Rating: 
Summary: Sad, Sad, Sad
Review: This is a popcorn war film. And that is not a good thing. Popcorn war films should not be made about real events. Satire is a different thing. Pearl Harbor reduces that fateful day to a silly, hammy, terribly-written love triangle and a video game-like attack sequence. You can't really care about the characters. Who are the [people] that gave a film about such an important event to Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer? You should be horrified by violence in a war film. You aren't supposed to say "Wow, that's some [amazing] graphics and surround sound!"Leave war films to the grown ups, Bay and Bruckheimer.
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your money!
Review: I skipped this movie in the theater, and I'm glad. I was afraid to watch Ben Affleck after Armageddon, the movie which started his career towards running parallel with Leonardo DiCaprio's. Ben Affleck was worth watching in his Mallrats and Chasing Amy flicks, but now I wouldn't waste my money on his movies again. I made that mistake twice (Armageddon and Pearl Harbor), I'm not going to make it a third time. The name "Pearl Harbor" is accurate for less than half of the movie. I would have named it "Titanic in Hawaii" or something like that. This movie reminds me what I think NSync would be in movie form. ($) is not worth the 10 minutes of interesting footage surrounded by (...). The first time I watched it I had to fast forward to find out if the movie had ANYTHING to do with Pearl Harbor. I like war movies, especially naval ones, but this I'd classify as worthless and embarassing to own.
Rating: 
Summary: Fresh entertainment that sustains...
Review: Since we've all "had enough" of Titanic, yet apparently not entirely, otherwise why would these other movies be successful? While being a bit idealistic and an imitation of Titanic at times, I still loved this movie. The acting of Kate Beckinsale is a lot more polished than Kate Winslet's performance in Titanic, if you ask me. And two of the hottest actors star in this 3 hour film, so what more could you ask? My friends cried buckets when we went to see this in the theater. Of course we all expect tragedy from this movie - I mean, look at the title! And some of you may be sick of those sappy endings, morals, and whatever, but I think this movie worked it in pretty well. The plot incorporated humor and action to spice up the old love triangle - people have said that this movie could have ended in ten different places, but it just kept dragging on. ...That is kinda true, but we can't just leave the story at the handicap of Pearl Harbor, right? And the love thing still had to be settled. ...Well, Titanic never had the entire audience satisfied either...give Pearl Harbor a try and see for yourself. I think it's worth seeing and it's one of the best movies out recently - critics will at least agree that it was a good shot and good entertainment.
Rating: 
Summary: Cliché? Yes. Unwatchable? No
Review: Granted Pearl Harbor was an over blown production of epic proportions that used virtually all known devices of modern Hollywood filmmaking to glamorize the events of December 7th. It still managed to remind the movie going public that there are moments in time that should never be forgotten, but rather perpetuated eternally through the use of cinema. (...) You can call Michael Bay a hack all you want, but I seriously don't think he will care. I would like to remind everyone of the fact that not everyone (even most directors) can handle a 145 million dollar budget, get the green light from a major studio (Disney) team with one of the biggest producers of all time (Bruckheimer again, who also chose Michael to direct Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon) work tirelessly for 2 years doing research about the actual people who survived the attack, deal with the casting, the location, the shooting, the post production and the marketing. So for that much I respect Michael Bay. And it was not entirely his fault Randal Wallace wrote such a trite and cliché script, some things just turn out that way. Was it unforgivable in the sense that this was supposed to have been the biggest movie of the year? Maybe, but personally, in this year of such personal tragedy and hate in the world, I would rather push it all aside and just watch the film for it's historical significance, and salute those who died in the actual attack, more than 60 years ago. (...)
Rating: 
Summary: Bummer
Review: Visual effects and Battle footage were great...the other 85% of the movie was just lousy fluff...
Rating:
Summary: Michael Bay Blows Even More Stuff Up.
Review: Michael Bay's latest epic sinks under it's own wright faster than the very ship-cum-movie which is obviously it's model. and whereas James Cameron's epic Titanic was actually involving, Bay's attempt, despite it's best intentions, is uninteresting and undramatic. save, admittably, the highlight of the film - a full 40 minutes of Bay doing what he does best, that is to say, to blow stuff up good - Pearl Harbor is an uneasy drama and a pretty poor romance. it's also a cliched buddy movie from the opening scene, in which an eight year old repeatedly beats a World War I vet with a board and calls him a "dirty German". we're presented a poor collection of cliched characters - the Unseperable Buddies Who Always Wanted To Fly Bomber Planes, the Beautiful Woman Who Comes Between Them, the Stuttering Freind, and, yes, even the Token Black Guy. let's not forget the Evil Japanese. with no real back story or intertesting dialouge (most of it is damned laughable), the actors try their best to pull this thing out of the hole it's dug itself. they don't. the story drags itself through beautiful sets without a hint of historical accuracy, through sappy and uninvolving romance, and finally up to 12/7/41, where the film's few pleasures can be found. stuff blows up real good - for over a half hour - and I suddenly found myself interested. regardless of the story that surrounds it, Bay proves here to be an able craftsman with obvious talent for directing stuff blowing up, sinking, crashing, and other forms of mass destruction - one wishes he were given something on the level of, say, Die Hard to work with. but he's not, and ultimatley the action, which takes up only about 21% of the movie's run time, is the only highlight in this amazingly disapointing cinematic train wreck. similarly, following those amazing 40 minutes, there is a third act which feels too tacked-on for it's own good. and don't get me started on the cheesy, cloyingly sentimental and patriotic ending, complete with a Very Somber Voiceover, that's supposed to add resonance to the drama. so's the action, but at it's heart this movie is a drama, and it's the damndest most uninteresting drama I've seen in a long time. in an effort to pad out the run time to it's full 3 hours, we're treated to human interaction against a backdrop of stuff blowing up complete with a melodramatic score. even people who didn't like Titanic will see that film's obviously superior execution compared to this mess. Bay proves that he should stick with action. Affleck & Co. prove that even the most capable actors can't save such a poor screenplay. and Bruckheimer proves that he can finance stuff blowing up real good. if you want good action, try Die Hard. if you want good romance, try Titanic. Disney's ad campaign was based on stuff blowing up, and those expecting 3 hours of explosions will be sorely dissapointed. it's more 2 1/2 hours of tedious romance. even the film's obvious interest in becoming what it ultimatley was not and it's action cannot save it. it's not detestable, but it's not interesting. and it's not effective, but it's at least slightly distracting. avoid this padded out and ludicrous excuse for a Very Important Movie.
Rating:
Summary: Its an O.K. movie... but why is it called Pearl Harbor?
Review: Does anyone understand the title of this movie? The main idea of the story isn't even about Pearl Harbor... its about two friends in the military; with a twisted love story mixed in. The actually Pearl Harbor scene didn't take up much of the movie's plot, just a fraction of the time... and the movie is made to seem to be dragged on. But I guess what do I expect... this is a hollywood film.
If your expecting this movie to be a war movie (like I was), then you'll be disapointed... but if you want to see a drama/romance, then you'll probably enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: Historically a disservice and disrepsect
Review: This is entertaining as a special effects spectacular. Historically inaccurate. The casting of Baldwin as Jimmy Doolittle was not only bad casting but a disservice to the real American Hero, who while being short in stature, was a giant in the field of military aviation. Baldwin would be better cast as Joe Stalin.
Rating: 
Summary: A Day of Infamy
Review: I have read some of the negative reviews and choose to respectfully disagree with them. I do not know how historically accurate some of the scenes are, but I did like the idea of making this an intensely personal crisis by zeroing in on characters who were in Hawaii at the time of the attacks. There is a love story (or more accurately a triangle) and the viewer is introduced to young people whose idealism is only exceeded by their naivete. Theirs is a world of flirting, young love, dancing, and parties. Harsh reality soon sets in when the character played by Ben Affleck volunteers for duty with British fighter pilots who are already embroiled in war. The other characters enjoy the good life in Hawaii until the attack brings them, too, into the terrible reality of war. My advice would be to forget the pre-conceived notions of what you think this movie ought to be and enjoy the photography, special effects, and interaction of characters which makes this an entertaining movie.
Rating:
Summary: I thought it was great
Review: I liked the movie.....I think it was well done. It is a difficult task to make a movie about such a well known subject concerning American history. The story line is good....it takes many known aspects of the period into account. There is a bit of dramatic license taken, but how else are you going to make the film? There are too many people involved for the film to reflect everyone's actual experience with that event. Generalizations and assumptions were made....they had to be made. That is the film makers job. I challenge anyone who wants to try to better the attempt to go ahead....show me better. Then we will talk!
Ta ta for now! Bill
| 
