Rating: 
Summary: We win!
Review: Pearl Harbor is a great reenactment of the attack on Dec. 7th, 1941. The love story is weak. Don't let this stop you from seeing the movie. It's obvious the time and the money was spent on the action. The attack sequence is hard to watch at times, knowing the recreation pales in comparison to the real hurt and pain our soldiers experienced. It's 3 hours long, so make sure you go to the bathroom before the movie starts...large Coke purchases will only make you miserable towards the end.
Rating: 
Summary: This was brilliant, just ignore the Patriotism!
Review: I thought Pearl Harbor was going to be an awful interpretation of a brilliant strategic effort on the part of the Japanese, and completely ignore, however terrible the consequences, the truth about one of the greatest events in modern history, mainly for all the wrong reasons.The Critics slated the film, like 46 people (thus far) on this site. I felt as though it could be a let down, similar to that of Titanic. However, I learnt that critics ae usually wrong. Before I sum up I must say that I am not a lover of the American race for all their faults, and war is a terrible thing, but the over-riding factor is that for a nation to drop teo atomic weapons on a country to end a struggle, is pitiful. Many people have seen pearl harobor may notice the clever use that Bay uses to show the killing of innocnet women during the conflict, but at least these kills were quick and overall far less painful than death by radioactive poisoning, and having your clothes physically burnt into your skin. This film starts off all innocent, and I don't mind the long-wait for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, due to the real-time type effect of the film. I however felt that the last hour was a wasted effort, and that it may have been more cleverly presented. However, I overall stress that this is an excellent film, and probably the second best film out this summer, only just losing out to: FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN. However, this must be seen by people of all ages and backgrounds, and i'm certain that the vast majority won't be disappointed. Kate Bekinsale is also rather good!
Rating:
Summary: A splendid movie!
Review: You have to remember that this movie is not intended to be a history lesson as some other viewers seem disappointed in that aspect. It is entertainment based on a factual, historical event in U.S. history. The movie does a great job of taking one back to the wartime of the 1940's. I often felt like I was indeed there in the 40's and I had not even been born yet. The movie even touches on the Battle of Britain and gives a great ending with the Dolittle Raid on Toykyo. True, the movie is based on a romance but it is not the mushy romance of some romance movie or book. What was World War II with out romance. I mean the guys fell in love with the gals and then got sent to war. Then, often fell in love again once they got to there destination. So I felt it fit together just fine. I thoroughly enjoyed my 3 hours worth!
Rating:
Summary: Historical Accuracy
Review: The film portrays a tender relationship during the most trying of times, where the strains of a life and death struggle affect the emotions of its key characters. From a dramatic viewpoint, the action scenes were scripted to illustrate and maximize the impact of the explosions. However, as a historical reality, the initial assault on the famed 'battleship row' was initiated by torpedo the single engine bombers that ran in sequence one plane after the other like ducks in a row, each one releasing the heavy torpedos before making straffing runs on the ships. A different wave, of again, single engined bombers were responsible for dropping their armored piercing bombs on the 'inner row' of battleships. In many of the straffing runs, the Japanese planes were seen with their torpedoes or bombs intact as they passed over the battleships. The last note of historical accounts was the focus of the attack. The inital waves of planes attacked only the battleships, then progressed to lower eschalon ships in decending order after it was determined that the major ships had been severely destroyed or disabled. The 'second wave' was a mop-up action that mostly attacked the minor ships and continued to attack the battleships that were the least damaged. In addition, the primary airfields were simultaneously attacked to prevent any defense by ground fighters. Thus, the action sequences were for the entertainment focus. Never-the-less the film is enjoyable and moves along its three hours without any sluggish moments. You, a passenger, are drawn into this voyage into history and into the characters and feeling the emotions that they are experiencing. I would accordingly, highly recommend this film to a general broad based audience and expect that everyone for the most part will like this film.
Rating:
Summary: Great, great movie!!
Review: I've seen this movie 2 times already and hope to see it again. It is sooo good! The language is way better than I expected. No f- words in it which makes it so much better. And the respect Rave has for his girl....it amazes me! I love this movie! It is 100% better than Titanic!
Rating:
Summary: "From Here to..." Pearl Harbor again.
Review: It is no "From Here to Eternity", and the love story is milk toasted and pretty predictable. There are no sexy beach scenes(ala Kerr-Lancaster) although one on a parachute(in a hangar on the ground) is somewhat creative as love scenes go. There is virtually little chemistry between Ben Affleck and Kate Beckingdale, but that is probably because Affleck's character woodenly states he is saving himself and her from an experience they may later regret. The chemistry does begin though with the same leading lady and a second flyer who happens to be the Affleck character's best friend. The bombing of the battleships scenes are excellent. This was deadly warfare and America was a sitting duck not so unlike 9/11/01-note this last comment was inserted later by this reviewer.) The movies does capture the elements of shock, chaos, and horror which must have been Pearl on December 7, 1941.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Patriotic Summer
Review: First, there was "Independence Day." Then, there was "The Patriot." This summer, "Pearl Harbor" is Hollywood's patriotic offering. In all three, the USA is an underdog, caught unawares and overwhelmed, but comes out on top in the final reel. I would have much rather the action sequences (read: the attack on Pearl Harbor) to have been in "Tora! Tora! Tora!" and allow the love story to be a separate film. Every character, other than the three leads, was very one- dimensional and, unless you are attracted to love stories as a background to a war film, the only thing to recommend this film is the actual attack sequences, including those involving the leads. The techniques used in filming owe a lot to "Saving Private Ryan" and "Titanic," but are used to great effect here, from the death of the "Oklahoma" to the aftermath scenes. The effects in the hospital sequences evoke very well in the filmgoer the feeling of the panic and adrenaline during a disaster situation. So overall, if you are an action buff, you have to wade through a lot of plot in the beginning, but the action is worth waiting for, and there is a little heart-tugging there that you should allow yourself to experience. And if you don't mind Jon Voight, Dan Ackeroyd, and others to be put in cameos and then under-used, you won't mind their appearing in the film.
Rating: 
Summary: A Total Americanised Distortion Of History
Review: As an Englishman I came away from this film with a sickly feeling in the pit of my stomach. As eye candy goes and as exciting action packed special effects sequences goes - it works. It seems that Americans have a real, nagging guilt about joining the war so late and this film attempts to sooth it. The scenes with Ben Affleck fighting alongside the RAF is just disgraceful, putting a huge spotlight on a small American participation before they joined the war for real. More Canadians, Aussies and New Zealanders fought in the 1940/41 air battles over the channel and Southern England than Americans. To hear and RAF officer quote "If all Yanks are like you then God help any country who makes war on America" turned my stomach and the Scottish airman who looks on as Affleck jumped into his plane to fight the Luftwaffe to "help us out" looks on admiringly and says "God speed to you Sir!" What a joke! This is a film that tries to be everything, a love story, a heroic war story but laughingly of all it tries to be a history lesson which is what really niggles. It is such an Americanisation of events that Gee I'm just sooo glad us little, quaint English people could help y'all win it! After 3 hours of fake events and distortions I was bored to tears and very upset. In a scene Pres. Roosevelt says "Many have claimed that we let the British and the Russians do our fighting for us ...." and up until you got a taste of the action thats exactly what you did. Hey, we don't hold it against you at all, it was team effort (after we won the first few rounds to convince you we might win ie. Battle Of Britain, El Alamien, Stalingrad). To really get my goat up was the end dialogue which wasn't changed for British viewers in which "America" and "Americans" were mentioned so many times that there were groans from all around the cinema, indeed it was so sicophantic that perhaps George W. should use it one of his speeches. The fact that the voice speaking these words was a talented and beautiful English actress, Kate Beckinsale, speaking in an American accent was the final straw. By all means make war films, make war films where only Americans were involved (although admittedly these are few and far between) but don't try to take all the credit and twist history to your own way of thinking. Go on tell us you helped win at Stalingrad or in India. Go on I dare ya!
Rating:
Summary: "Fantastic...superb!"
Review: I really liked the movie, I loved Josh Hartnetts character of Danny. I believe if he isn't now will be very hot in Hollywood. Between Josh H. and Ben Affleck they stole the movie. I did enjoy Alec Baldwin as "Dolittle", one of his better roles. The reason I didn't give this movie a 5, is because after they were captured they flew us home, buried Danny and went on with their lives. I wanted to know what really happened next, before they came home.
Rating:
Summary: Green Blood Donations
Review: Fight the enemy, sink the ship, bomb the harbor; it's tragedy as spectacle. And I have no problem with it. The key to these exploitation films is to find a context in which the carnage can play a part, a carefully manipulated story centering in and around the "action". Basically, what the makers of these films are looking for is an excuse. Those behind this particular event picture however came up with a very bad one. Pearl Harbor, for most of its running time, is the type of z-grade soap opera that would make Kleenex's best customer wince in disgust. When the expensive bombs do finally start falling, in a frenzy of confused morality and directorial desperation, we get "cool" sequences with camera placed over a torpedo, "impressive" ones with a warship being turned over with all its crew still on board, and some really loud drums accompanying the imposing sight of over three hundred Japanese planes heading for the serene island. Simultaneously, we also get heavy-duty scenes of civilians dying beneath Han Zimmer's (I'll get to him later) sorrowful score. If that unintended dichotomy weren't enough, there's also that irritating beefcake hero running around with his buddies yelling, "Damn, I gotta get me a plane." Whether this is dross with ambition, or a particularly bad serious film, you'll have to decide. Pearl Harbor is terrible. And the bombs don't save it. No one expected depth, character development, acting or subtlety here. An adequate, competent non-plot/plot would have sufficed. But evidently, the director, Michael Bay had Spielbergian eminence on his mind; The film opens with two farm boys (not the farm sort, the post-card version) admiring an antique plane, after which the title "Pearl Harbor" appears against Spielberg's trademark image, the round setting sun. Having such lofty aspirations only serves to accentuate Bay's severe shortcomings. Its obvious that he's not half the manipulator Spielberg is, but more noteworthy is his absolute inability to complete a cinematic sentence. I would've thought that the confidence to choose a particular shot was a prerequisite for the most primitive of film courses. Yet here is Bay, the director of a hundred-and-fifty million dollar epic, and he can't decide whether to shoot his actors from the top, in profile, or from below. So he aimlessly fidgets between a hundred different approaches, fulfilling none. The fatuousness can be traced to the screenplay, by Randall Wallace, the writer of Braveheart no less, an insipid mixture of random political happenings, self-aggrandizing speeches, and dialogue so drippy, sticky and wet it clings to the screen after its shameless utterance. I would repeat that howler about the sun and moon, but my keyboard would get nauseous. Films like Pearl Harbor have the critics out for blood well before their release. At its banking system busting budget, the experienced critic knows that it can't afford to offer anything other than spectacle. It has to appeal to every member of the audience, everywhere in the world, at this particular moment in time. You should not however mistake the tepid critical response for prejudice. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to populist entertainment, Pearl Harbor is particularly awful populist entertainment. Take for example James Cameron's Titanic. That was also a huge populist, and yes, simplistic film about a tragedy. But Cameron is a director capable of rhythm, structure and discipline. Despite what his detractors may say, Cameron used all his expensive toys to get somewhere. In contrast, Pearl Harbor is a big loud mess. Bay's PG-13 war is too bloodless to horrify, his flag waving politics are too stupid to be absorb, and his love story, performed by actors who seem to have had all humanity liposucked out of them, is banal beyond words. There isn't a single quite moment in its mindless three hours. For the noise, Hans Zimmer was employed, previously of Bay's The Rock (1996). The gifted Zimmer has fashioned some great film music in the past. His score for The Rock (a good, silly action film where Bay's mania was appropriate) was superb gung-ho nonsense. Here, unsure whether the film is a serious drama, or a shoot'em up, he has come up with the standard military stuff for the stars, ominous drums for the Japanese, and most distastefully, he apes his own brilliant work on The Thin Red Line for the drama. His score plays like the film; gutless and all over the place. Some may still find the concept of death as spectacle offensive. I don't. In fact, I find little in movies that is potent enough to be offensive. A film like Saving Private Ryan, an action film that pretended to be something more, is one of the few ones that gets on my nerves. Pearl Harbor is too loud and too obvious to make any potent political or sociological suggestions that could slight anyone (even the Japanese). No, Pearl Harbor is not at all offensive. Just offensively bad.
|
