Rating: 
Summary: Pearl Harbor
Review: i read these reviews about this movie from what i can see the other guys out here writing them must be 12 years old Pearl Harbor was a great film as for it being a love story sure this is true these people lost loved ones in this war some were going to be married but died before they did some lost son's daughter's & for dumb people to come out here and write this was a bad movie need to be taking back to that time and find out what love & war was really about.this was truly the best film of the year because it really happend....
Rating:
Summary: The best movie ever!
Review: This movie was awsome! It had great actors, totally great action scenes, plus a romance! I recommed this movie to anyone, because it has something for everyone in it! It totally blows any other movie out of the water!
Rating:
Summary: It's not a documentary!
Review: . . . If you were watching it for the war impact, watch a documentary. If you like blood and gore, I admit, this movie is not for you. If you like a beautifully written love story with a rich romantic plot you should order this movie as soon as you can get a hold of it! I loved it!
Rating: 
Summary: Tedious love story bombs a superb attack sequence.
Review: Upon exiting the theater after "Pearl Harbor," I was set upon by a man who referred to the American officials portrayed in the film as "bumbling idiots." It's a good thing he said "Americans," because he easily could've been speaking about Rafe, Danny and Evelyn, the trio involved in a love triangle plot that is one of the movie's pitfalls. The sequence of the attack itself is magnificent, but is bookended by the development of the sappy love story and the American attack on Japan. It's not a good sign when, forty minutes into the movie, you find yourself favoring the trailer over the actual movie. Beginning a movie with character development is a good thing, but only if you know how to iron it out. The film opens in Tennessee, with childhood friends Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett) playing pilots in a barn. Moving along a couple of years, they are pilots in the United States armed forces, and like most pilots do, they spend their leave chasing nurses, who are just as man-hungry as the cadets. To make a long and tedious story short, Rafe meets Evelyn, falls in love with her, and is called away to duty in Britain. Circumstances intervene, and Rafe returns to find that Danny and Evelyn are now lovers, casting the whole relationship into strife just in time for the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japanese air forces. The movie tries unsuccessfully to balance the love story with historical facts and events. Every now and then, we leave their happy lives together to venture to the United States War Department, where Captain Thurman (Dan Aykroyd) and President Roosevelt serve little purpose except to foreshadow the impending attack that we already know is imminent (the title, duh!). We're also given a dosage of Japanese movements, from their planning of the bombing to Japanese naval craft and planes making their way to Hawaii. If we had more of this kind of material, the movie just might work. But instead, it loses focus from the real story behind Pearl Harbor, settling for the love story in hopes of bringing out some sort of human drama to bring out our emotions for the tragedy as a whole. This brings out the ever-present "Titanic" machinations, as it also included fiction with history. Now, I cannot begin to criticize the historical aspect of the film; I know too little about the whole sequence of events to make a comparison. But what I can tell you is that "Titanic" was able to provide us with likeable, involving characters amidst a very accurate historical setting. For some reason, the same formula applied here fails. We can't really care for Evelyn, Danny and Rafe because of the story they are given. There's too many romance clichés which bury the characters in a mess of break-ups and budding romance similar to the switches that an everyday, stereotypical teenage girl would make. Maybe that's an audience-targeting tactic, or just an honest mistake. Either way, the love story does nothing but add on the baggage, filling the cracks with sappy one-liners and unconvincing dialogue. And the movie's turn of events after the actual bombing itself is ludicrous and draggy. It makes Rafe and Danny out to be heroes known among all, hoping to instill some air of patriotism alongside flag wavers and cheers from the men in the water as they successfully down two Japanese fighter planes. Soon after, they must leave on a mission to Tokyo, where they set out to perform a counterstrike against the Japanese. At one point, one of the characters (I think it was Doolittle, played by Alec Baldwin), makes the statement that the mission is "to avenge Pearl Harbor." Obviously an attempt to connect this action with the previous sequences, but no such luck. It goes on for too long, and wouldn't you know it, there has to be more of the love story involved as well. Which brings me to my discussion of the actual attack portion of the movie. This is the section to see, if you are willing to stick it out until then. The intensity really does reach a high note as the planes begin descending on Hawaii, and although we know what will happen, it's quite exciting and moving to watch it all unfold onscreen. The bombing of the ships does not happen too fast, but gets it just right by taking its time in showing us the panic in and out of the ships in the bay. Another high point is the events that take place in the hospital ward, where thousands of wounded soldiers begins appearing. The movie does well with this entire sequence, not only because of some spectacular special effects, but because the love story characters are left alone to perform their real duties, leaving behind the sap and giving us a real taste of human drama. In summation, "Pearl Harbor" does not live up to the hype surrounding it. The human drama and excitement of the attack on American forces is drowned by the love story, which never reaches a level of reality, while the ending flatlines completely. I had many questions at the end of the movie: is this really the work of Randall Wallace, who also wrote the magnificent "Braveheart?" Do the filmmakers think that by ignoring the actual focus of the story, it will become more involving? I have one thing to say about the movie: the trailer is better.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie!
Review: I'm a real movie nut. ... I've watched so many movies and own more than 630 movies. So naturally when I heard about this movie, I wanted to go see it. As some of the other reviewers have also said, when I first went to watch Pearl Harbor, I wasn't sure what to expect. I looked up most of the reviews here in Amazon and found some people loving it... others digusted with it. But when I went to watch it for myself, I just loved it from the start. Of course there were some parts which I didn't like about the movie. First of all, I loved Josh Hartnett as Danny in the movie. I mean, he was just great! I was crying a lot when he died, actually, most everyone was crying at the theaters when it got to that part. The thing I didn't like about the movie is when the character of Kate Beckinsale just doesn't seem to make up her mind who she's in love with, Rafe or Danny. It's like "if ones dead, then I'll love the other one." Throughout the whole movie I wasn't sure if Beckinsale was really in love or not. I could tell that about Affleck and Hartnett but Beckinsale... well, the love plot was kind of weak. But I really loved all the action during the attack on Pearl Harbor and also the attack on Tokyo. Yeah, Alec Baldwin was good as Doolittle. Anyway I liked the movie a lot and am sure others will enjoy it, too. And don't watch it thinking that it's very historical and very correct. It's not in some parts but hey, this is a movie, not a documentary. Just enjoy it as a movie! And if you liked this movie, watch "Tora, Tora, Tora" and "30 Seconds over Tokyo".
Rating:
Summary: Very Good
Review: I enjoyed Pearl Harbor its not a Saving Private Ryan like many people would compare it to.
Rating:
Summary: Good fun
Review: Starring Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, Pearl Harbor tries to touch on the same premise as Titanic (love story in a historical event) but misses the punch of drama. The romance between Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale is far from timeless, Jack and Rose is the epitome of classic romance. Great visual effects make up for all the faults. This movie does feature some of the more realistic and compelling dog fights in film history. I don't mean dog dog fights, its a figure of speech about the air battles between the good guy and the bad guys.
Rating:
Summary: Pearl Harber
Review: I had mixed feelings about the movie. I thought it was a good lovers movie. I did not like the attact on the USS Arizona, I thought it looked fake. They could have used some real color footage mixed with the current film.
Rating:
Summary: Why ?
Review: This film has made me realize once again that some films just can't hit any meaningful target despite the dealing with important, hard and weighty issues. I came to this conclusion a year ago watching "The Patriot", reassured my suspicions seeing "Cast Away", and now, confirmed it with this try to give life to one of America's most painful and humiliating experiences ever. "Pearl harbor" could be so much more. I have to say this attempt really made me sorry - what a waste of good money and maybe good intentions. Look, the battle scenes were good, but not beyond that .They became the center of the movie - as it should or shouldn't be - you'll have to decide about that . The main problem is that the makers didn't succeed in preparing decent preface to this 'suppose to be' peak of the film. Meaning, you know from the start 'the bombardment' is coming - sooner or later (in the end, you've come to see a recreation of a major historical event, didn't you?), and the one thing you're seeking more than that (the 'addition'), is a character or characters to relate to in order to better feel the reality of horror people felt in that moment. You strive to relive, for a while, the feelings, emotions, fears and wishes they experienced and endured in such a fearsome event - with the good help of the cinematic art. I believe this addition gives a film its right to exist, and separate it from a common documentary. I didn't get that at all, and that's why the film lost its major artistic purpose. Then comes my question -why? I know it wasn't made to be in the caliber of "Saving Private Ryan", but it should have had something at least slightly deep in it ! I absolutely DID NOT find any of that kind, and that's a shame. I don't disregard the producers' main purpose to address the majority of the cinema visitors - teenagers. Still, they could have done better. To be more specific- Cast and Crew : they had plenty of money to spend, and could easily recruit a first class mature actor to be in charge of the 'meaningful parts' of the film. The young players, the majority of the crew, did not deliver; they only went through the motions. I couldn't really identify with their conflicts and struggles. The characters and acting- Affleck , the leading actor was so annoying ,arrogant, and over confident, I couldn't care less for his fate. I didn't care for his friend either - he was too pale and uninteresting to notice. The nurse - she was just a beauty and that's it - lacked the ability to make me feel for her. In short, it's true what they said- this was a high school acting performance. The length of the film - not everyone should contend "BreaveHeart"! For god's sake, you're not suppose to torture people with two long stories in one film! I know a vengeance is expected, but you'd have to cut down to make the crowd awake. I've seen a confirmation of the historical accuracy of the film in the "History Channel" which is a bright light in the big picture - but some things can be passed over. The plot - Wallace was a dissapointment, he'd veered from his main serious stream of writing that was remarkable in "BreaveHeart" and "Saving Private Ryan". It's obvious he has the ability create strong emotional drama with historical epic as a background or a sidekick. Too bad he missed it with this remarkable opportunity. Another thing bothers me; I can equalize the plot in some points to "Titanic" : there is a big event that's coming you're way. You want to wrap it up neatly in order to give it a standing ability, so you invent a love story. You cast a good-looking crew. You bore us to death with it, we stay awake only because something grandiose is to come. Than the event comes (a sinking ship/bombardment). But in "Pearl Harbor" it's not the end! He had to introduce another big event - because two is better than one! In all, he also exaggerated. Enough said. See it only if you have to, it's almost a complete waste of time. I want my three hours back! Ps, women would, occasionally, find this film acceptable because of the touchy love story. Anyway, consider carefully before spending your money.
Rating:
Summary: Trying much too hard.
Review: This movie smashed alot of people's expectations. Luckily, I had already heard from alot of my friends that the movie was terrible, but I somehow ended up in the movie anyway, so I wasn't expecting much. It was painfully obvious that this movie was trying so hard to be the next Titanic: Love Story in a historical setting. 3 Hours Long. Book released by director, even the posters have resemblance! I'm sorry, but this movie wasn't even close to how great Titanic was. Titanic weaved the love story and the historical setting so seamlessly and smoothly together. This movie looks like they made it up as they went along. The love story was very predictable and just plain bad. This movie would hardly be any different if it wasn't set in Pearl Harbor. The only thing that would happen is that there wouldn't be the 20 minute battle scene. And when they could end the movie there, it doesn't stop. They subject you to a final 30+ pointless section of the movie, the U.S Raid over Tokyo. This whole thing was pointless, and I had wanted the movie to be over for quite awhile already. And at the end, we have some narration about Beckinsale about how many people died and such, which proves one thing: The actual movie didn't tell us anything. You could watch Titanic, and leave the theater knowing more about Titanic than you did before, without some stupid narration. Not so with this movie. The reason I gave this movie 2 stars instead of 1 is for it's special effects.
| 
