This film is a "late" WW2 film (filmed 20 years after the war ended). It does try to put a human face on the U.S. Navy's side of the war as opposed to the earlier "praise the conquering heroes" Hollywood war films that were produced in great numbers both during and immediately after the war.
The problem for me was the whole "this story is just a representation of the real events". In my opinion, I'd rather you give me the real history or make something up with your own names.
The only thing that was accurate about this film with the Perl Harbor attack which started the war. Everything else was just "synthetic", a conglomeration of events that happened across the Pacific war but are brought together for this film about people who aren't real. Nimitz was a real person with strengths and weaknesses of all men. So was Halsey, and Jess Oldendorf and Raymond Spruance. Why not tell one of their stories? Instead we have John Wayne's character "Rock" who has traits of some of these men but is not real.
To make matters worse, they talk about real things and mix them up with their "made up" things. The worst was inventing a battle between Rock's invasion force and a Japanese fleet which included the Yamato. This never happened. So the writers took a real famous Japanese battleship and gave it a fake history. Why?
For an example of a truely GREAT "late" WW2 film, take a look at Patton. Nearly everything in "Patton" is true, or a reasonable approximation of the truth. Not only do you get a see a great film when you watch Patton, but you get to learn something about a great American General. "In Harm's Way" is like the inverse of Patton. Its not about anyone and you don't learn the real history of the Pacific War when you watch it.
I given it a 5 because of the fine acting helps make the film watchable.
The problem for me was the whole "this story is just a representation of the real events". In my opinion, I'd rather you give me the real history or make something up with your own names.
The only thing that was accurate about this film with the Perl Harbor attack which started the war. Everything else was just "synthetic", a conglomeration of events that happened across the Pacific war but are brought together for this film about people who aren't real. Nimitz was a real person with strengths and weaknesses of all men. So was Halsey, and Jess Oldendorf and Raymond Spruance. Why not tell one of their stories? Instead we have John Wayne's character "Rock" who has traits of some of these men but is not real.
To make matters worse, they talk about real things and mix them up with their "made up" things. The worst was inventing a battle between Rock's invasion force and a Japanese fleet which included the Yamato. This never happened. So the writers took a real famous Japanese battleship and gave it a fake history. Why?
For an example of a truely GREAT "late" WW2 film, take a look at Patton. Nearly everything in "Patton" is true, or a reasonable approximation of the truth. Not only do you get a see a great film when you watch Patton, but you get to learn something about a great American General. "In Harm's Way" is like the inverse of Patton. Its not about anyone and you don't learn the real history of the Pacific War when you watch it.
I given it a 5 because of the fine acting helps make the film watchable.