Basically the story of the sea battle for Okinawa between the ships of the U.S. Navy and the Japanese suicide planes---the Kamaikazes---and, as such, is filled with stock footage from ... See full summary »
Basically the story of the sea battle for Okinawa between the ships of the U.S. Navy and the Japanese suicide planes---the Kamaikazes---and, as such, is filled with stock footage from official U.S. war-department films and newsreels and from Japanese newsreels..and even a movie-within-a-movie where 1948's "Ladies of the Chorus" is shown to a crew of a ship in 1944. The factual story is interlaced with a fictional one dealing with the crew of an American destroyer which is assigned to an ocean picket line around Okinawa to protect the supply ships and the forces on the island. As such, it has the usual battle-weary skipper, the Latino wise-guy, the "Kid" and the "Old Veteran", and the brash, cigar-chewing "operator" on the ship who has cornered the entire supply of the ship's beer rations. Written by
Les Adams <longhorn1939@suddenlink.net>
The story takes places at the time of the battle for Okinawa, 1945, but the personnel involved watch a film clip from 'Ladies of the Chorus' a 1949 production featuring Marilyn Monroe. See more »
I don't get the hate for this movie. It's not cheap, it's deliberately small, focused and about as emotionally involved as you can get with a small crew of men acting in a 1940s way. I almost wish we hadn't had the bridge scenes with the command crew, and had to entirely take it from the point of view of the gun crew. That's how history happens; people go about their little part, and get these rare little views of the big action.
I was unusually not disturbed by the cookie cutter characters. We rarely see how they really are, but instead get their public face, to their crewmen while at war. People fall into bravado and storytelling just like this. There were moments of doubt and fear that showed this off I think, very well.
Stock footage, sure. But only rarely did I notice the grain mismatching, and they spent an awful lot of effort to make it blend into the narrative. My favorite of these is about 50 minutes in when one of the characters grabs onto a fitting on the gun to lean out and look at a heavily damaged passing ship. They did this because in the foreground of the stock footage is a sailor doing just that. It brought the stock into the story, and is such unseen stock of such specific damage you could never have simulated it with new footage, especially in the 50s.
I was especially pleased with the sets. I guess they are sets due to lighting and so on, but the interior of the gun mount looks absolutely perfect and realistic, and absolutely unexpectedly so. It really helped with the verisimilitude of the whole endeavor.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
I don't get the hate for this movie. It's not cheap, it's deliberately small, focused and about as emotionally involved as you can get with a small crew of men acting in a 1940s way. I almost wish we hadn't had the bridge scenes with the command crew, and had to entirely take it from the point of view of the gun crew. That's how history happens; people go about their little part, and get these rare little views of the big action.
I was unusually not disturbed by the cookie cutter characters. We rarely see how they really are, but instead get their public face, to their crewmen while at war. People fall into bravado and storytelling just like this. There were moments of doubt and fear that showed this off I think, very well.
Stock footage, sure. But only rarely did I notice the grain mismatching, and they spent an awful lot of effort to make it blend into the narrative. My favorite of these is about 50 minutes in when one of the characters grabs onto a fitting on the gun to lean out and look at a heavily damaged passing ship. They did this because in the foreground of the stock footage is a sailor doing just that. It brought the stock into the story, and is such unseen stock of such specific damage you could never have simulated it with new footage, especially in the 50s.
I was especially pleased with the sets. I guess they are sets due to lighting and so on, but the interior of the gun mount looks absolutely perfect and realistic, and absolutely unexpectedly so. It really helped with the verisimilitude of the whole endeavor.