Rating: 
Summary: The Flock
Review: The flock, as some have put it, is not the consequence of an influence instilled in us by critics, it is the result of this much-anticipated film proving to be one of the very worst of the year.Nevertheless, if you believed Armageddon was robbed on Oscar night, then by all means, Pearl Harbor is for you.
Rating: 
Summary: What do critics know?
Review: When I read the reviews for this brilliant movie, I thought it would be a real letdown. But when is the last time I liked a movie that the critics liked or hated a movie the critics hated? Maybe Saving Private Ryan, which was released three years ago. Other than that I haven't liked many movies that critics have also liked. Critics today base their reviews on things out of English classes: symbolism, themes, and morals. They're fine, but sometimes you just want to see a good action movie. Or even a romance. Pearl Harbor had both of these, and as predictable as the romance was, it was still the best romance movie I have ever seen (that's not saying much, but I liked it). Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale, and even Alec Baldwin perform incredibly. This was the first film I have seen with Josh Hartnett or Kate Beckinsale, but they are both promising young actors. Ben Affleck, who I was first introduced to in 6th grade with The Voyage of the Mimi, has proven he can act well in movies such as Dogma(if you haven't seen it, see it, its hilarious). Affleck is even better in Good Will Hunting, which he won an Oscar for. I was surprised at the small role of Cuba Gooding, Jr. He seems overemphasized in the previews, yet he is only in about ten minutes of the film. His brief boxing match, brief meeting with Evelyn(Beckinsale), and his effort to shoot down a plane. The historical significance of this movie was irrelevant; if you want history watch the History Channel or get a book on Pearl Harbor. This movie is for our entertainment, and as a big history buff, I hope it gets more people interested in the social sciences. The acting in itself was worth the price of admission. The forty minute attack scene was worth the admission. The movie is well worth the price of admission. I plan to see this many more times. I recommend it to anyone looking for a good movie. If you usually disagree with critics, you'll love this movie. If you usually agree with critics, you'll probably like this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Tragic
Review: Trite, historically inaccurate, and a colossal waste of time and money. This film ranks with the very worst of world cinema. It also reflects the typical American opinion that the attack on Pearl Harbor was the most monumental event in the Second World war. The loss of life in Pearl Harbor was tiny fraction of that which occurred on the other side of the Atlantic prior to American involvement in the war. What is really pitiful is that this film will make millions all over the world. This motion picture serves as nothing more than a symbol of the abysmal state of big-budget America cinema at present. Instead of seeing this film, save time and effort by buying a flag with the Stars and Stripes on it and forcing it slowly down your throat - you will achieve a similar effect to watching the film and will also find out how the actors felt trying to cope with their appalling script.
Rating:
Summary: Bravo Bravo!!!!!
Review: This movie has some great stuff going on. The story is not immediately shoot and run. It is tied up in the romance triangle that gets confused and highly entertaining to watch throughout the movie. Another great thing is the length. The movie doesn't finish after you watch the harbor get blown up. There's also another mission that displays the revenge America takes against Japan. The movie may seem like a slow romance, and it may seem to others like a mindless action movie. Guess what! It's both! You will enjoy this movie if you watch it, so go watch it.
Rating:
Summary: The Mummy Returns was better than this!
Review: i can't believe I wrote that for a title, but before this, I thought Mummy 2 was a disappointment. I was far from wrong. What we have here is basically Jerry Bruckheimer and his puppet-like-explosives-loving wooden boy Michael Bay, adding a totally fictitious love story to try to convince us that Bay wants to be taken seriously as a director. Well, after this, I have even less faith in these two. Basically, they are destroying the mindset of cinema, with every movie they make that grosses $150 million. Pearl Harbor's love story between Ben Affleck's character and Kate Beckinsale's character is very badly choreographed. They meet for what is to us 15-20 minutes of screentime, and a quick flirt and a champagne cork to the nose are meant to be signs that they are in love in no time? DiCaprio and Winslet convinced me better. Even Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman in "Moulin Rouge" were convincing! Now, to save more knashing time, here is my list of problems with the film: 1.Bay's use of Beckinsale, sitting on the rocks along Hawaii, as waves crash around her, staring dreamily off into the horizon thinking of Affleck. How corny is that?! 2.We are meant to care about the many soldiers, but the fact is, we know very few, if any of the people who get thrown into the air, fall off boats, or otherwise. 3.There are only so many times when a torpedo hitting the water can look cool. By the 6th time, we are bored out of our minds. 4.Why does every lead have to be a macho American He-Man? Bay and Bruckheimer are so over the top with American spirit, as much as Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich (ID4, The Patriot). 5.Humor in a war? If I was in war, humor would be the last thing on my mind. 6.Camera angles. Several times, we are subjected to things that we don't know what is going on. 7.Your best friend gets it on with your girlfriend, and after about 5 hours of being angry at him you forgive him? 8.Stuff flying at the camera. now, anything that comes straight at us we are going to know it's an effect. It's LAME!! 9.No interaction with any real historic figures. Aside from a meeting with a man named Doolittle (Alec Baldwin) and a cook played by Cuba Gooding Jr, there are no real connections such as Titanic's captain or it's ships' builder. 10. Ok, the Japanese are shown speaking in English subtitles, but when we hear the thoughts of a pilot, his thoughts speak to us in ENGLISH? Also, we only hear this one pilot once, and then he just becomes one of the many in planes that have no name. 11. A ride in a plane at sunset and then a private momentin a parachute room. Wow, if that's what passed as romantic back then, I still prefer the 1950's. 12. The cuts: we go from huge war to quiet moments. This sudden stopping does nothing to really help move the story along. 13.Soundtrack-the music has some good uses of touch that Hans Zimmer put to good use in "Gladiator," but WHERE IS IT ON THE SOUNDTRACK? My high school band director actually returned his copy of the soundtrack! 14. A war in the middle of a movie does not make it a great film! Unless the film is enjoyable overall, the film is basically garbage! And now, the good parts. 1.Visual Effects- Sadly, the effects are the only thing to talk about. This film ranks up with Hollow Man and Twister: good FX, no plot. The one star is for the effects also, as Industrial Light and Magic does good work. Well, that's about all I can say here. If you want to see more bad movies like Bruckheimer's and Bay's, see Armageddon (I reviewed that as well). however, don't look to this film as the next classic. See "Lawrence of Arabia," "Crouching Tiger," or "Citizen Kane." Better yet, if someone wants to go see this movie, tell them to see "Shrek" or "Moulin Rouge" or "Memento" instead.
Rating: 
Summary: So What??
Review: so what if pearl harbor wasn't 100% accurate? if you just sit back and watch the movie, then you'd enjoy it. if you stop trying to pick out historical bloopers the movie made, then it'd be fine. true, the love story is too long and sappy and i know some critics attack the main 40 minutes action sequence. they say that it's just 40 minutes of bombing. but then they go on to attack all the mistakes the movie made. the bombing scene is WHAT HAPPENED. that's REAL. it was ALL bombing. and the very first torpedo dropped, where the camera stays behind the torpedo the entire way to it's target, is spectacuarlly creative and photographed. see this movie. and enjoy it. (HINT: see it with friends, like i did. i think that makes it better)
Rating:
Summary: the move portrayed what it was designed to show
Review: I would highly recomend this movie to anyone. However one cannot go to this movie expecting to see "Saving Private Ryan" type effects. This was a Disney made film so they have to keep with certion restriction. As a younger person who has not yet live though a war, this moive was so moving. It was an excellent protray of lost innocence.
Rating: 
Summary: A smorgasbord of visual effects
Review: "Pearl Harbor" is a film that should be judged for both its cinematic and realistic merits in that:For its cinematic merits, the main people involved with the making of this movie really went out of their way to create the utmost genuinely real visual effects, as far as the holocaust-like atmosphere is concerned. The viewer can really sense what it was like on that fateful December 7th, 1941 day, as if the viewer can feel the various troop members' pain through the realism of the flaming naval ships and helicopters, the battle scars, as well as the wounded bodies floating on the ocean's surface. Another thing that shouldn't be overlooked by the viewer are the Academy Award winning performances by Ben Affleck and Cuba Gooding, Jr., as they really put their heart and soul into their various character roles without trying too hard. Many kudos should also go to Dan Aykroyd as well, for his "five-star" portrayal as a strategic Naval captain (a Canadian all decked out in American military garb? Who'd a thunk it?). Aykroyd also demonstates here that he is more than up to the task of handling non-comedic, serious roles.CINEMATIC RATING: 4 STARSAs far as the realism of "Pearl Harbor" is concerned, it would definitely appear that Hollywood did not do its homework in ascertaining the actual real facts regarding what really happened on that December 7th day - instead relying on hearsay of media news coverage and the like. What could have been done is that the Hollywood screen writers should have relied on actual sources, such as referring to various history books on Pearl Harbor (although in spots, don't REALLY reveal the gist of the actual nature of the entire story) and by obtaining actual accounts of what happened by the actual survivors of this tragedy on both sides of the Japanese and American camps, assuming there are any survivors left. Furthermore, how does the viewer really know what happened as far as how the 1942 American retaliation of Japanese troops was played out as well, in spite of there possibly not being any aforetold mention of any doubtful history regarding Part 2 of the aftermath featured in this film, whatsoever? In concerning the actor portrayal of FDR in this film, the famous "A Date In Infamy" speech is verbalized 85% exactly, but seems somewhat forced and hurriedly spoken, especially when no brief pause occurs between the words "in" and "infamy". I found some of the socialized scenes to be scripted, in that the writers didn't take the time to interview any of the survivors, thus ad-libbing the lines in the script. The main problem with the realism of "Pearl Harbor" is that this film was made ten years too late. Had the producers made this film during the 50th anniversary of the attack, there's a distinct possibility that more survivors could have given a more detiled and elaborate side of the story, since more of the people involved in this grave tragedy were alive back then. What's more, waiting to release this film on December 7th at the end of this year couldn't have hurt either, and would've gained a bigger fanfare as well as bigger bucks, which this picture is destined to do, anyway. Plus, the December 7th release would also have brought about greater media coverage concerning the military, not to mention pump even more HUGE dollars in Hawaii's tourism industry, primarily because of the U.S.S Arizona Memorial on Oahu. Since Hollywood already made this feature, the lack of realism cannot be erased nor changed. What a shame.REALISM RATING: 2 1/2 STARSJust because "Pearl Harbor" lacks a substantial degree of realism does not make it a bad film, to say the least. To view this film in all its glory, is to simply watch it for its visual effects alone, as previously mentioned. OVERALL RATING: 3 1/4 STARS (slightly above-average)
Rating:
Summary: "A major disappointment"
Review: When I first viewed the trailer for this film I was very excited until I saw that Michael Bay and Jerry Buckheimer where in the credits. Not that I don't like their movies (I do...) But a sensitive, emotional subject like Pearl Harbor should be handled with care and not in a MTV style three second shot holds and borderline embarrassing slow motion action shots. I still remained positive and eagerly awaited its release on Memorial Day. Unfortunately, after seeing it on Sunday, I left feeling very disappointed. The movie failed miserably to convey the horror, the tragedy, and the loss of innocence of the attack. Granted the main plot was the "love triangle" set against the backdrop of Pearl Harbor, the movie failed to decide what it wanted to be. First, it was a love story, then it was a action movie that became a love story again ending with a little of both. The "Love Triangle" was both predictable and failed to impart a sense of "I give a f$#@" for the audience. Some of the most dramatic events of Pearl Harbor were not mentioned at all. First, The U.S.S. Nevada's dramatic run for the open sea before being forced to beach under heavy attack would have conveyed a true spirit of heroism. Secondly, The fact that half of the 2500 servicemen killed that day were on the U.S.S. Arizona, and the devotion to that event was about ten seconds of screen time was outrageous. Bottom line... the movie failed to convey any sense of emotion or what the "Greatest Generation" did for this country. It belittled one of the most tragic military defeats in US history and turned it into a three hour boring soap opera that you could care nothing about. Finally, the cliched dialogue was outright offensive as well as the pilot with the speech impediment that was continously made fun of throughout the film. If you want to see a true depiction of Pearl Harbor, see "Tora, Tora, Tora" and to get a true sense of what men 18-21 years old did to save the world, see "Saving Private Ryan"
Rating:
Summary: AMAZING!
Review: MY FRIENDS AND I WENT TO SEE PEARL HARBOR YESTERDAY. THE ACTORS ARE AMAZING. WE ALL STARTED BAWLING RIGHT THERE IN THE THEATER. THE ACTOR'S HAVE TREMENDOUS SCREEN PRESENCE AND THE ACTION SCENES ARE ONES YOU'LL NEVER FORGET. YOU CAN ALMOST FEEL A CHILL SWEEP OVER YOU WHEN YOU REALIZE WHAT'S GOING ON AND YOU ALMOST WONDER IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY THERE...IT'S AN AMAZING MOVIE AND I DEFINATELY RECCOMEND GOING TO SEE IT!
|
