Pearl Harbor

Rating:
Summary: Do you really have three hours to waste like this?
Review: Is there a great movie to be told about one of the most fateful days in American history? Absolutely. Is this it? Far from it! To begin with, a movie called Pearl Harbor should feel some obligation to concentrate on the events of December 7, 1941. Instead, the movie serves up a ridiculous and uninteresting love story for most of the movie. In the skillful hands of a director such as James Cameron (as in Titanic), the ploy of using a smaller love story to bring us into the larger story of history can work; in Michael Bay's hands, it fails utterly. Only during the actual bombing sequence does the movie shine at all, and for a brief moment we see what the movie COULD have been. Sadly, the best parts of this sequence are ripped off lock, stock and barrel from Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, almost shot for shot (Mr. Bay, you should be ashamed--but then again, you should have retired following the atrocity that was Armageddon). Low point in the movie: when Hartnett's character, as the bombs begin to fall around him, calls the airstrip and announces "I think World War II just started!" Oh, I guess nothing at all had been going on in Europe since 1939--duh. If you absolutely feel you MUST see this because Ben, Josh, and/or Kate are in it, then do yourself a favor--rent it on DVD, go to chapter select, and just watch the battle sequence. This is three hours of your life you will never get back otherwise.

Rating:
Summary: This is the Rated "R" Director's cut, not theatrical release
Review: I've never seen this movie and probably won't until May 2002 when this "R" Rated version comes out. I read in some trade papers that Michael Bay was against the softball version of this film from the get-go, but the Mouse House honchos wanted to tone down the violence and play up the romance, which is exactly why everyone says this movie (is bad). This listing is a little mis-leading because most of these reviews refer to the sappy version in current DVD release.

I know that I am in the minority, but I'd rather see the movie for the first time as the director envisioned it. There is supposed to be much more realistic and graphic battle scenes that the studio forced him to trim and I'm pretty sure he was recording a feature length commentary track for this version as well. I did not notice this feature on the current DVD release, which is why I am writing this and why I am giving this version 5 stars.

This is just another money grabbing ploy by Di$ney to get people to buy the theatrical version first then come back in six months and say "This is the version you should have bought in the first place." Mark my words - You'll start seeing the "expanded edition" commercials in late April, 2002.

Why don't they release this along with the original version as a dual disc set, or even publicize the fact that this is on it's way? So they can hide behind the "60th Anniversary" ploy and capitilize on the current wave of patriotism in America to line their pockets. Sorry Mr. Eisner, I'm not biting. Send a message to the studios about double-dipping and pre-order this version right now. They'll be watching the numbers. Buy it the way it was meant to be seen.

Rating:
Summary: A movie for everyone....
Review: Okay so most people said that titanic was a chic flick, and now I hear alot of chics saying this is a guy flick and they aren't interested in seeing it. Let me say this.....this is the one movie that offers, love, action, romance, guns, planes, fights, sex, blood, everything. This movie my husband and I both love. It belongs in your dvd collection. How could you not enjoy such a great, well made, well written, well directed movie. And it doesn't take six hours to get to a very great surprise ending.

Rating:
Summary: The whole world is full of idiots!
Review: I'd heard this movie put down so much that I opted to not see it in the theater. I will admit that Bruckheimer films have a tendency toward prefabricated robotic scripts and melodramatic direction and acting; however, despite the consensus of the other reviewers, this film strays as far from those faults as it possibly can.

To begin, I find it quite amusing that no one giving this film an unkind review is able to give specific details of melodrama or clichéd plot or any other significant fault. So, to avoid that lack of credibility, I am going to actually explain why this movie is good:

It seems fairly taken for granted that the special effects and action sequences are of superior quality, and such minor facets of film as a whole are rather inconsequential, so I'll skip that category. So, what about the plot/screenplay: Let's start with the friendship of the two lead characters. Due to surprisingly authentic acting (accents included), the relationship between Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett's characters is immediately convincing and intriguing. They are country boys, who dream away their childhoods and aspire always for honor and courage. They love each other in a way that is never displayed in American cinema, unless it involves homosexuality.

Then we have the extremely sweet, innocent, and humorous romance between Ben and Kate Beckinsale's characters. Despite the commonly held notion, this is not in any way akin to Leo and Kate Winslet's relationship nor characters from Titanic. That film portrayed the old-as-time tale of a girl, who is, against her will, engaged to a man, whom she doesn't love. Those characters knew each other for like a day before they were gettin' their groove on and professing their undying love for each other. Can you say "absurd"? Anyway, the romance in Pearl Harbor does not come anywhere near the ridiculously overdone and unconvincing romance in Titanic. Rather, Michael Bay's superb direction-including cinematography (very dark backgrounds with bright lights on the eyes of the actors), angles (ecu's at pivotal and spiritual moments), editing (fast cuts and slight disorientation to express the "butterflies in the stomach" sense of confusion that love induces), direction of acting (the sense of puppy-love is enhanced by the stumbling and stuttering of both characters), and production values (did you see the sets?)-really makes the viewer feel like a part of the relationship. He also puts a different feel on the relationship by refraining from resorting to sex to solidify their love for each other. For this, I say, "God Bless Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Randall Wallace."

As far as historical accuracy or whatever is concerned, if you care that much about such things, GO TO COLLEGE, READ AN HISTORICAL JOURNAL, WATCH THE HISTORY CHANNEL, TRAVEL BACK IN TIME; don't ever-EVER go see a movie expecting historical accuracy. Although a few--very few--may be "historically accurate," they can't all be for the simple fact that that is already taken care of by educators, documentary filmmakers, et cetera. You might as well be complaining that the film didn't have enough of Santa's reindeer to please you.

On the subject of mental, moral, emotional, or political dilemmas: IT'S A MOVIE-ENTERTAINMENT, ESCAPISM, FUN, ROMANCE, LAUGHS, TEARS, et cetera; it never claimed to be and certainly shouldn't be a commentary on or an exploration of such weighty issues. It's simply a patriotic, exciting, and well-made love story, nothing more, and nothing less. Similarly to the last topic I dealt with, if you want significant dilemmas and character studies or whatever, watch a Merchant/Ivory film, read the Bible, read C.S. Lewis, go to Harvard Divinity School, just don't watch a big-budget American film with Alec Baldwin, Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, Dan Aykroyd, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jon Voight, et cetera. You don't see people attending a Lakers' game expecting to see Peyton Manning bowl a hole-in-one, throw a grand slam, and then fall off of his horse.

How could anyone dispute the eye and heart that Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer share when it comes to filmmaking? The film is beautifully shot with low-lying angles, epic camera movements, appropriate distortions of the camera lens and film, gorgeous actors/actresses, lighting that rivals that of Thierry Arbogast, universally emotional music, characters that are developed enough to fall in love with, yet reticent enough to picture oneself in their shoes, and a factual event that changed the course of world history.

Most people who don't like this film though probably cheered when Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, and Gladiator won Academy Awards, and they probably all hail Citizen Kane and Metropolis as the greatest films of all time, so that should be incentive to simply ignore them all.

Rating:
Summary: Thumbs up for Dolby headphone
Review: Peral Harbor is apparently the first DVD issued with a audio processing for headphones, designed to emulate Dolby 5.1 surround sound. It is one of 4 audio tracks on this dvd. The Dolby headphone works well, adding a great sense of ambience to the sound and a richness to the bass frequencies. The sound projects behind as well as somewhat forward. It doesn't sound exactly like a surround sound speaker system but it greatly enhances the movie experience, although doubt that I would like it for regular music. It should convert many viewers to headphone listening with movies. Sound quality is generally obtained with headphones at a fraction of the price of speakers, so Dolby headphone listening presents a potentially much cheaper approach to good movie sound than investing in a 5 or more channel speaker set-up. (...)
As for the movie itself, it was effective for me, although I can see why some reviewers objected to it's stylistic quirks, e.g. slow-mo shots, the high contrast look which reminded me of tv commercials and the cliches and lapses in the story. It was nevertheless, in my opinion better than Titanic, which it somewhat resembles with its weaving of a romantic story around a historical disaster.

Rating:
Summary: waste , real waste
Review: doesnt deserve the time, doesnt reflect reality in its real content

Rating:
Summary: Pearl Harbor besmirched, but...
Review: An awesome tale Pearl Harbor, is belittled and diminished as the backdrop to a sappy, get-the teenies-in-the-theaters Hollywood love story. In that sense, a waste. Other reviewers have so amply said.

Nonetheless, kudoes for the special effects and the overall cinematography. Excellent jobs. Especially on DVD, those luscious Hawaii-scapes come alive and the battle scenes are awesome. As a Navy veteran I shuddered at the graphic depiction of the Arizona's demise, not to mention the Oklahoma's capsizing.

This film was conceived and shot long before the events of September 11, 2001. One probably can't blame the youngish producers and directors, or the shallow bottom-line driven Disney brass, for being too distantly removed in time and perhaps too supercilious to grasp the true shock that Pearl Harbor was at the time.

Americans rallied around. In ensuing decades we all came to wonder if we ever would similarly do so again. Then came September 11. Now we know. I found it very interesting, more than a little moving and certainly worthwhile, to view even this Hollywood-flawed opus against that backdrop.

Rating:
Summary: How could they ....
Review: As if all the reviews about this movie were less than 3 stars!!! (...) Geez... this movie was amazing. It made me laugh, it made me cry, and it made me think about the things that happened before I was even born. I loved this flick and I'd say it is a *Must-see* for anyone that knows (...).

Rating:
Summary: Please, Michael Bay, stop making movies!!!!!!
Review: Move over Ed Wood, here comes Michael Bay. One of the absolute worst directors around. He couldn't direct his way out of a paper bag.
I hated this movie. No, I take that back. I detested this movie. How can someone take an pivotal historical event such as this and turn it into a corny soap opera. Yeah yeah, i know, the movie makers wanted to make a Titanic clone. That should have been a flashing red light right there. Since the Bruckheimer/Bay combination is so completely bankrupt of fresh ideas they had to copy someone else's work.
Every cliche and routine line imaginable, from past movies, are used. This movie stirs no emotion whatsoever. The fact the Kate B's character goes to another guy within such a short time frame is absurd. The film goes out of its way to shove Ben Affleck in your face. He flies fighters, bombers, rescues sailors, shoots down Japanese, shoots down Germans, and single handedly guns down a dozen Japanese soldiers. All of this and he has no scars or wounds. Give me a BREAK!. Affleck looks like he should be waiting on tables instead of being a soldier.
Don't expect much realism or historical value from this film. I'm surprised that Bay even got the names of the ships correct. Did it ever occur to these producers that a movie can have some realism and still be good?
This movie has no message. There's nothing in this movie that makes you think. There are no memorable lines, scenes or characaters. There's nothing about it that honors the memory of the heroic soldiers that fought and died during that battle. This movie is an insult to the WWII veterans and movie goers.

Rating:
Summary: Terrible, a disgrace
Review: This movie is simply atrocious. If you want a good American war film go try Patton or Saving Private Ryan. The fight scenes are somewhat decent, but the love story and plot is an insult to the viewer.