Rating: 
Summary: A
Review: The only reason I gave this movie even two stars is that the re-creation of the attack on Pearl Harbor and Dolittle's raid on Tokyo are done flawlessly, at least as far as the effects go. CGI is photorealistic, ships blow up real good, bullets strafe the water with individual clarity and under the surface with frightening realism. Swooping camera angles that follow planes and bombs give a breathtaking view on the combat.However, the rest of the movie is pure by-the-numbers dreck. Obviously hoping to capture some of Titanic's worldwide repeat business success, Bruckheimer and Bay lead us to and past the attack on PH through the lives of three people who of course endure tragic circumstances, misunderstandings and conflicted loyalties. There was not a single original instance in the entire storyline, every development was telegraphed far in advance, and the dialogue was atrocious. Supporting characters are, at best, one-dimensional, and recognizably taken from previous war movies' "Barrell o' Stock Characters." One of the air force mechanics is named "Gooz" fer crying out loud. ... Bay's MTV-style photography worked very, very well in the hyperkinetic "The Rock," but here, it is too slick, too apparent, and we are always aware that we are watching a movie -- something "Titanic" helped us successfully to forget. Go see "Memento," "Moulin Rouge" or something else with artistic merit, and wait for this one to be released to home video.
Rating: 
Summary: Pure dribble with one good scene
Review: What a waste of three hours. Bad scipt, bad acting; a total dis-service to those who were actually there. Bay and Bruckheimer should be hanged for treason for unleashing this monstrosity on the American public, and for trying to make a buck with this flotsam. Don't get me wrong, when a war movie does credit to Americna Soldiers and and the true horror of war (See "Saving Private Ryan, When Trumpets Fade, or Platoon), then there is something to watch. Even movies which are just set in war, but do not try to be historical interpretations with grand compelling themes or truth, morality and the American Way, may work. (see "Kelly's Hero's, "Where Eagles Dare" which are just fun movies). At least these other movies that I mentioned have entertainment value. Pearl Harbor is pure dribble, masked as a historical account.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Movie in Years
Review: "Pearl Harbor" has it all: likeable characters, an old-fashioned love story, great action sequences, and a wonderful sense of patriotism. It is a must-see film for everyone today. Because of the production/direction team (Jerry Bruckheimer, Micheal Bay), I had high expectations for this film and I certainly was not disappointed. The film, I believe, captures the mood of our country at that time, a mixture of innocence and untested bravery. It also attempts to explain the circumstances leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and depicts the Japanese as courageous with a brilliant military strategy that brought devastation and chaos to a place unprepared for such an event. It shows the way Americans had to grow up overnight and prove their own courage. The movie doesn't fail in any regard, it combines entertainment and education, humor and pathos, pride and regret. It's not an anti-war film, but neither is it going to make anyone anxious to experience another war. Like all box-office smash hits, "Pearl Harbor" may not be critically acclaimed; but in my opinion, it's the best all-around movie in years, certainly as good as "Titanic" in romance and special effects, but with an added dimension that should appeal to everyone's sense of pride and patriotism. Do yourself a favor and see "Pearl Harbor" on the big screen. The audience participation was excellent by young and old alike. And I can honestly say, it's even better the second time.
Rating:
Summary: cheap (expensive, rather) Hollywood sap
Review: Maybe I'll give it a generous 2 and a half. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen the movie. In fact, I would have been more satisfied had I only seen the trailer. I was excited to go see a film about that infamous raid on Pearl Harbor and the activity that directly surrounded it. Sure, I expected it to have a large degree of sappy patriotism and a certain amount of glossing over historical facts, but I was not prepared for what the movie turned out to be. The movie was not about Pearl Harbor, despite what the title and trailer lead you to believe. The story was about a boring, lifeless friendship and an unlikely and unbelievable love triangle. And of course, the three lead players all just happened to be stationed in Pearl Harbor. Don't get me wrong; the attack scene itself was for the most part well done. With a 135 million dollar budget, I would hope that the special effects were flawless. One complaint I have with that sequence involved Josh Hartnett's and Ben Affleck's characters jumping into a couple of planes and fighting off the Japanese fighters. After they had shot down a couple of planes, the mood and tone of the movie became that of the Americans being victorious...did we all forget that the US had just been caught with its pants down 40 minutes earlier?? Sure, the movie served its purpose. It will make money...tell me who isn't going to go see this movie at least once. However, I think that it needs to be seen for what it is: a mildly entertaining big-budget movie with expensive special effects and computer graphics, with a poor plot, bad character development, and flat acting. If you do see this movie, make sure to see it in the theater where at least big explosions might keep your attention. After you see it, though, go see Memento for a thrilling, smart, clever, and creative movie which is probably the best of the year so far.
Rating: 
Summary: Pearl Harbor--A must see on the big screen!
Review: Who cares what Roger Eggbert says? I feel like I am the typical movie-goer and this movie made for great entertainment. It also serves as a wake up call to those old patriotic feelings we sometimes put to sleep. Treat yourself and see it on the big screen!
Rating: 
Summary: EYE CANDY, not much else though
Review: After seeing Pearl Harbor, I found myself asking questions as to why certain things were left out, and why other things things (ie: The Doolittle RAID) were put in. Jumping between the Americans and the Japanese was a good idea, just poorly executed. Wallace should have thought about using those scenes to help fill in a younger generation with some knowledge instead of making Hartnett a playboy in the parachute hanger. The film left those who do not know any better to believe that the Japanese were extremely pround and honored to have caught us sleeping. that is not the case. (See Samarai Code) This is also the first film about that day and it's events where the code phrase "Climb Mount Nikita" were not used prior to the attack. Looking at most of the relastionships between the characters brought the mini-series PEARL into mind. It was almost as if Wallace was watching that while writing this screenplay. The attack scene is beautiful eye-candy. If you're looking to be entertained by computer generated effects and some cheesey dialog this is a great movie to see. If you want to experience the truest testiment to that fateful day, I suggest that you rent "TORA TORA TORA." It is a far better dipiction of events, is just as entertaining, and you get to skip out on Affleck's in-ability to act. Lastly, why even cast Cuba Gooding Jr. as a historical character if you're not goign to develop him any more than by showing him boxing and firing rounds at Japanese planes during the attack. Some time off the end of the Doolittle raid could have been used to help out here. The film was well worth seeing at least once, but don't break the bank just to see it in theaters.
Rating:
Summary: A job well done...
Review: Without a doubt, Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer did the best they could. And the end result of their achievments is a 3 hour long movie spectacular that touches every emotion, every feeling and it does so with class. PLEASE do not listen to the banalaties of the movie critics, as they show once again how out of touch they are with America's taste in movies and what we WANT to see. This movie is worth the $6 you have to plunk down for a ticket. It is the next best thing to a time machine that would take you back to this painful time in America's past.
Rating:
Summary: A Movie which will live in Infamy
Review: It is in my opinion that this movie has done for Pearl Harbor what only a few esteemed historical films of this time have been able to accomplish. With it's evident crossbreeding of "Titanic", "Armageddon", and a dash of "Saving Private Ryan" it is sure to leave emotional scars on the lives of anyone who lets it in. It has done justice for it's cause. What is my motivation to say so? I am 16 and I went to see this movie with my grandfather, a WWII vet. I have never seen my grandfather cry. I HAD never seen my grandfather cry.
Rating:
Summary: A Common Moviegoer's Review
Review: I feel that I am a well rounded and college educated middle age woman who was born during this era and after reading all the bad professional reviews about pictures I wanted to see, I decided to go and see Pearl Harbor and make up my own mind.. I certainly am glad I did! Not only did I like the acting but the whole film caught my attention and held it for more than 3 hours. My husband was with me and while he is not partial to romances he enjoyed it as much as I did... I will certainly rent it again as I thought it was well done. I don't understand some of the critics who pan an awful lot of the movies that I end up loving and give high marks to movies that I go to see and then can't figure out what ever the critics saw in them. I'm not a prude but find some of the comedies that are rated highly are a total insult to my integrety and the ones they don't like tell a story which doesn't have to include smut or foul language, and is not only pleasant to watch but lets me leave a theater feeling like not only have I learned something, lost myself in the story or just completely enjoyed the action on the screen. How sad it is to feel almost guilty to enjoy something that the professional critics panned! From now on I will be sure to trust my own judgement and let the critics lose out on some of the best movies that are out there. (I don't mean that I don't agree with them sometimes after I have read the review and then seen the movie but on a whole I trust me more than I trust them.) Go and enjoy something that you might not have seen if you rely on these reviews.
Rating:
Summary: awesome!
Review: Though this is the "hollywood" version of what happened, it is a good movie to watch and get a sense of the horror of the bombing. I would definitely recommend reading up on the true history before or after watching this film. That being said, I think people that liked Titanic will like this film. Many are giving this a bad rating because of the romance. Without a story, the movie would have just been a documentary. Even with the movie being 3 hours long, I still felt that there wasn't quite enough development into the main characters. The love story definitely made the experience more poignant. I'm glad that I went to watch this film because it made me appreciate our veterans so much more. The only problem I had with the movie was the fact that it seemed to show only white people lived in Hawaii. In Hawaii, white people are the minority, then and now. But all you see is white people when the Japanese bombers fly over the residents right before the bombing.
|
