Rating: 
Summary: Actually two and a half stars
Review: My expectations were low for this movie. I figured it would be as cheesy and as "Hollywood" as Titanic, and boy was I right. The love triangle was so schlocky, and so poorly executed it almost ruined the movie completely. I knew exactly how the film would play out after the first twenty minutes, I knew who would live and who would die, and who would end up with the girl in the end. I was very dissapointed in Randall Wallace's script, I found the characters to be bland and two-dimensional,the actors don't even have a whole lot of chemistry between them, all of the interaction between them looks awkward. After three hours, one would think you could create a little development in the characters or generate some chemisty between the actors. Wallace has written much better i.e. Braveheart, I have a feeling higher ups at the studio had him tweak the script to make the movie more marketable to teenagers. Michael Bay's directing is excellent for the action sequences, which were spectacular. The action was powerful, and exciting, and like Saving Private Ryan puts us right into the middle of the firefight. However he cannot for the life of him, generate any emotion during the rest of the movie. The dialogue and interaction between characters is lifeless and boring. Not even Cuba Gooding Jr.,(who is a terrific actor) was that exciting, although he was the most intersting character in the movie, which doesn't say much for anyone else. Unfortunatly Cuba was underused,clocking in at about fifteen minutes of screen time. His story, based on a real person, was much more dynamic than the cheesy Affleck, Hartnett, Beckinsale love triangle. This movie is not a complete waste of time, I enjoyed Cuba Gooding Jr. as he was gunning down Japanese fighters, and the spectacle of the battle sequences, but everything else is pretty forgettable, which is too bad considering the source material.
Rating: 
Summary: A Time We Shall Never Forget
Review: "Dec. 7th, 1941..." these words stay in the hearts and minds of those who lived in the 40's. I have studied the battle at "Pearl Harbor" and "Midway", and this movie will be the blockbuster of 2001. The producers and directors of this movie have brought the public very outstanding movies over the last 10 years (search for the producers, who brought "Crimson Tide" and "Armageddon"). Even though some feel this movie will take away from the historic meaning behind the battle, I feel the movie will bring back the feeling of hate and sorrow towards every angle of World War II. This movie will be the ground for every historical movie made after this summer.
Rating:
Summary: A time to think...
Review: We are all guilty of not thinking of others and just ourselves. In this day and age, just 60 years from the day this movie took place. Very different from the way we are today. This movie is not just about the details behind or how graphic the attack is, it's about a time when not just a few people but a whole country went to war. How as a nation we all did something to save our way of life. Not just our arm services, the whole country did something. Many people lost their lives, a day to remember, Ask yourselves this, what have I done today that was for someone else, not yourselves or your family, but someone else? Anything? Epic move of all times, better than Titanic....
Rating:
Summary: Awesome Movie!
Review: Was lucky enough to see it on the USS Stennis this past week. There hasn't been a more riveting movie like this one in a long time. The special effects were spectacular and the story keeps you glued to the screen the entire time. A must see for anyone who enjoys going to the movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining But That's About It
Review: I saw Pearl Harbor recently, the actual theatrical release, not any infomercial about it. Pearl Harbor does not strive from the plot, which is very weak and does not stay true to the actual event (when was the last time you went out to play baseball at 6 AM?), but it strives on it's entertainment and gorgeous cinemotography. The explosions are the most realistic I've ever seen in a motion picture. The cast does a pretty mediocre job. Watching Ben Affleck try to speak in an old accent is much like Kevin Costner trying to speak in a Russian accent. Cuba Gooding Jr. however puts out another top-notch performance but at times it looks like he's overacting! The problem with Pearl Harbor is mainly in what it's trying to do. It's not trying to be a film about Pearl Harbor, it's trying to be a love triangle dealing with loss in war. Michael Bay could have put this cast in any war and could expect the same results. The plot is pretty mediocre, and it's filled with one liner after one liner. At one point, a few American troops even tell each other 'lets go get some dirty japs.' It does a real poor job at trying to add romance into a historic event (where Titanic actually suceeded). Gladiator, this is not (Gladiator had excellent performances and pretty great direction). This film could have been so much better, had Michael Bay not signed on to it. You can expect an amazing DVD though, possibly even a Criterion edition. Enough about the bad parts of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor is a gorgeous piece of eye candy, and a recent movie I would compare it to is "The Patriot." It is an excellent pop-corn movie, but falls short of being anything other than that! Go watch it if you're looking for fun and entertainment! If you're looking for a historically true film, then steer clear!
Rating: 
Summary: PEARL HARBOR: ALL CONCEPT, NO CONTENT
Review: PEARL HARBOR is unfortunately typical of the majority of today's motion pictures: ALL CONCEPT AND NO CONTENT! All the digital technology in the world cannot make up for the fact that there is not one moment of genuine humanity in this badly written, loud, overblown, overlong and poorly acted travesty of a movie. The two best films about Pearl Harbor remain TORA! TORA! TORA! (1970), for its accurate depiction of the events leading up to the attack on both sides plus brilliant (even by today's standards) special effects and FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) for its superior story, which despite the restrictions of the film code at the time, has richly drawn flesh and blood characterizations, people you actually can care about instead of the cardboard cut-out ones you couldn't care less about in PEARL HARBOR. Save your nine bucks and rent one of these two far superior films unless all you care about is seeing the courage and heroism of America's World War II servicemen reduced to the indignity of titular planes crashing and ships being blown up, most of which look like images that belong more in a video game than in a multi million dollar motion picture.
Rating:
Summary: A historic blast
Review: I really enjoyed the action scenes and had a great time. This might be the best blockbuster in a long time.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie!
Review: I saw PEARL HARBOR two days before the release of the film and I was utterly amazed. This film has a great cast, which ranges from Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsdale and Josh Harnett, a very brillant romantic subplot, thrilling action sequences and well written plot. To say the least, this is going to the biggest hit of the summer without a doubt.
Rating:
Summary: Good movie!
Review: This is a good movie to see but if you hadn't seen this movie yet go rent Tora! Tora! Tora! before the big excitement. Because that movie is just like Pearl Harbor when the Japenese attacked the Americans. So if you want to see more excitement before seeing Pearl Harbor go rent Tora! Tora! Tora! you will be more excited seeing Pearl Harbor after that movie.
Rating:
Summary: Love Triangle at War
Review: I saw a preview of the film at the cinema and thought it looked interesting, so when I found the book, I bought it. It is a standard love triangle story, two young pilots fall for the same girl,with the added interest of being based around the Pearl Harbour attack on Dec 7th 1941. The book is fast paced, no doubt reflecting the action of the film. One thing against the book as literature is that it reads as a "book of the film" as oposed to the "film of the book", but it was a good easy read, and I'm likely to go to see the film!
|
