You're viewing a single thread.
You like "basically dead" old? I'll show ya "advanced state of decomposition" old...
You know what film my father took me to see when it came out?
"Midway".Not Michael Bay "Midway", no siree... I'm talking Charlton Heston, Glenn Ford, Henry Fonda "Midway", in glorious Sensurround Sound™️, which seemed to be a big selling point at the time, the latest and greatest Hollywood movie magic tech.
I just had to look that movie up. Is it a good one?
It uses a combination of practical footage (like Christopher Nolan did with Dunkirk), a ton of cleaned-up WWII archival footage, and a sprinkle of special effects with miniatures. Overall, it looks pretty good.
The "cast of thousands" is front-loaded with some old school screen legends, plus many who went on to become TV stars (Tom Selleck, Erik Estrada, Dabney Coleman).
The film slowly builds up momentum, the way other war films of the time like "A Bridge Too Far" did. It takes over an hour for the Battle Of Midway itself to begin, putting all the pieces into place, and historically it was a painstaking process, so many things had to happen for the battle to start and unfold the way it did.
And unlike so many more recent films of the genre, there isn't any fictional personal drama nor romantic subplots. It's long enough as it already is, telling a grand sweeping story.
Very much a product of its' time, yes I'd definitely recommend it, although I prefer that leisurely pace of 70s films, it's a matter of personal taste, maybe because growing up with those kinds of films.
Thanks you for your detailed review, dude. Definitely mentioning all the stuff I'd be looking for.
And unlike so many more recent films of the genre, there isn't any fictional personal drama nor romantic subplots. It's long enough as it already is, telling a grand sweeping story.
This has been slowly creeping up and tiring to see in all movies. The "archetypes" have been used so many times already that it feels like watching the same stuff over and over again, with a different coat.
I prefer old films and shows too, when given the choice. I enjoy the slower pacing, fewer cuts, and heavier reliance on the quality of the actors, because special effects themselves couldn't carry the whole movie.
It is solid if you enjoy that genre.
It's about 100x better than the Michael Bay version, but that's still not saying much. Yes, it's a good movie for its era. If you watch it today then you'll need to be a little generous about the movie style, since we've come a long way since then.
It depends, your father could have taken you, when you were 2 or 17 - it's almost a lifetime of a difference.
So you're either a dinosaur or a microbe.
I'm somewhat of a dinosaur myself.
It's not Michael Bay. It's Roland Emmerich. Bay did Pearl Harbour, which was fucking awful.
From the looks of another comment down the thread, there's gonna be quite a bit of people like me, who get Emmerich and Bay mixed up.
The bombastic, clumsily unrealistic abuse of CGI might fit fantasy or disaster movies, but it is positively jarring in a war movie, which requires a more sober or constrained style of direction. WWII physics of motion shouldn't look like a fucking video game on the large screen, not even the dogfights.
And let's not even get started on the rote and clichéd emotional
palatepalette in the romantic subplots.EDIT: a word
Such a great movie! I didn't see it in the theater, but it was on free TV all the time when I was a kid, so I've seen it several times.