Rating: 
Summary: The WB meets Star Wars meets World War II
Review: I tried hard to find something to like about this movie, but other than Hans Zimmer's film score (and even that was substandard compared to his other works), this movie was a massive disappointment. Based on the bad reviews, I went in with low expectations and Michael Bay failed to meet even those. Although Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale tried hard with a bad script, aside from their efforts the acting was cardboard, the dialogue was shallow, the love-story plot was predictable and unoriginal, the special effects were WAY overpriced (prop planes don't fly like X-wing fighters), and the history-well, from end to end the movie was replete with historical errors, from mundane stuff (e.g., incorrect uniforms, wrongly painted aircraft) to more serious errors (e.g., Doolittle Raid bombers flying in formation, at altitude, with fighter pilots at the controls, providing running commentary on the radio, etc. etc. etc.) By themselves, each of the errors is insignificant, but taken together, they give the lie to Bay's claim that this would be the most historically accurate film possible. They also raise the question: if you're going to spend this much money to make a movie, isn't worthwhile to get your facts straight (especially when you don't have to be a history professor to get them)? About the only good thing I can say about this moive is that if it helps to instill some appreciation of our country's history in people who didn't have that appreciation before, then it will have served a good purpose. But if you want an accurate historical portrayal of Pearl Harbor (using real aircraft as opposed to unrealistic pretenders), you're not going to do better than "Tora, Tora, Tora." If you want a quality love story set against the backdrop of the Pearl Harbor attack, you can't beat "From Here to Eternity." As far as this one goes, save your money. I wish I had.
Rating: 
Summary: Sorely lacking in what would have made this film great
Review: The cinematography in this film is excellent, the long battle scene displaying the best in modern computer-generated technology. Somewhere, however, there is a good story line, characters to care about and a way to feel the mounting tension that existed in 1941 when the U.S.A. was on the brink of war. I know there is because I felt it all in the much more unsophisticated technically 1953 film From Here to Eternity actually shot in black and white. Somewhere there is a good film about General Doolittle's raid on the Japanese mainland, which changed the direction of the war; that's Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, produced in 1944. And somewhere is a film using modern film techniques, which also captures the essence of a great a sorrowful tragedy; I felt this in the film Titanic. O.K. - so with all the media hype and some wonderful films which set an example for the producers, they DID have a rough act to follow. But give me a break! They had $135 million to work with and the most technologically advanced equipment that money can buy. So why, oh why is this film such a loser? (1) This is easily one of the most inane love stories I've ever seen. Most romantic comedies have better plot, and so do daytime TV soap operas. Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett and Kate Beckinsale were burdened with this silly tale of the arrogant fighter pilot who meets the nurse while taking an eye test. He can't read his letters because he gets them confused and she is about to flunk him but he makes a pitch to her about why that won't affect his ability to fly. She feels sorry for him and passes him. Of course, later, he has no trouble writing or reading love letters but by that time nobody cares. The rest of the plot is equally silly. I never got involved with the characters, never cared on whit about their silly romance and found myself giggling at their dialog. (2) The history was much too general. I yearned for more facts, more details of what was going on at the time. There is one dramatic scene where President Roosevelt inspires his cabinet by forcing himself to walk without crutches but I understand that this never happened. Which makes me think why the author made something up when there were so many real life known experiences that were equally, if not more dramatic. Also, There is absolutely no depiction of why the war happened in the first place, except for some vague remark by the Japanese commander that we had cut off their way to get oil and they had just enough left for 18 months. Perhaps the writer thought that the need for oil was the only thing that a modern audience could relate to, which insults everyone's intelligence. (3) The battle scene was indeed spectacular and lasted for a full 40 minutes on screen. Some of the images where upsetting, but I thought more about the technical effects than I did about the devastation. Again, it was much too general. I wanted to be more aware about the strategies and about the different ships. (4) Cuba Gooding Jr. is a good actor; his performance shone in Men of Honor. His very tiny role as the African-American cook who won distinction for firing on the Japanese during the attack, was good, but I couldn't help thinking about the difference between the two films and how lacking in inspiration Pearl Harbor was. (5) The best part of the film was the last few minutes, when Alec Baldwin as General Doolittle commanded the raid over Tokyo. Finally, I felt sense of battle; finally, I got involved in the movie. Alas, though, it was over too soon. To its credit, I must say I wasn't bored. The scenes moved quickly, almost too quickly in some parts. As we all knew the attack was coming, it needed more tension. And too much time was spent on the silly love story. But as either a great film or a memorial to the Americans who lost their lives that fateful day, it was sorely lacking.
Rating: 
Summary: Schizoprenic, ineffective film...
Review: There's a great debate among film fans these days as to the proper use and place for special effects in films. Too often, it seems that Hollywood films are built around special effects and action sequences, with scenes featuring actors and plot development as filler. No modern filmmaker is more guilty of that than the director of "Pearl Harbor," Michael Bay. In all of his previous films (including the excerable "Armageddon"), special effects and action are the point, with human beings tossed in to provide plot references and excuses for sappy Aerosmith ballads. "Pearl Harbor" is no different. Sure, it takes great pains to be historically accurate, and it even makes an attempt (though a lame one) to create a plot based on human relationships that (gasp) isn't punctuated every ten minutes by something exploding. And that might have worked, had the story not been a banal, poorly written romance between three leads who looked as if they were in it for a paycheck. By the time the attack actually happens, it's as if Bay realized he'd put the audience to sleep and needed a big BANG! to wake them up. In any case, the storyline leading up to the titular attack does little but set up the big-time special effects bonanza we know is coming (and soon, we hope, as Ben Affleck flubs yet another line). Compare that to the far more effective approach of "Titanic," in which the big-time special effects bonanza (the ship's sinking) actually does nothing but tie up the various plots, relationships, and stories that have been told in the first part of the film. The point of the story is to explore the relationships of the people we meet on Titanic, and the sinking is a part of their story. However, in "Pearl Harbor," the point of the story is to get to the big battle sequences, and the stories of people we meet along the way are meant to kill time until we can get until December 7, 1941. Oh, the time is killed stylishly, and the people we watch are shiny and attractive, but not for one moment do we get the sense that they're anything but filler. And that is why this film fails.
Rating: 
Summary: What the heck is everyone else talking about??!!
Review: Simply put: the best damn movie I ever saw! It's at least as long as Titanic, but you don't feel like you're sitting there that long. Awesome movie!!!!
Rating:
Summary: The best war and love movie ever been made
Review: Pear Harbor is one of the greatest movies made in the century because of visual,ana special effects. First of all it is a love story combined with war that keeps wanting to know what's going to happen. Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale and Josh hartnett are fantastic in Pearl Harbor. You will want to watch this movie again.
Rating:
Summary: From Here To Banality
Review: (...) Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale all act up.. well nothing! This is a hideous film, skip it! And don't buy it, it'll be a waste of your hard earned cash!! If you're looking for an epic see one like The English Patient!
Rating:
Summary: Terrible movie
Review: This has got to be the *worst* movie I have ever seen in my life. Terrible, insipid dialogue; ridiculous and unbelievable situations and scenes; and modified history. The war scenes are quite well done, but those just don't make up for the complete lack of a believable plot and the lack of chemistry amongst the lead actors. There were so many REAL stories that could have been told about the people who gave their lives at Pearl Harbor -- why was the decision made to fabricate a foolish love story that is completely unbelievable and predictable, and foist that on an unsuspecting public?
Rating:
Summary: The action was good, but the romance ruined it!
Review: When did they decide to make "Titanic 2". This movie had some cool VFX and action but the romance took up half the movie. "Titanic" was way better compared to this movie. I just hope that the special R-rated director's cut can make this movie more enjoyable, because this movie made me fall asleep several times. I actually fell asleep eating my popcorn. Mike Bay should stick to making intense action thrillers, not sappy love stories, especially ones that are true stories, that never had romance. Save yourself and wait for the R-rated version, because that one should be better because of the bonus footage.
Rating:
Summary: Hey Michael, learn some history!
Review: Sure the effects are cool, sure the actions are great... and sure some people watch for the romance, but I really hate it when directors do a real poor job on details and accuracy of past events. First off the date was wrong in respect to the Japanese calender, the chronological order of some events were wrong, popularity of certain warhead and machinery were wrong... I can continue for hours about how terrible this movie can get. You wanna see romance? Go see "Thomas Crown Affiar." You wanna see a war flick? Go see "Saving Private Ryan." Just don't watch this movie, it's simply not good enough (any way you look at it).
Rating:
Summary: What are you people talking about???
Review: This movie is dreadful!!! I couldn't stand it in any way. It was a 3 1/2 hour soap opera about a love triangle. Horrible.
| 
