Rating: 
Summary: Why oh why???? Could have been much better
Review: As a history fan I was actually happy when I heard that there would be a movie about the things that happened in Pearl Harbor. Truly, it was one of the most treacherous moments in history though one of the most unexpected and succesful event in the second world war.But this movie... what has to do a love triangle with Pearl Harbor? It's just so unrealistic. Everything's is pretty O.K. and then the evil Japanese come and destroy it. It's like you see a butterfly flying on a rose-field and then a mine that comes out of the blue blows everything away. Such things don't happen. The Pearl Harbor attack came out of the blue but not this way... anyway I can't blame Hollywood for historic accuracy, it's not their task. Then the actors... sorry girls, Ben Affleck is a good-looking guy but he has nothing to do with good acting since Chasing Amy (a wonderful movie). I'd rather not talk about the rest. The special effects are great though, I must admit that. But that is the only thing that is great about this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Pearl Harbor is not just a "war story" or a "love story"
Review: I had not heard any reviews on this movie before I saw it. I went into it thinking it would be a boring war movie. It turned out to be much more that that. It is a perfect movie for a couple to see. It has enough action to keep the men interested and a love triangle to keep the women's attention. I really enjoyed it and think it is a must-see.
Rating:
Summary: Cool
Review: Pearl Harbor was a all around great Movie.Even though some events were inaccurate I thought it was great.
Rating: 
Summary: All i gotta say is...WOW...truly phenomenal
Review: If you are looking for a class-act war film, then go see Pearl Harbor. This movie definitely deserves much more credit than it has been given. The special effects are spectacular; the actors are as true to life as you can get; and the overall story is exceptional. If a movie can move an entire audience to tears, then you know it's gotta be good. Many people say the movie focused way too much on the love triangle between Ben Affleck, Kate Beckingsale, and Josh Hartnett. Don't believe them. In fact, the movie is more about the Japanese's preparing their attack and the events leading up to the war than it is about romance. I was actually intrigued by the scenes with the Japanese devising their plan. To me, they didn't come off as these big evil villains at all. I just saw them as a race of people trying to fight a war. I mean, at one time or another in history, every country has done something they're not particularly proud of, but a person cannot go around hating that nation because of it. "If you're going to go around hating a country becuase of what they've done in the past, you'll soon discover that you hate the world."-quote by me. In fact, the USA killed almost 180,000 people when they dropped the atomic bomb on Hirsohima. So does that mean Americans--the same Americans who began to resent the Japanese after they saw this film--are going to hate their own country now? Of course not--because few people know that fact. Okee, oops. I guess I'm getting sorta off track here. soree. I was definitely impressed by this film. I laughed and I cried. I left the theater feeling pretty depressed. I guess what made it worst was seeing the actual memorial in Hawaii onlee months before. If you've never been there, there is this enormous wall with thousands of names of all those people who died in combat. So sad... But even if you haven't seen the wall, you'd prolly cry anyway after seeing the film. And Josh Hartnett is really HOT in it! haha. i was captivated by the soaring planes, blazing explosions, and vast blue oceans. neway, i really think this is the type of movie that you have to see for yourself. but take my advice neway (hehe) and go see hollywood at its best.
Rating: 
Summary: DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE
Review: I wish there was a rating of 0, because I totally agree with the critics that panned it. I had to sit through three hours of one of the worst movies ever made, and I want those three hours back. The horrible plot is only held together with the multi-mullion dollar effects, which are great, but movies that are this long need a plot. There are way too many overdramatic scenes, I flat out laughed for some of the most "dramatic scenes". By the end of the movie there is no sense of pride and admaration that comes from war movies because the ending doesn't seem too dramatic, after having every war cliche shoved down your throat. With the amount of dramatic license hte writers took for this movie, you think that they could have writen a interesting story. The whole first part of the movie could have been cut out, Affleck's character goes to Britain to fly with the RAF. What the hell does the Battle of Britain have to do with Pearl Harbour, nothing thats what. The scene is to allow for an uneccesary love triangle. Don't think that being Canadian makes me dislike this movie because I thought Saving Private Ryan was great. If you haven't seen Saving Private Ryan, and want to see what a good amercian WW2 movie looks like, see it. Pearl Harbour is just an excuse to show special effects.
Rating:
Summary: An Intense, but good movie
Review: I think Pearl Harbor is a very emotional and intense. "This movie is very on the ball and realistic."
Rating:
Summary: They did not complete the story...
Review: Fresh from the theatre, I feel so robbed with this movie. However, I enjoyed it. The war scenes were obviously toned down a lot and the back story brought to the front. They tried to make it an interesting plot within the backdrop of Pearl Harbor. The story and characters were believable and well-acted, but what threw me all the way out of the movie was the unfortunate choice they made as a symbol for connection and affection: Japanese oragami. Every time I saw the oragami birds that two of the characters held on to it [made me mad] and distracted me from the emotion of the moment. Other than that, the only problem I had was the over-simplification of the ending and that they did NOT show the A-bomb drop. I know this movie is about Pearl Harbor, but it leaves you in the middle of the war and rolls the credits without doing anything to wrap it up besides some meager voice-overs and a few scenes of conclusion that leave you hanging. I have no problem with the toning-down of the violence except that the camerawork and editing in the midst of battles leaves you wondering what is happening. No overviews of where the planes are in relation to each other, no continuity in the war scenes and the explosions (even the big ones) were lacking in effect. Of course, the theatre I attended to watch the movie had the sound cut out every 20-30 minutes briefly for thirty seconds. They should have cut out the scenes with Dan Ackroyd and enhanced the ones with explosions. These scenes were negligible and akin to those one would find as deleted scenes on the DVD. Sound editing was horrible as well; the explosions were minor booms compared to the sounds of, say, The Phantom Menace, where you actually felt the shock wave. Pearl Harbor is a good movie with many flaws. Biggest mistake: oragami - a Japanese art created by an American pilot in the middle of a war against Japan. Best effect: the first chicken run. If they had intensified the sound of explosions and cleaned up the blur effect in the hospital, it might have been better. If they had done something with the Atom Bomb drop over Hiroshima, that would have been a more complete ending to the movie. My recommendation: they should have just re-released ID4.
Rating: 
Summary: The previews lied
Review: What to say about Pearl Harbor. Knowing that the producer of Armageddon and Con Air was making the film siginificantly lowered my expectations but I didn't think he would screw up this bad. The love story at the beginning, whether it is the actors or the writing, didn't interest me at all. I was looking at my watch waiting for the inevitable battle to come. I have to admit, the battle scenes were impressive and the effects were amazing but I didn't get a feeling like I was watching something that really happened. Saving Private Ryan (The Best War Movie Ever Made)made me feel I was right there in the thick of it. Pearl Harbor needed to have an R rating to show the viewers the true brutality of war and not trivialize it with the hotdogging of two pilots at the end of the battle. The producer and the director were way out of their league for this movie. If their motive was to make a glossy, unemotional hollywood war movie then they succeeded. If their goal was to make a historically accurate, gritty and believable tribute to the soldiers who gave their lives then they failed.
Rating:
Summary: The Positives Outweigh the Negatives...barely
Review: Judging from many of the reviews I've been reading, one either loves or hates this film. I must admit, I liked Pearl Harbor, despite some reservations. This film is not very well structured: The first act (from the beginning of the movie until beginning of the attack) is too long and could have used some judicious editing. The second act (the attack on Pearl Harbor sequence) could also have been tighter. Michael Bay seems to have been too emotionally attached to his visual effects to let any remain on the cutting room floor. In contrast, the third act (which begins with the President calling for a retaliatory strike against Japan) appears to have been truncated to quickly finish the movie, and seems incomplete. In essence, the movie is off balance. Perhaps in an attempt to avoid offending anyone during today's politically correct era, the script glosses over the real treachery in the Japanese government's actions of 1941 and before. Nor is any mention made of the brutal atrocities committed by the Japanese during the invasions of China and Manchuria, which led the United States to stop selling oil to the Japanese. Nor is there any mention made of the inhuman treatment of American POW's during the war, but that took place mostly after the period the film covers so it is understandable. Some have complained that the romantic subplot is pure Hollywood cliche. In a way, they are correct: this is a device that has been used time & again in films, because it works. It is effective here as well, and would have been moreso, if the first half of the film had been better paced. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett give effective performances, but the real heart of the triangle is Kate Beckinsdale. The British have long been known for their excellent actors/actresses, and Ms. Beckinsdale extends that lineage here. Jon Voight makes an excellent FDR, the best I've seen on film or stage, and I've seen plenty (including Edward Herrman, Ralph Ballamy, David Ogden Steirs, and Robert Vaughn). That the visual effects are excellent goes without saying, although there are several shots of planes flying in a manner which would not have been possible during World War II. One aspect of the film which has been unfairly--and inaccurately--criticized is the cinematography. Because Bay wanted a period look for the film, it was shot in an old process known as 3-strip Technicolor. That is the same process used for other color films of the era, including Gone With The Wind, and The Wizard of Oz. This accounts for the deeply saturated flesh tones, and other colors which some have criticized. Unfortunately, in today's more era, with it's relatively flat visual approach, historically unaware audiences don't appreciate Bay's meticulousness. In short, Pearl Harbor, while not a great film, is a good film which is worth seeing on the big screen. It more than overcomes the occasional problems with pacing and should entertain anyone not riddled with Attention Deficit Disorder. More importantly, it may inspire the youth of America to study the era and learn about what their grandparents overcame to preserve the freedom they now enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Typical drivel.
Review: When you're looking for who makes the movies people refer to as "Studio Junk", they are talking about Bruckheimer and Bay as producers. Pearl Harbor is nothing short of pure insult both to the Japanese and to the Americans who were actually involved. While Beckinsale attempts to emote as much as her flat character can (As Ken Law said, she plays the typical Bruckheimer/Bay female character in which she just pines for her man), it's not enough to pull this swamp movie out of the dumps. The script/dialogue/action were all bunk. I realise the movie is not historically accurate, but the contrived formulaic junk they've tried to feed us is beyond belief. We should start a petition to get our money back, quite frankly. Admittedly, Affleck and the new guy aren't bad in the looks department.
| 
