of military history. As a military history buff it was very rewarding. Dunkirk felt watered down even with the smaller scope of a single battle. Didn't show the vast majority of the actual combat scenarios or the different nations perspectives. The desperate French defenders who died by the thousands, the over stretched and exhausted Germans, ect..

[@thedarkartist3635]

Finally someone who knows the Doolittle raid wasn’t just to show China as a victim, but because there was a actually a historical reason for that scene.

[@jacobfellows2976]

This whole time I watched this video I kept thinking "Wow that looks oddly familiar. But I never saw this I would remember that." Then my girlfriend told me we saw it in theaters. I literally couldn't remember seeing it.

[@jonathanallard2128]

As a war history buff I loved it. Would watch similar movies all day. I don't care for Hollywood-compliant storytelling in movies about ACTUAL history. Leave those concepts for creations of artists, not actual events we cannot and shouldn't change.

[@hugh-johnfleming289]

Pitch meeting: "Take the Midway thing and add CGI." "Who's in it?" "Who cares?" "GREEN LIGHT IT!"

[@squiddymcsquid6371]

''Who should we have star in it?'' ''Yes''

[@MrSleepy677]

Isoroku and Tora Tora Tora are laughing right now.

[@JamesB21a]

I was surprised how accurate and well done the movie was. I highly recommend to anyone interested in WWII history.

[@ClayandPapyrus]

Agreed to me it was super good

[@buggobricks]

I watched this movie in theaters and the only reason I really remember it is because the theater was packed and I had to sit in the front row, where my eardrums almost exploded whenever a plane scene started.

[@hammerheadtheseawing3263]

I went to go see this movie with my granddad (we both like war stuff) There were about 7 people in the theater, including us

[@eliaspeter7689]

Then you had a great time, no annoying popcorn chewing right into your ear etc.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

But WHEN did you go to see it because I saw it a day or two after the first day and the theater was packed.

[@SteveBueche1027]

Clue: Army guys don’t sail battleships.

[@jeremyO9F911O2]

RIGHT!!!!

[@randomuser5443]

But the USAAC was flying the heavy bombers and land based fighters

[@Joe-ok8ql]

@@randomuser5443 yeah but this movie didn't focus much on land based fighters

[@m1a1abramstank49]

Random User That ain’t a battleship is it?

[@randomuser5443]

M1A1 Abrams Tank Yes but those where kitty hawks and the army takes care of those

[@collateralpigeon2151]

This seemed like a documentary masquerading as a movie. The main problem is it tries to cram in way too much history into one movie. Pearl Harbor, Doolittle Raid, Coral Sea, and Midway is a lot to put into a 3 hour documentary much less a movie.

[@AgentHeroic]

Just watch 1917, you'll get so much more out of it than this.

[@giri1478]

yes :D really good movie - a dam simple plot but had the effects of dunkrik to an extent :)

[@williamt.sherman9841]

nope. I still get more out of A REAL EVENT. thing is THIS REALLY happened. unfortunately this film did not bother to actually get the facts of the battle right (with some exceptions)

[@glennb6020]

William T. Sherman lol... wut. A real event done badly, or a fictional event that accurate develops the impact of war without stupid self imposed limitations.

[@joerig96]

Actually i left out theatre and got nothing from 1917 movie, too bad this unique style movie but really lack of explanation / naration of WHAT really happened, so when i got out of theatre just , wtf movie i just watched 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@joerig96]

Different from after watching Midway 2019, i really got many explanation of what really happened that day, not just knowledge (like on book or documentary) but we can really feel what really happen on that day, explain many thing we know from reading history book or watching documentary about Midway battle 1942 i know this movie will only appealing only for WWII and history buff geek, but i know that this movie important for us younger generation to realize what great sacrifice their older generation have done for next generation 😎👍

[@Stones_Throw]

I'm a fan of the 1976 version. As flicks go, I thought this one was decent.

[@TheBelrick]

it failed because it lacked diversity aka too many damn white men and none were villains. Ergo all the SJW cunts , white hating racists, and members of the master race, boycotted it.

[@ericshawn3169]

Bel Rick it makes historical sense to have a completely white cast for the protagonists and would look off if a bunch of women or black people were there for no reason. Now I know a few African-Americans fought in WWII but not enough to make the movie diverse. The creators went for historical accuracy and that’s what they did

[@Stones_Throw]

@@ericshawn3169 The Doolittle additions were a good choice. I enjoyed the movie.

[@TheBelrick]

@@ericshawn3169 What you said applies to all films made in the west . yet here we are in an age where films specifically wont cast white men unless its to play villains see Disney star wars. All white men were degenerated as villains or losers. all the heroes ended up being non-whites or women.

[@michaelomalley1856]

note it was 1970 not 76 but close enough : )

[@raymondliew2725]

i like how history accurate this movie was, and i think the director should release the uncut version of the movie, a lot has been cut out from the movie we seen.

[@laurocoman]

Are you making a Birds of Prey anayomy of a failure?

[@notfromhere8889]

Birds of Prey is actually well liked by those who saw it

[@josephdocherty7919]

@Gira Azuha Well, the world doesn't revolve around you does it?

[@darkdream1469]

@@josephdocherty7919 lol

[@jeremiahduran7238]

Bitchslapped I’m almost sure filmento liked birds of prey...

[@laurocoman]

@@jeremiahduran7238 yeah, but he made a strong point here about box office flops. Maybe he could make a video essay about why a film he DID like did so bad financially. He talked about Solo flopping while addresing it as a film. He could do the same with this.

[@Ciborium]

Well, actually, "blindly obedient Japs" is very accurate. As I learned on a documentary about the difference between American Navy damage control vs Japanese Navy damage control, the Japanese command structure is very rigid and discipline is very harsh. Not doing what you are told immediately, or doing something you were not told to do, will get one severely beaten with sticks. US Navy allows for personal initiative. IJN does not allow personal initiative. An example, after the USS Kitty Hawk is lost during the Battle of Coral Sea because fumes from spilled aviation fuel spread throughout the ship, a single flame ignited the entire ship. A sailor on a neighboring ship who witnessed this had an idea to add ventilation tubes to the hangar bay to exhaust fumes from the ship, or maybe it was fill the fuel lines with CO2 gas when they are not being used to actively fuel aircraft.. Long story short, this was implemented on the rest of the CVs and prevented CVs from becoming floating air-fuel bombs. Another example. During battle, if a ship's boiler were to go out on a IJN ship, unless someone all the way up on the bridge tells them to restart the boiler, the crew will sit there waiting for orders. If that officer is dead or communication lines are broken, the order will never come. On a US Navy ship, the crew will take the initiative to try to restart the boiler because the boiler creates electricity and movement, both of which are useful in keeping the ship afloat.

[@panzerkami2381]

"Well, actually, "ignorant Americans brought up on xenophobic stereotypes" is very accurate." I fixed it for you!

[@catomeowgarius4399]

@@panzerkami2381 Universal education was introduced during the Meiji era, and the samurai code of the warrior was adapted to educational philosophy. The new education required that children be taught reverence for, and unquestioning loyalty to, Emperor Meiji and, of course, to his imperial government. The rigid, regimented curriculum followed the authoritarian Prussian education model at all levels of Japanese education, and was designed to foster national unification, and obedient, respectful, and patriotic students. It was also intended to produce a high level of literacy and knowledge of science, and to infuse children with traditional morality and virtue. Imperial Japanese education did not encourage freedom of thought and conscience, and followed this pattern until 1945. As Japan's foreign policy became more aggressive during the first decades of the twentieth century, Japanese national thinking became increasingly militaristic and education took on an intensely nationalistic character which was designed to support Japan's military aggression in East Asia. Maybe if history offends you, you should have nothing to do with history~ Or try reading a history book or two instead of burning them~

[@steviewonderstricycle840]

@@panzerkami2381 this guy has done research and real world examples and all you have is "racism"? Weak

[@filthydisgustingape5354]

The US carrier lost at Coral Sea was the Lexington.

[@BatMan-fj8dy]

Honestly reminds me of why most people only remember the Eastern Front part of the Call of Duty World at War campaign. It had memorable characters who had an emotional bond and the story made it clear they were fighting a war of annihilation, unlike the American Pacific campaign.

[@daniellane8517]

I've enjoyed watching your videos... but something you say in most has been eating at me: "AKA" is "also known as" and means you'll follow that up with an alternative name. I think what you want to say is "i.e." which is the Latin "id est" meaning "that is to say" or "in other words."

[@PuddingXXL]

Yeah I was doing it too until my roommate told me. It just felt Natural to say aka as a transformative summarization of something to highlight its meaning but I realize that it's confusing for others that don't have knowledge about my intend with this word.

[@onkelpappkov2666]

@@PuddingXXL Well yeah, because it's wrong.

[@kinluke]

I actually found the movie entertaining.

[@tdfern1]

But historically accurate wise? 50/50.

[@jairusmaximus]

Entertaining isn't equal to quality my man

[@kinluke]

@@tdfern1 i didn't say anything about it being accurate. That would not be true at all.

[@ronannababao3501]

@@tdfern1 Waiting for History Buff's take on this movie

[@kinluke]

@@jairusmaximus I didn't say it was my man.

[@mrpetebojangles21]

I went into the movie with little expectations and I ended up thoroughly enjoying it. Big dumb movie, but fun. Also, Midway was a critical turning point in the war, much like Stalingrad was for the Soviets in the east. I’d watch a WW2 movie of this quality 3 times a year if I could.

[@paulofreitasgomes6389]

we need an Anatomy Of A Failure about Cats!!!

[@CorsetGrace]

This was a very good movie. Historically accurate and well made. It's major flaw was it's advertising which was nearly non-existent. I am a huge World War II buff and I didn't hear a word about this movie until a few days before release.

[@professorhaaland6210]

Me too. I was watching KZbin when an ad shows this movie. It was a few days before the movie was due to released. I was really surprised ' Like what the heck, there's a new WW2 movie? Dang, how did I not know this movie since I'm a huge WW2 movies fan.

[@daaud_liverpool1515]

Yeah. I actually liked this film. As it was for historians rather for the general public.

[@randomguyingasmask]

Yeah, after Fury and WW2 movies like that, I really wanted something that made sense and wasn't just built up on stereotypes and Murica Fuck yeah. Not saying there were no Murica Fuck Yeah in this movie, but it was subtle enough, and the accuracy of real events and the sound design (I just really loved how they got right the sounds of these WW2 planes) just made it ignorable for me. But that's propably only us, WW2 fans.

[@GeraltofRivia22]

@@randomguyingasmask yep, the movie was really made for history fans. If you don't know about the actual history behind Midway, a lot of what happens is kinda confusing and disjointed. If you do know, the movie fucking awesome, especially with all the cool historical stuff like the Japanese war game predicting their defeat or the use of deception to identify Midway as the target.

[@randomguyingasmask]

@@GeraltofRivia22 Exactly. If you make a war movie for enthusiast, it's propably gonna look like this.