billmarsano
Joined Apr 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings44
billmarsano's rating
Reviews39
billmarsano's rating
Well, not quite: the opening sequence off the battle that sank the Japanese Navy's Yamato--the the largest and most powerful battleship in the world at that time--is pretty effective and pretty accurate. It has no context, however: it is never established what was a stake or the reasons for the battle, nor is it noted that the ship was essentially on a suicide mission vs the USN invasion fleet off Okinawa during the end game of WWII. So it would be wise to consult Wikipedia, at the least, before watching. After watching this scene, rewind, watch a couple more times, and skip all the rest, which--even if you do take time to find out all about (as suggested below) the Washington naval treaty--is all nonsense (the ending is particularly non-credible). The only 'action' after the sinking scene is all on dry land, with hardly a ship seen again nor a shot fired-- just a lot of sneaking about in offices and yelling at naval conferences. Not fair to say anything about the acting, as the version I saw was dubbed (pretty horribly).
Yes, there WERE a few officers in the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) opposed to building the THREE superbattleships actually laid down (Musashi, Yamato and Shinano) but they were overwhelmed by the "Gun Club" of old timers who ruled most navies of that period. Battleships were built by all of WW2's navies, but those of the Axis powers fared poorly. Italy was out of the war early and her fleet surrendered to the British. The Germans had no great naval tradition (like Britain), fought poorly, often ran away, and were trashed in the end. The Japanese, after Pearl Harbor, lost steadily. Her superbattleships suffered most of all, ignominiously. Musashi was sunk in late 1944 EN ROUTE to her FIRST battle, by USN carrier planes. Yamato was sunk EXACTLY the same way in exactly the same circumstances mere months later. The third, Shinano, was converted to an aircraft carrier and was sunk by a USN submarine with 24 hours of leaving port on her first voyage.
You will learn none of this by watching this unutterably stupid movie, and there is no point in watching it unless you know it.
FYI to somebody below: Yes, Yamato did fire 18" shells at aircraft: they were a special AA shell called (if I remember correctly) 'beehive' shells. They were worthless. Sinking Yamato cost the USN 10 airplanes, most of them knocked out of the sky when she blew up with a truly volcanic explosion heard and seen dozens of miles away.
Yes, there WERE a few officers in the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) opposed to building the THREE superbattleships actually laid down (Musashi, Yamato and Shinano) but they were overwhelmed by the "Gun Club" of old timers who ruled most navies of that period. Battleships were built by all of WW2's navies, but those of the Axis powers fared poorly. Italy was out of the war early and her fleet surrendered to the British. The Germans had no great naval tradition (like Britain), fought poorly, often ran away, and were trashed in the end. The Japanese, after Pearl Harbor, lost steadily. Her superbattleships suffered most of all, ignominiously. Musashi was sunk in late 1944 EN ROUTE to her FIRST battle, by USN carrier planes. Yamato was sunk EXACTLY the same way in exactly the same circumstances mere months later. The third, Shinano, was converted to an aircraft carrier and was sunk by a USN submarine with 24 hours of leaving port on her first voyage.
You will learn none of this by watching this unutterably stupid movie, and there is no point in watching it unless you know it.
FYI to somebody below: Yes, Yamato did fire 18" shells at aircraft: they were a special AA shell called (if I remember correctly) 'beehive' shells. They were worthless. Sinking Yamato cost the USN 10 airplanes, most of them knocked out of the sky when she blew up with a truly volcanic explosion heard and seen dozens of miles away.
I saw the wonderful Mark Rylance in this play when it came to Broadway a few years ago and couldn't wait to see it again. No such luck. This is not the play. This is a tv show about making a tv show about the play. In the theater the play and players were foursquare before me on the stage. On the screen there were audience shots, reaction shots, sideways shots and other nonsense well calculated to display the 'miracle of television' but all of it at the expense of the concentrated intimacy necessary to enjoyment. I reject the notion--or excuse--that a different medium necessitates a different treatment. Surely this play he's been filmed before with stooping to such intrusive gimmickry?