Rating: 
Summary: What If We Threw A War, And No One Cared?
Review: I remember watching "At The Movies" when the late, great Gene Siskel reviewed "From Dusk Till Dawn". In giving it a "thumbs down", he gave Tarantino credit for his writing but accused him of developing the wrong story. The only moment in the film Siskel found compelling was in the very opening - a captivating bit of dialogue between a convenience store clerk and full-blooded redneck Texas sheriff. The possible story of that sheriff, Siskel contended, was more inviting than anything else the movie offered up. I remembered this when thinking about "Pearl Harbor", specifically a scene at the beginning involving the great character actor William Fichtner, as an embittered farmer and WW I veteran, that proved more fascinating story-wise than anything in the two and a half hours to come. "Pearl Harbor" is like the child that has everything. It does not lack or want for anything. It has stars, from Ben Affleck to Alec Baldwin. It has beautiful women, from Kate Beckinsale to James King. It has a successful director (Michael Bay), a producer who supports him (Jerry Bruckheimer), a corporation with money (Disney), and a composer who can make magic out of the mundane (Hans Zimmer). No expense was spared in the production of this film, but like so many spoiled children before it, "Pearl Harbor" emotes arrogance, not joy, and underneath its many gaudy baubles and trappings lies a hollow personality. The movie was, from start to finish, Disney's attempt to fashion its own "Titanic". Unfortunately, all involved saw only the mechanics of that blockbuster - a tragic historical event (with special effects good enough to hammer home that point), talented and attractive leads, a strong supporting cast, a great score, and visuals that stay with the viewer long after the film is over. Disney took these elements, threw them in a pot, and stirred. Unfortunately, they missed the point completely. Cameron's "Titanic" is knocked consistently for one thing - its script, called every word that is synonymous with "cornball". Randall Wallace, Disney, and all apparently took this to mean that the screenplay was the least of the considerations. Wrong. "Titanic" was Cameron's love and vision. Everything about the film, from the script to the visuals, was James Cameron's singular passion and desire to shape a story that expressed his fascination with the famous doomed ship and the many untold stories that sank with it. Anyone familiar with his work knows how much of Cameron's personality is infused in the movie, and those are the heartfelt, genuine sensations that transcended the film past its "cornball" script and why it was so critically and financially successful. "Pearl Harbor" was never any one person's vision; it was a studio's misguided attempt to recreate the wheel. It reminded me, as a cinematic reference, to Jay Robinson's Caligula in "Demetrius and the Gladiators" killing a prisoner, draping him in Jesus' robe, and commanding him to rise from the dead. Just as Caligula logically assumed it was merely the device of the robe that would empower him, Disney and company presumed it was the structure of "Titanic" that would pave their way to the financial and critical Promised Land. "Pearl Harbor" is a beautiful film. The visuals are first-rate, and Hans Zimmer's score is both subdued and inspirational, a perfect accompaniment for the overall tone of the film, (especially the moments of classic Bay slow-motion melodrama). Even the actors inhabit their roles comfortably. The problem, ultimately, is the story. It is cliched without inspiration and wooden with no hope of salvation, leaving everything and everyone else high and dry. When the attack comes, the audience is riveted by the momentous presentation of what they know once did happen, but they are never invested in the story and thus make no connection with the characters who inhabit the plot. From beginning to end, a movie unfolds before the audience, but no one watching seems to care. Maybe its because they were too busy wondering when "the attack" was going to come or looking at their day-glow watch wondering how much longer the film could possibly go on. "Pearl Harbor" is, nothing more/nothing less, the result of Hollywood copycat, the same breed of creature that brings a "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Urban Legend" for every "Scream". "Pearl Harbor" just does it on a scale never attempted before. Like most other knock-offs, they wanted a "banzai", but all they got was a "kamikaze". Perhaps, in the end, all that can be said of "Pearl Harbor" is to remember our maxims and fully recall "The Bigger They Come..."
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome
Review: As far as a movie it was great because it had everything, War, Love, and comedy. To me that's what sells a movie, because it will drawl all types of audiences. Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, And Josh Hartnett put in a great performance, and it's not all romance. I'd say a good two hours of the movie is action, but then the other hour is making the storyline. It was worth it to see on a big screen. True, it was not completely sticking to history, but if you want the facts on Pearl Harbor go rent Tora! Tora! Tora!. I don't know why everyone thinks if they go to see a movie it should be completely true, because that's not how movies get an audience. If you want an all around good movie that will make you laugh and cry, pay the money to go see it.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful!!!
Review: I visited Pearl Harbor last October when I was on my honeymoon. It is such a sad place, and I was very moved by it. The film was fantastic. It was like an old fashioned love story although it had a lot of battle scenes. I must admit that I cried during the whole movie, which is out of character for me. I wish that the movie industry would make more films like this one. We don't need nude scenes for a great movie. This movie was tastefully done, and I recommend that everyone, young and old, go to see it. I will definitely buy it when it comes out on video.
Rating:
Summary: hott!!!!
Review: pearl harbor is my fav movie now. ben(rafe) and josh(danny) were soo hott and great actors!!! i have seen it three times and im gonna go see it at least one or two more times! you gotta go see this movie. but i gotta tell ya its kinda sad!
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: This movie is entertaining (even though it isn't historically accurate) to me. I didn't mind it being three hours long because it gives you an edge-of-the-seat feel and the bombing of Pearl Harbor is like a cross between "Saving Private Ryan" and "Titantic". If you enjoy entertaining movies with special effects (without being historically accurate), you will enjoy this one.
Rating:
Summary: definetly movie of the year!
Review: in my opinion pearl harbor was one of the all time best movies. It included a little bit of everything you look for in a movie: happiness, romance, sadness, funny, action-packed, ect. Yet it included just enough historical information but just the right amount. So that you didn't leave the movie theater unsatisfied because it was very boring and you thought that you may as well just go home and watch the history channel, but you also didn't leave thinking "Why did they title it PEARL HARBOR when i still dont know what it is." Most people left the movie theater satisfied because they got to watch a great movie but also learned a bit about what they were watching. And another thing that made it so cool to watch on the big screen (or even when it comes out on video and you watch it on your own television) is the graphics and computorized scenes looked all so real. You couldn't really even tell that it was done by a computer. And another reason that i personally liked it so much was because of that hot actor, Ben Affleck. Not only him but josh hartnett, kate beckinsale ( i'm not sure if thats how you spell her name) alec baldwin and MANY other actors and actresses were outstanding in this film! I would have to say that it is definetly a 2 thumbs up kind of movie. I know i'm gonna buy it the day it comes out!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Personally, I liked this movie.
Review: Although Pearl Harbor was said by many to be somewhat of a waste of time and was "discracefully" unrealistic compared to the actual event, viewers must remember that it is Hollywood. Movies are made to entertain. Love stories and romance sell. The director, cast and crew are cashing in and although this seems harsh towards veterans its reality. I saw the movie with my grandfather who has fought war and although the love story did not compare to the harsh reality of the actual fighting he liked it. Technology today allows us to recreate scenes of war action and in Pearl Harbor the bombing, the screaming and the sadness was definitely comparable to that of the actual event. If a critical viewer wants to take the time to nit-pick every mistake or unpleasing aspect of the movie I will not look down on them, but if every movie was critisized and every flaw was closely explored, then there would be no need to see movies because critics would all say they stunk. The actors in the movie are all still young and are learning to harness their craft. So, with that in mind i feel that the emotions and the drama were well played out. Being that this is a review I will not have contempt for those who choose to negatively critisize the movie as I hope know one will disregard my opinions. But anyone who has not seen the movie should see it and make up their own mind.
Rating:
Summary: Great special effects, poor writing & acting
Review: This movie had a lot of potential, but failed to live up to it in so many aspects: 1. The plot was predictable and sluggish. Everyone knew Ben Affleck's character wouldn't be killed off in the first hour of a three hour movie. Everyone knew the way the love triangle would be resolved would be by one of the three getting killed. 2. Though I agree with those reviews that say that people should not go to the movies to get a history lesson, the (sad) fact of the matter is that so many people get their historical perspective through television and movies that the producers could have provided more accurate historical context without negatively impacting the movie. 3. With as much money as was spent in making this film, the producers could have paid a little more attention to details that would have been all too easy to get right. For example, in the film, there is a US Navy destroyer shown during the attack with the number 1062 on the side, but WWII era destroyers were numbered in the 200s and 300s. Minor detail? Yes. But since the ship was CGI anyway, why not get it right? Later, when the Doolittle bombers were taking off from the aircraft carriers, the camera angles alternate between a shot from the tower of the carrier and a shot from under the fuselage of one of the planes (kind of like in Top Gun). On the shot from the tower, you can tell that the carrier has a narrow deck and no catapults, whereas on the shot from the fuselage of the plane, the deck is wide, angled and has present-day catapult tracks, none of which existed in WWII-era carriers. Again, a detail that could have been corrected with some simple CG editing. Also, the script went to great lengths to show how critical it would be for the bombers to be able to take off from such short carrier decks, but then when the moment of truth arrives, the bombers end up taking off from mid-deck! 4. Am I the only one that finds it hard to believe the credibility of bleeding-heart limousine liberal actors like Ben Affleck and Alec Baldwin in ultra-patriotic roles? Again, yes, it is a just a movie, not a piece of political propopganda, but isn't it one of the responsibilities of the casting directors to ensure some measure of believability in the actors they choose to portray the lead roles? Overall, this movie was a big disappointment. The only parts that were worthwhile were the battle scenes, but they were not enough to carry the rest of the production.
Rating:
Summary: Perfect Movie
Review: This movie was the best thing that has hit the box office since Titanic. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett are so incredibly hot, and Kate Beckinsdale does a wonderful job. It is the perfect combination of action and romance. It is by far my favorite movie and I would recommend this to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Not to be confused with the truth
Review: Was Pearl Harbour a tie? See I didn't think that it was, but um I guess I was wrong because that movie sure made it out like the United States were victorious in some way. I was under the impression that it was a military debacle, perhaps one of the worst srew ups in the history of combat, but, then again thats just stuff I read in history books and we all know how Hollywood likes to pay tribute to the truth. If you want to watch a sappy romance and see Ben Affleck, once again weep on screen, then this film is for you. Otherwise I would skip it. One last thing, was it my imagination or did this film look like a rock video a lot of the time?
|
