Although it's been 43 years since the World War II pivotal sea battle of Midway was portrayed on film in 1976, the 2019 revisit has proven to be well worthwhile.
The recent release of this $100 million action-packed war drama compares relatively favorably to its bicentennial year predecessor.
Using real life intrepid U.S. Navy Pilot Richard Best (Ed Skrein) along with U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson), as the film's two centerpiece plot drivers, producer and director Roland Emmerich delivers both a compelling and effective retelling of one of history's most significant sea clashes.
For the sake of communicating both the impact and significance of Midway, Emmerich was wise in choosing real-life battle participants Layton and Best to build Midway's plot around.
In their solid portrayals of both Best and Layton, Skrein and Wilson are also capably supported in supporting roles by Woody Harrelson as U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Chester Nimitz and Brennan Brown as Commander Joseph Rochefort, who was another one the U.S. Navy's real-life chief military code crackers.
In contrast to the new Midway, the '76 Midway offers portrayals of neither Best or Layton. Instead both are more or less portrayed by a composite fictional character played by the late Charlton Heston. Heston, in addition to playing both a non-real-life intelligence officer and navy pilot, also plays a fictional air operations officer named Capt. Matt Garth. But this lead role that basically combines three critical roles really only serves to compound Heston's part into sort of a "Ben-Hur" style larger-than-life character.
Like the two lead roles in the 2019 version, Heston's overall fictional character is also well-supported by such fine actors as the late Henry Fonda (Nimitz) and Hal Holbrook (Rochefort).
While Fonda's version gets more screen time than Harrelson's Nimitz, Fonda deserveds it, largely because of his first-rate acting. Holbrook's Rochefort also gets more screen time than Brown's. This serves as a good trade-off for the emphasis on Layton's contributions showcased in the newer flick.
As for the length of the two films, there's only about a six-minute difference, with the newer Midway sporting the surplus - lasting two hours, 18 minutes. But even at this, the newer movie seems to suffer slightly for attempting to encompass what amounts to a nearly a five-year back tory into a prelude to the June 1942 battle. In contrast, the '76 Midway's two-hour and 12 minutes affords coverage of roughly a six-week story package - something that's more digestible.
Although Emmerich manages to bring the battle's story out by keeping the action moving along at a good clip, it comes at the expense of the Japanese viewpoint. In contrast, the '76 Midway, directed by Jack Smight and produce by Walter Mirisch, strives for screen time for both sides. Emmerich also leaves out any and all action about the loss of an American aircraft carrier, focusing instead on the destruction of all four Japanese carriers.
Looking at the cinematography and visual effects, the edge would have to go to the newer Midway, mostly because digital rendering now allows the historical look of ships and airplanes to appear with an incredible degree of accuracy, which the 1942 battle calls for. Whereas back in 1970s, period-piece films had to rely on modernized vintage warships that could still look period with the help of carefully focused camera angles.
To some degree, originality in scene-shooting would also have to go to Emmerich, owing to the fact that some air combat scenes, particularly of the Japanese air attack on Midway Island, in the original film relied somewhat heavily on stock footage from 1970's "Tora, Tora, Tora" as well as three or four other war films.
Both movies, especially for history fans, are commendable. And in case you are more of a television fan, the ABC 1988 television mini-series "War and Remembrance" offers it own roughly two-hour version of the Battle of Midway,