Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

blitzebill This brief film using real footage about the Battle of Midway is significant for several reasons.The most important is that it shared an important battlefield of WW II (in color no less) with the general American public, who relied on every scrap of news they could get. Radio, newspapers and news reels were the most popular, so seeing this short in their neighborhood theater was just as important.Second, if you want to generate enlistment in your military forces, sure this type of film might accomplish that. And to boot, show some pride in your country's war accomplishments against a vicious enemy.Third, take note that the cameramen risked their lives as much as the soldiers, sailors and airmen, and deserve as much credit. Director John Ford was injured while recording with his camera.This may not be a polished Hollywood filmmaking result, but it was never intended to be.

MartinHafer "The Battle of Midway" is an important historical film. Imagine...film crews were on the island when it was attacked and soon after rushed this short into theaters to celebrate this HUGE American victory. So, from a historical viewpoint it is an important film. BUT, and there is a but here, seen today the film isn't the wonderful film it was proclaimed to be when it was given an Oscar in 1943. I really think the Oscar purely came because of patriotism--Hollywood's attempt to bolster the war effort by heaping praise and awards on films that drummed up love of country and the war. Seen today, the color print is very faded and scratchy but more importantly the narrative sucks. The film was shot with color but was silent--and all sound effects and narration were added later-- and some of the voiceovers were terrible. The bottom line is that if you want to see a historical document-- see this. If you want to see a good film that explains the battle well, don't! There are much better documentaries on the battle.

Michael_Elliott Battle of Midway, The (1942) *** (out of 4) Henry Fonda and Donald Crisp add narration to the battle scenes shot by John Ford where the director was even wounded by enemy fire. There's really no story being told in this documentary but instead we just see a part of history in beautiful Technicolor. God knows everyone has seen countless war films but there's something unique seeing real ones here. They certainly look a lot different than what we've seen in countless fake movies.Ford's World War 2 shorts are out there in various forms ranging from public domain companies to the Ford at Fox set. Quality various but the version in the Fox set is the best.

pmcenea The first 9 minutes of this documentary of the battle of Midway was divoted to the fighting by the US ground troops on Midway. This was actually a minor part of the battle, but provided great footage for the film. The overall effect was very stirring, especially the biplay between Henry Fonda and Jane Darwell. This must have been very comforting to the folks at home when shown in the theaters. I enjoyed it very much.