Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GScholz on December 28, 2012, 07:06:10 PM
-
Pretty good film. A must-see for Pacific War buffs. Chronicles the life and death of Admiral Yamamoto starting pre-war with the politics in Tokyo. The battles of Pearl Harbor and Midway are central to the film, and of course Yamamoto's assassination by P-38s in '43.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG1ogKV70-E
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Admiral-Blu-ray/43681/
-
Looks like a good one.
-
Curious choice of word there for the killing of a military soldier by other military soldiers during a declared war.
-
No disrespect intended, though it was controversial at the time. He was the specific target of operation Vengeance, and Frank Knox required FDR to sign-off on the Yamamoto assassination before he'd order admiral Nimitz to carry it out. When you specifically target an enemy leader outside of normal military operations it is generally called "assassination". The British used commandos to kidnap and/or kill German high ranking officers, so it's nothing unique.
-
Again, curious that the British commandos 'killed'' their targets, but the Americans "assasinated" their's...interesting.
-
We got over it though. We now target individuals all the time and if anyone asks about it they get a stack of legal documents waved in their face, to a chorus of "wartime necessity STFU noob!" 2 presidents (and at least one unsuccessful presidential candidate) and a handful of secdef's think it's a great idea, so it must be ok.
-
Heck, we blew up one guy and when his teenage son came looking for him months later we blew him up too. It used to be you only saw that sort of thing in the movies, like Eastwood's awesome line in Unforgiven.
All right now, I'm comin' out. Any man I see out there, I'm gonna kill him. Any sumb**** takes a shot at me, I'm not only gonna kill him, but I'm gonna kill his wife. All his friends. Burn his damn house down.
merica
-
We got over it though. We now target individuals all the time and if anyone asks about it they get a stack of legal documents waved in their face, to a chorus of "wartime necessity STFU noob!" 2 presidents (and at least one unsuccessful presidential candidate) and a handful of secdef's think it's a great idea, so it must be ok.
Doesn't matter if they are US Citizens either....
-
Hey, start your own thread on "assassinations" or "killing" or whatever. This thread is about a film.
-
Well I hope they get the "assassination" part down correctly. My old USAF unit were the ones that did it after all. :D
The SAPP guys will be happy that it was in P-38s too :lol
-
Well I hope they get the "assassination" part down correctly. My old USAF unit were the ones that did it after all. :D
The SAPP guys will be happy that it was in P-38s too :lol
What are the odds that they'll put in a picture of a P-51, P-40, or some German plane in the shootdown scene? If I was a total cynic I'd bet that they take down his plane with an air to air missile :devil
-
If it was a Hollyweird film I'd bet on a P-51, but no. It was a squadron of P-38s. The CGI/model work is not up to spec with AAA titles, but despite this the CGI looks more real. It's not overdone or flashy.
-
Pick a fight with a big dog and it is likely you will get bit....
-
Well I hope they get the "assassination" part down correctly. My old USAF unit were the ones that did it after all. :D
The SAPP guys will be happy that it was in P-38s too :lol
Then see if they did it right or screwed up; some screens from the final fight:
P-38s engage:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotop38a.JPG)
Close up on one of the 38s:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotop38b.JPG)
Escorting Zekes drop tanks and engage:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotozekes.JPG)
ASSASSINATION! (Or kill or whatever ;))
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotokill.JPG)
-
Looks good but if theyd translate it to English theyd probably get more subscriptions. :O :bolt:
-
Active military leaders have been legitimate military targets since before the American Revolution. Its political or civilian leaders that are considered off the list, unless they also don a uniform, then they become again a legitimate military target.
-
Active military leaders have been legitimate military targets since before the American Revolution. Its political or civilian leaders that are considered off the list, unless they also don a uniform, then they become again a legitimate military target.
Meh. I'd say we assassinated him and that there was nothing wrong with doing so. Because we targeted him specifically "assassinate" works. It was a perfectly legitimate thing to do and I've never seen anybody, even Japanese people, suggest otherwise.
I wouldn't consider the P-38 pilots to be assassins though. Kinda a bit wonky due to the idiosyncrasies of English.
-
"Assassinate" does not mean "illegitimate" or "illegal" as far as I'm concerned. Just describes a sneaky or treacherous way of killing someone.
-
I wonder if they got Tochy to do the animations.
I tried not to mention George Lucas or Ben Affleck, but failed.
-
Then see if they did it right or screwed up; some screens from the final fight:
P-38s engage:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotop38a.JPG)
Close up on one of the 38s:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotop38b.JPG)
Escorting Zekes drop tanks and engage:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotozekes.JPG)
ASSASSINATION! (Or kill or whatever ;))
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/yamamotokill.JPG)
Well it's the wrong model P-38, but I think only Guppy will have trouble with that :D The 339th was flying
Gs but those are later model Js or Ls with the large air inlets instead of the G small inlets.
P-38G:
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/p38g/p38g-2.jpg)
I'm ok with it, at least they used the reasonably correct aircraft :aok
-
Pick a fight with a big dog and it is likely you will get bit....
Or unless your name is Cobia, don't take a bomber to a dogfight :D
-
Have to remember Yamamoto studied at Harvard University (1919–1921) and his two postings as a naval attaché in Washington, D.C. He then used this knowledge against the US in WWII.
-
Curious choice of word there for the killing of a military soldier by other military soldiers during a declared war.
Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.[1][2]
An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives; it may be carried out for the prospect of financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from the desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition), from the wish to form some kind of "relationship" with a public figure, or from the desire (or at least the willingness) to be killed or commit suicide[citation needed] in the act
KILL a : to deprive of life : cause the death of
b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering
Looks like They both apply.....Assassination seems to define more of the motive and Kill is the action with both having the exact same result. I hate the knee jerk reactions of not understanding definitions. Assassination is just a clearer definition.
Kam
-
To my mind killing an Admiral in a combat zone doesn't really qualify as an assassination. The Japanese did engage the
339th, they just didn't do it very well. Sending orders I guess could qualify as assassination, but frankly he was a enemy
member of a hostile military in a state of war with the US.
Considering how the public still felt about Pearl Harbor, I imagine the decision to take him out didn't cost FDR much sleep.
-
I wonder if they got Tochy to do the animations.
I tried not to mention George Lucas or Ben Affleck, but failed.
Yeah, they reminded me of Tochy's, but I don't think so.
-
Have to remember Yamamoto studied at Harvard University (1919–1921) and his two postings as a naval attaché in Washington, D.C. He then used this knowledge against the US in WWII.
I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment. Yamamoto was one of the staunchest opponents to going to war with the great powers (the U.S. in particular), and to the tripartite pact. When his government did go to war he, of course, served his country to the best of his abilities. After Pearl Harbor he was a very somber man, almost defeatist, and he only fought for the slim hope of some sort of bargained peace.
-
To my mind killing an Admiral in a combat zone doesn't really qualify as an assassination. The Japanese did engage the
339th, they just didn't do it very well. Sending orders I guess could qualify as assassination, but frankly he was a enemy
member of a hostile military in a state of war with the US.
Considering how the public still felt about Pearl Harbor, I imagine the decision to take him out didn't cost FDR much sleep.
Incidentally killing an admiral or general, or as a target of opportunity like Lord Nelson was, would not be an assassination. Specifically intercepting and killing him as the sole purpose of the mission would be.
Put it this way, if that had just been a G4M with A6M escort there is no way we'd have bothered to try to intercept and shoot it down. It simply wouldn't have been worth the risk and effort to pull off successfully without Yamamoto being on the plane.
In no way does this make it nefarious, dishonorable or any such thing. It is just a clinical description as an attack planned and targeted at killing an individual.
-
Pretty good film. A must-see for Pacific War buffs. Chronicles the life and death of Admiral Yamamoto starting pre-war with the politics in Tokyo. The battles of Pearl Harbor and Midway are central to the film, and of course Yamamoto's assassination by P-38s in '43.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG1ogKV70-E
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Admiral-Blu-ray/43681/
If he was "assassinated", then Norway "surrendered".
-
If he was "assassinated", then Norway "surrendered".
Not really. Norway did surrender. There is no argument about it, especially considering the Norwegian government admits that they surrendered and the remenants fled to England to form a Government in Exile. The only people that say Norway did not surrender in WWII are those that are intellectually dishonest.
-
thanks Scholz, looks good and amazingly Lovefilm have rental copies, so DVD on the way :aok
-
Didn't watch it, but did they mention we found out where he was headed and when by cracking the code?
It sometimes sends shills up and down my spine to think what this world would be like, without knowing the plans like the allies did.
-
The film is portrayed entirely from the Japanese point of view and they didn't know their codes had been compromised. There is a short scene were a communications officer is shocked that Yamamoto's schedule had been radioed to the base he was going to visit.
-
Well, this is the thread where yon knowitall knee-jerk ingnoramus has finally caused me to use the ignore feature.
Ah, blessed peace.
-
I think that the Pacific war itself was more the United States's fault than the Japanese.
Tora Tora Tora is what gave me that view. The Japanese Leaders and German Leaders both had one thought at the time....
"WAR WITH THE USA... ARE YOU NUTS?"
The idea of attacking the USA back then let alone now is so insane and so blatantly foolhardy that it is bordering insanity. Yamamoto and Kuryibashi both had the same opinion. They spent time in America before the war and hence knew just how powerful the USA could be given the motivation.
Yet as with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in more modern times. The USA's policies forced its enemies to act. Moving the Pacific Fleet to its forward base at Pearl, blocking exports to Japan and imposing a global oil embargo while mobilizing its armies in Guam and the Philippines. Japan could either allow the USA to make the first offensive move as it moved into Malaya to capture rubber and oil supplies from the British Colonies. But they could run out of fuel before they could complete the mission and be slaughtered by the US Navy. The only option left to them was to cripple the US fleet, to buy enough time for a rapid advance through Asia before the US could reorganize, and get to the bargaining table quickly enough holding my country Australia and the Republic of China hostage to secure their Empire.
9/11 was similar from Al Qaeda's point of view in the sense that the only way to fight the United States was to FORCE it to act with one crippling blow to get the US to engage them directly.
However in the end, the results for both were the same. You piss off the USA and its people, and it only ever has one ending.
-
We're all ultimately responsible for our own actions. That Japan had put itself in a position were its military government would lose face by having to withdraw from China if the US ceased selling Japan oil and scrap metal in no way places the burden of guilt on the United States for Japan's government, going against Japan's best interests, decision to attack us in order to preserve their own power. The United States had every right to embargo war materials to Japan based on Japan's barbaric actions in China and if the Japanese government had actually had the interests of the Japanese people, rather than just those in power, in mind they would have withdrawn from China rather than suicidally attacked the United States.
-
Thanks for sharing :aok
-
Yes the USA did have every right. Was it the right course of action? Hindsight tells us no. But then again, making the right decision rarely ever equates to making the moral decision.
-
Yes the USA did have every right. Was it the right course of action? Hindsight tells us no. But then again, making the right decision rarely ever equates to making the moral decision.
I disagree that it was not the right action. Should we bow to barbarity because the aggressor will lash out? Cower and allow ourselves to be used for evil?
I think not. The blood of the Chinese, Koreans, Americans, Filipinos, Dutch, British, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, Russians and, yes, Japanese civilians and soldiers killed in the Pacific and China-Burma-India theaters is all upon the hands of the Imperial Japanese government. No other government bears any of the blame for it.
-
The only case I see morality as the primary cause of a war and indeed the only truly justifiable war, was the war in Europe against the Nazi's.
Japan was just another empire doing what empires do. America itself is another one of those empires. Two large nations vying for power. There was the rape of Nangking and so on. Yes, they are crimes. However, the USA firebombed Tokyo and Nagoya resulting in 1 million civilian deaths. As well as 2 atomic weapons.
War is war. A violent resolution by which nations establish their will over others. The Japanese wished to build an Empire, in doing so they threatened the USA's Empire in the South Pacific. China being a republic and a trade partner of the USA's for a long time prior to the war, was under threat, the USA took action, provoking a war with the IJA and the IJN. Yes Japan struck the first blow, but they were protecting their interests as the USA's was protecting its.
I am cynical when it comes to history and wars... no war is ever fought unless something is gained, or your possessions/interests are under threat. The only exception would be the war against Germany 1939 to 45. That was an ideological war.
on topic however. The movie looks awesome.
-
I think that the Pacific war itself was more the United States's fault than the Japanese.
China being a republic and a trade partner of the USA's for a long time prior to the war, was under threat, the USA took action, provoking a war with the IJA and the IJN. Yes Japan struck the first blow, but they were protecting their interests as the USA's was protecting its.
These two statements seem to be at odds with each other. Many in the USA did not want to get involved in the war and Japans attack on the USA was a huge mistake. The USA is the only "Empire" that conquers territory and gives it back. Japan became a wealthy country with US help and protection. Japan could have avoided the Atomic Nightmare but it's evil leaders lead them to destruction just as the Third Reich's leaders did.
-
Japan's actions toward China in the 30s don't earn them any sympathy from me for the trouble they caused themselves and Allied lives they cost in the 40s.
Ask the Chinese in Shanghi or Nanking if they felt the Japanese were being repressed and forced bury thousands up to their necks and run them over with trucks. Live bayonet practice. Beheading for sport. It gets worse. Much worse from there.
-
Again, curious that the British commandos 'killed'' their targets, but the Americans "assasinated" their's...interesting.
Why? What's difference besides terminology. End result - Dead. Dead is dead regardless.
Were the people killed at Pearl an Assasination? Seems would qualify as this, in this manner.
Looks like a good movie. Only part I thought "Oh No" was the Japanese "Soap" style music that started playing.
:cheers: Oz
-
Only part I thought "Oh No" was the Japanese "Soap" style music that started playing.
:cheers: Oz
Fortunately it's only plying during the credits :)
-
I am Japanese :)
-
The only case I see morality as the primary cause of a war and indeed the only truly justifiable war, was the war in Europe against the Nazi's.
Japan was just another empire doing what empires do. America itself is another one of those empires. Two large nations vying for power. There was the rape of Nangking and so on. Yes, they are crimes. However, the USA firebombed Tokyo and Nagoya resulting in 1 million civilian deaths. As well as 2 atomic weapons.
War is war. A violent resolution by which nations establish their will over others. The Japanese wished to build an Empire, in doing so they threatened the USA's Empire in the South Pacific. China being a republic and a trade partner of the USA's for a long time prior to the war, was under threat, the USA took action, provoking a war with the IJA and the IJN. Yes Japan struck the first blow, but they were protecting their interests as the USA's was protecting its.
I am cynical when it comes to history and wars... no war is ever fought unless something is gained, or your possessions/interests are under threat. The only exception would be the war against Germany 1939 to 45. That was an ideological war.
on topic however. The movie looks awesome.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
The Japanese were marching through the Pacific in a war of conquest. The U.S. merely initiated an embargo to stop or at least slow them. They were attacking China, as well as the British empire, and would soon turn their quest toward Australia. The Japanese decided that they had to break the embargo or give up their dreams of conquest, so they attacked the U.S. The U.S. was not practicing any such sort of conquest or expansionism at the time, and had not in years, the U.S. was still recovering from a crippling depression.
You're not cynical, you're just wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
-
The United States attitude to Empire is the same as the British model. Conquer very few nations wholly, but use its influence to FORCE the sovereign government to do as instructed.
In 1854 the US Navy and Marine Corps, arrived off of Tokyo Bay (Edo) and declared that unless Japan opened up their ports to trade with the United States, the USA would declare war, invade Japan, remove the Emperor and the Shogunate and FORCE Japan to agree to conditions of trade and sovereignty dictated by the USA.
My point is, how is Japan and the USA different?
-
The United States attitude to Empire is the same as the British model. Conquer very few nations wholly, but use its influence to FORCE the sovereign government to do as instructed.
In 1854 the US Navy and Marine Corps, arrived off of Tokyo Bay (Edo) and declared that unless Japan opened up their ports to trade with the United States, the USA would declare war, invade Japan, remove the Emperor and the Shogunate and FORCE Japan to agree to conditions of trade and sovereignty dictated by the USA.
My point is, how is Japan and the USA different?
There is about 85 years between those two periods. Your point is entirely invalid.
-
Doesn't really matter Savage, good old Plawranc has been anti American since the day he logged on. He has his opinion and no
point that conflicts with that opinion with be considered.
-
Doesn't really matter Savage, good old Plawranc has been anti American since the day he logged on. He has his opinion and no
point that conflicts with that opinion with be considered.
I couldn't care less about him. The point is to give people something to read besides the B.S.
-
I couldn't care less about him. The point is to give people something to read besides the B.S.
He seems to view things outside of historical context and through a lens of "Somehow, someway this must be the fault of the United States of America."
-
He seems to view things outside of historical context and through a lens of "Somehow, someway this must be the fault of the United States of America."
Well of course. There are those who will ignore all fact and logic in order to cling to their agenda.
-
I have a book by Avril Harriman who was in the Roosevelt government :old:
He described how it was the British Empire who were seen as a threat to USA interests not the Japanese :old:
Under the British Empire the majority of British people were living in poverty.
Without the Empire they are all fat and have 2 cars :rofl
-
There is about 85 years between those two periods. Your point is entirely invalid.
Not wanting to fan the flames, but that event was a major casus belli in Japan. "The black ships" is how the Japanese refer to the western ships (not just the U.S., but the European powers as well) that visited them in the 16th to 19th century. In Japan Commodore Perry's actions are synonymous with "gunboat diplomacy".
85 years is only two to three generations. We see today how Japanese actions in China before, and during, WWII are affecting global politics and military posturing today, 70+ years later.
-
Well it's the wrong model P-38, but I think only Guppy will have trouble with that :D The 339th was flying
Gs but those are later model Js or Ls with the large air inlets instead of the G small inlets.
P-38G:
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/p38g/p38g-2.jpg)
I'm ok with it, at least they used the reasonably correct aircraft :aok
Also, maybe it's just the dweeb in me, but no DTs or hardpoints for DTs, which I'd almost bet a lunch that the P-38s had equiped on that mission.
-
The United States attitude to Empire is the same as the British model. Conquer very few nations wholly, but use its influence to FORCE the sovereign government to do as instructed.
In 1854 the US Navy and Marine Corps, arrived off of Tokyo Bay (Edo) and declared that unless Japan opened up their ports to trade with the United States, the USA would declare war, invade Japan, remove the Emperor and the Shogunate and FORCE Japan to agree to conditions of trade and sovereignty dictated by the USA.
My point is, how is Japan and the USA different?
I think the 1854 expedition is the seeding of Japan's leadership adopting their ill-fated "what we want, we'll take" mentality with expansionism less than a century later. To a degree we wrote their first book with them on how to compromise and get what you need/want.
However, their fanaticism and belief that the only wrong was to disgrace or disobey their living god (the Emperor), their unquestioning devotion to their Emperor and the leaders he deligated roles to and assigned to lead his people - to put it mildly, were wrong (they were definitely selfish, perverse and even barbaric).
The case can be clearly settled with the Japanese and their own word "Kamikaze" and what the word was defined (and changed) in their culture pre-1850 to post-1945 - here's a hint, the US didn't (nor did any other country) influence the Japanese definition of a word within their own language and culture.
If one thinks of that word and has the vision pop into mind of a pilot sacrificing himself in an aircraft for something greater than themselves - then the perverse and barbaric nature of that empire and it's leaders, and the decisions they made, is evident (and this debate is over).
Irony: a series of typhoons that saved their island nation in the 12th century from the fleets of barbaric Mongolian raiders (thus it's translation into "god/devine-wind") is now used today to underscore the barbaric nature of Imperial Japan and its leaders during the 19th century.
-
I must say that I disagree with the notion that soldiers willingly, and knowingly, sacrificing their lives for their nation is indicative of a perverse and barbaric nature of that nation. Most recipients of the VC and MoH did exactly that and we honor them as heroes, not as fools or barbarians, and rightly so. During the early period of the Cold War both USAF and Soviet interceptors had orders to ram enemy bombers if necessary to protect their nations from nuclear attack.
Also, the Japanese did not use the term kamikaze specifically for suicide attacks, and it was never an official term. The Japanese term for units carrying out suicide attacks was tokubetsu kōgeki tai, which means "special attack unit", or just tokkōtai for short. Kamikaze was considerably more used by the west to describe these attacks, so I guess that answers your question; we (the west) did change the meaning of the word both in our own languages and in Japanese culture.
-
Also, the Japanese did not use the term kamikaze specifically for suicide attacks, and it was never an official term. The Japanese term for units carrying out suicide attacks was tokubetsu kōgeki tai, which means "special attack unit", or just tokkōtai for short. Kamikaze was considerably more used by the west to describe these attacks, so I guess that answers your question; we (the west) did change the meaning of the word both in our own languages and in Japanese culture.
However, while the IJAAF called them "tokubetsu kōgeki tai", the IJN officially referred to their special attack units as "shinpū tokubetsu kōgeki tai", which meant "divine wind special attack units". Shinpū is the on'yomi (Kanji) of the same characters that form the word Kamikaze in Japanese.
ack-ack
-
That wiki article also states "During World War II, the pronunciation kamikaze was used in Japan only informally in relation to suicide attacks, but after the war this usage gained acceptance worldwide and was re-imported into Japan."
The west changed the meaning of the word "kamikaze" in Japanese culture.
-
While a bit off topic this thread reminded me of an incident about 15 years or so ago. My wife's mom asked her to put on a dinner for some friends of theirs they met while staying at an RV park over the summer. Naturally I wasn't thrilled but did what I was told and helped out.
The dinner went well and we moved to the living room for coffee. At the time I was playing WarBirds and had a big coffee table book of WWII aircraft laying out in the open. The old gent happened to notice the aircraft book and we got to talking. As it turned out he was stationed at Henderson Field during Operation Vengeance. His squadron didn’t get to fly the mission, but he knew all the guys that did. The most amazing thing to him was that they actually found Yamamoto’s flight after 600 miles of dead reckoning navigation.
He had some great stories, after a while I mentioned I flew in a PC game named WarBirds that simulated WWII planes. He was very interested and asked to have a go at flying the planes. After a few minutes of explanations of how it worked he asked to fly a P39. After he got airborne and flew around a bit, I mentioned he could shoot the 37mm gun, when he squeezed off a few rounds he got the biggest grin on his face and said that big gun was why he used to love to fly the P39.
Needless to say that was one of the better dinner parties we ever had. :aok
-
Nice story Hyzer. Pretty cool :)
-
When you watch this movie you will see that Pearl, Midway, and Guadalcanal are portrayed at odds with reality. The "execution" of Yamamoto is fairly accurate if you take into account the American reports (and discount the invalid claim). The CGI is inconsistent throughout the movie. It will be on sale next week in a format you cannot play in the U.S.
-
When you watch this movie you will see that Pearl, Midway, and Guadalcanal are portrayed at odds with reality. The "execution" of Yamamoto is fairly accurate if you take into account the American reports (and discount the invalid claim). ...
So this is sort of a Japanese complementary version of that legendary movie "Pearl Harbor" then? ;)
-
When you watch this movie you will see that Pearl, Midway, and Guadalcanal are portrayed at odds with reality. The "execution" of Yamamoto is fairly accurate if you take into account the American reports (and discount the invalid claim). The CGI is inconsistent throughout the movie. It will be on sale next week in a format you cannot play in the U.S.
What did you find at odds with reality?
A format you cannot play in the U.S.?
-
For one, the film makers refused to mount even the slightest criticism of Yamamoto. At Guadalcanal it was his refusal to commit his strongest forces that allowed the Americans to gain a foothold (Yamamoto's mistake) but that is not mentioned at all. Midway? Did you watch this film? You think Midway was a realistic portrayal?
This is a DVD created for Region 2 in PAL format. You can watch it on transatlantic flights right now or buy a region 2 player. The Blu-ray version will work in the U.S. for bluray players.
Dont expect an excellent or accurate film though.
-
For one, the film makers refused to mount even the slightest criticism of Yamamoto. At Guadalcanal it was his refusal to commit his strongest forces that allowed the Americans to gain a foothold (Yamamoto's mistake) but that is not mentioned at all.
The Japanese campaign in the Solomons is not covered by the film, and I don't see how that is "at odds with reality": The film covers two key battles and Yamamoto's fatal final flight; the film is almost two and a half hours long already. The film is a biography of Yamamoto, not a war documentary.
Midway? Did you watch this film? You think Midway was a realistic portrayal?
The battle scenes covering Midway were about 20 minutes of the film. Considering the battle is material enough for a whole movie by itself, how do you think this portrayal was not realistic? The Japanese TF attacks Midway - Recon plane spots US carriers - Nagumo makes his fateful decision - US carrier planes sinks three Japanese carriers - Hiryu's air group attacks the USS Yorktown - Hiryu is sunk by US planes - Yamamoto retreats.
-
You obviously were too drawn to the bloated image of this failed Admiral. The whole problem with this movie is that the Japanese are afraid to criticize a dead man that has been considered a great man in the past. That is a very common thing in Asia, while here in America we are free to criticize our leaders.
That is another reason why we fought facism. For freedom.
-
You seem to have personal issues with this topic. The film certainly did not hold back any criticism against other Japanese, now dead, historical figures, and you still fail to clarify how the portrayal of the battle of Midway was not "realistic".
-
Yamamoto was actually a very good admiral, and reasonably successful, given the restrictions under which he operated. He was diametrically opposed to the war to begin with, and knew before it was started that Japan could not hope to win. Most of the "failures" under Yamamoto were one time failures of subordinates, some of which were understandable mistakes. He accurately predicted, and promised his "superiors", that he "could run wild for 6 months, and after that, promise nothing". From Pearl Harbor to Midway was about 6 months.
Under the circumstances, Yamamoto had two choices, refuse to participate in the war and resign, which would probably have resulted in him being assassinated by Tojo and his followers, or do as he did, do the best possible job given the task assigned him and the restrictions he operated under. He was a wise and honorable man, forced into something he did not desire or believe in. The Japanese navy was far worse off without him than it was with him.
-
You obviously were too drawn to the bloated image of this failed Admiral. The whole problem with this movie is that the Japanese are afraid to criticize a dead man that has been considered a great man in the past. That is a very common thing in Asia, while here in America we are free to criticize our leaders.
That is another reason why we fought facism. For freedom.
You ever watch the MacArthur bio-pic with Gregory Peck? You could say the exact same thing about that movie that you're saying about this movie as the MacArthur movie never did mention any his screw ups in WW2 and Korea and painted a rosy picture of MacArthur as an infallible general.
ack-ack
-
In this film just about everything the Japanese do is portrayed as a failure, including the attack on Pearl Harbor. The film is very critical of the Japanese public opinion, government, media and military leadership. Throughout the film in small segments we follow several small groups of people (some civilians, a journalist and his colleagues, and a few IJN pilots) as they go from warmongering nationalism to despair as their world is destroyed around them. The only thing I agree with Chalenge on is that the CGI is "inconsistent", however it gets the job done.
Just found an English trailer for the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBQotim_ZHA
These trailers have a tendency to focus on the action. However, this film is not an action flick. The first hour or so is actually pre-war.
-
For those interested in the "Kamikaze" digression of this thread, the Japanese made another pretty good flick a few years ago with the English title "For Those We Love". I could only find a horribly dubbed German trailer for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4w4nDTN0Q0