MovieChat Forums > Devotion (2022) Discussion > Not a classic, but an enjoyable watch

Not a classic, but an enjoyable watch

posted a year ago by PrimeMinisterX (8289)
16 replies | jump to latest

I always make a point to go see a movie on Thanksgiving Day, and on this Thanksgiving I went to see Devotion. Speaking of being thankful, I was thankful that it was out because there was literally nothing else that interested me at all.

In brief. . .

Pros:

* The story has heart, though it is bittersweet.

* There are some cool flying sequences that show what those old school WWII planes were capable of.

* The film is shot well, with a lot of nice cinematography.

* It has a nice, classic, old fashioned feel to it that is pretty uncommon nowadays. It doesn't feel like a movie that would be released in 2022 and in many ways feels more like a 90s release.

Cons:

* It's a little slow and never does feel super exciting. In some ways it feels like a bomb with a lit fuse that never explodes.

* There are only a handful of battle scenes. Could've used more dogfighting.

* A few of the plot elements that get thrown into the story ultimately seem inconsequential and just don't really go anywhere.

Overall I thought it was a solid Korean War drama that turned out to be a good movie, but not a great one. I'd give it a 7.5/10, though if I can use quarter points I might go with more like a 7.25. Last I looked the IMDB score was 6.6. I really think that is too low. It is deserving of at least a 7.

reply

[–] olioz (3301) a year ago

This looks interesting. I love war movies and usually the upcoming ones are on my radar but I've never heard of this one until now. I'll definitely check it out.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

If you're a fan of war movies then you should enjoy it. But just go in with the right expectations. Like I said, the film does run a little slow and it's more about the human drama than it is the battle scenes, of which there are only a handful.

Here's the trailer, if you didn't look it up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCDEGP6VjYY

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2767) a year ago

Always appreciate your reviews PMX.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

Oh, well thanks so much! I appreciate that. Glad to know I am useful for something.

reply

[–] JepGambardella (462) a year ago

It is not a WWII drama. The first half of the movie takes place in 1950, so five years after the end of WWII, and the second half during the Korean War.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

Oh yeah, my bad. Fixed.

reply

[–] Ranb (7144) a year ago

I would not expect to see any dog fighting scenes involving Korean War F-4U Corsairs as they were obsolete as fighters and were used as close air support for soldiers on the ground.

I read that a Corsair shot down a Mig-15 once, but it was in turn shot down right after.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

Didn't know that about the exact role of the Corsairs in the Korean War, but that fits what we see in the movie.

I wasn't exactly sure what the status of our plane technology was during the Korean War, but for most of the film it's just focused on these prop planes -- first the Bearcat and then later the Corsair. Then at a certain point in the film a jet pops up from the competing side. And I was like, "Wait . . . what? Jets exist at this time and we're flying around in these prop planes?"

reply

[–] Ranb (7144) a year ago

Fighter jets in 1950 were limited to those like the MiG-15 used by the Soviets and Koreans in North Korea and the F-80 and F-84 used by the USAF and the F9F Panther used by the USN on carriers.

While the F9F had a similar range and payload as the F4U, there were not enough of the jets, so the Corsairs continued to be used. While the jet was faster, I think the Corsair had a longer loiter time over target.

The A-1 Skyraider was far superior to the F4U and the F9F for close air support and had double the armament payload. The 8000 pound bomb load was the same as the B-17 Flying Fortress. The F4U's and A-1's would operate together at times.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

Thanks for the info. That's interesting. I guess around the time of the Korean War it was a real transitional period for aerial combat.

reply

[–] Mustang (5194) a year ago

Yep the Korean war has an odd mix of new and old. The bridge that they attack was originally unsuccessfully bombed by B29's four prop engined bombers from WW2. Once the Koreans got Mig 15's they made mincemeat out of the slow B29's.

The Americans had the superior F86 Sabre.

Mig 15 or F86 it was all captured German technology!

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

I believe it about the MiGs and the B-29s.

I can't imagine being in a prop plane of any sort and seeing an enemy jet come out of nowhere. That seems terrifying.

reply

[–] bistritapcv (1657) a year ago

Like Liz Taylor?

I agree some great flying scenes.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

What about Liz Taylor?

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) a year ago

Sounds like a decent film. I really like Jonathan Majors too. Should give this a viewing at some point.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8289) a year ago

In what has been overall a very disappointing year for film, I think it's one of the better ones we've gotten. You should check it out and post some thoughts on it.

reply