Rating: 
Summary: A Flick Fit For Both Men and Women
Review: The movie, "Pearl Harbor" is no doubt a must-see. Although it was kind of slow, and not to mention lengthy, the plot still developed perfectly. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett played charming young men from the countryside. Eversince him and Josh Hartnett were friends, Ben has always felt obligated to protect him. The film incorporates love between two significant others, and a lifelong friendship that's almost torn because of a girl. Typical? Yes, it may sound like so, but this flick isn't quite like the others. Being careful not to give away too much, the film really at first takes your breath away with the charming romance... then it makes you shed some tears because of a misunderstood tragedy... angers you because of betrayal and lastly... it makes you sad all over again. It does, however make you feel prideful and patriotic about being an American. Although I offer no offense towards any of the opposing countries that we have fought, this movie really makes a person proud to be an American. I surely enjoyed. Many female viewers liked the movie because of the handsome men- Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett. Although I must agree upon that, I still think the action was pretty great. Even though the movie was long, it was still great because it kind of mixed in both feelings of Armageddon and Top Gun. If you still haven't seen this movie, I most definitely recommend it as a movie to go watch with your sweetheart. I'm sure both genders will enjoy it very much.
Rating: 
Summary: How NOT to make a war movie
Review: It's not so much the fact that they combined a love story with war - many times that works. Often love and war, or love and action go well together. It worked fantastically for Top Gun, Titanic, and even Star Wars. Without the love story, I think Top Gun and Titanic would have crashed and burned and then sunk on their maiden week in the theaters, maybe even Star Wars too. It even works in war movies in small degrees when done right. An example that comes to my mind is "The Blue Max". That little affair with Ursula didn't hurt the movie at all, it added a little spice and intrigue and a lot of character development for Bruno. Pearl Harbor is very different....not because it was a combination love story and war story, but because the whole movie was contrived beyond belief and just plain boring. The movie did not have any heart or passion to it. It had no tension, and didn't get me involved in anything. I simply didn't care about the characters or feel involved in the story. So whatever that movie tried to be, it failed everywhere. It failed as a love story, as a documentary, as a war movie, as an action movie, and it had no drama. Why did something that could have and should have been epically great end up like this is hard to answer from a non-insider. But it's a pattern I've many times before. My overall take is that the producers said they wanted this movie to be like the Titanic. They presume (falsely IMO) that women only want to see love stories, and therefore that must be present for a movie to succeed. Secondly, they tried to make this movie according to some Politically Correct formula: a) must have a love story; b) do not show anything gory, violent, or emotional that could possibly make a viewer become the next Columbine killer; c) no sex or passion; d) do not offend anyone; e) use church music throughout the entire move, etc. The result being pure boredom. Some details: Soundtrack: What soundtrack? They completely forgot that great music makes great movies. The audio stimulation of sound in a movie is almost as important as the visual one. Think of your favorite movies and you’ll probably remember the songs that made it great. Sound - Effects: I guess this is the one thing that was authentic in that it seemed they used sound technology of the 1940’s. Was that little buzzing sound supposed to be the earth shaking, roaring thunder of a squadron of WWII fighters flying 10 feet above the ground blazing away with their machine guns? Sound - Background: I am so sick hearing "church music" played in the background of almost every movie made recently.... Costumes: The garments may have been the style of the 40’s but there is a whole lot more to presenting a historic character than just the costume. It also involves hairstyles, makeup, speech, gestures, and mannerism. All the characters looked and talked like they do now, year 2001, just wearing a 40’s style dress. Cinematography: Bad. Very bad. The lighting looked like the whole movie was shot in a studio. The most memorable violation was when Major Doolittle was talking to Danny Walker (Hartnett) on the bow of the aircraft carrier at sea in a storm. Geeze, they could have at least set a fan next to them to give some sort of simulation that they were even outside, let alone in a storm at sea. The entire movie was this way. All sets, props, vehicles and people were way too polished. Lighting was more like a soap opera then outdoors. Historical Accuracy: Well, yes, some American pilots fought in "The Battle of Britain"; Japan did attack Pearl Harbor with carrier-launched aircraft, and later the United States launched bombers from a carrier which dropped some bombs on mainland Japan. A black sailor did shoot down at least two and possibly up to six aircraft and was one of the first hero's of the Pacific war. Roosevelt was the President, crippled at the time and in a wheelchair. Radar did pick-up the flight of incoming Japanese aircraft and the alert was ignored; most all the American planes were parked and lined up on the runway making them perfect targets, and most of the ammunition was locked-up so it wouldn’t be stolen. Almost everything else in the movie is fiction, and the details of the props and articles in the movie were not too accurate either. Two things that come to mind is the color picture in the upper left corner of some letter or memo and another was the calendar on the Japanese ship reading December 7th (Since Japan is on the other side of the date line than the United States, for them, it was December 8th). Action: It didn't seem logical that the Japanese fighters or bombers would waste time or ammo strafing drowning sailors or nurses running to the hospital. Their objective was to destroy as many ships and aircraft as possible (fortunately they forgot to destroy the massive fuel storage tanks, which was probably the most important target on the island). I also found the dogfights to very poorly filmed. They were probably the most boring I have ever seen. The good news about this film is that a lot of people are seeing it. That shows that there is a lot of interest in this subject by people today. Hopefully, as a result, more films about war will be made in the future, and hopefully, much better than this one.
Rating:
Summary: 40's genre back again and better than ever
Review: I thouhgt this movie was excellent. The emotions ran so deep in the film through every aspect. You realize how horrible this attack really was and you come to understand the hostilities that came to be toward Japenese Americans after the attack. Personally, I love the love story. Although I can understand how some wouldn't, I thought it brought you back to the age of innocence that was the forties. It brought you into a childhood friendship (Ben Affleck & Josh Hartnett) and a budding love (Kate Beckensale) and shows the challenges they faced during early years of WWII. I love the film and plan to see it again. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: A great way to teach a history lesson to younger people
Review: You know it's very strange to me that most people who are thrashing Pearl Harbor have never even seen the movie???? Wow what kind of a world have we become? I went into this movie with a bad attitude from all of the lashings from movie critics and thought "here we go, a great subject for a movie thrashed by horrible acting and innacuracies." Boy was I wrong, sure there were historical innacuracies, but so does the beloved "SPR." The movie is entertaining, emotional, and believable. It allows a younger generation of Americans to watch a film and learn more about WWII and Pearl Harbor and the enormous sacrifices of the day. Sure it isn't perfect, but hey, if it makes just a few more MTV heads stop playing Nintendo for 30 min while they pick up a history book to learn more about WWII, the movie WORKED in my mind. Go see it......
Rating: 
Summary: Part history/Part hollywood
Review: December 7th 1941 a day that will live in infamy, is once again the talk of the country, thanks to the summer movie " Pearl Harbour ", starring, Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnet and Kate Beckensail. Two childhood friends (Affleck) and (Hartnet) become piloets in the U.S navey and eventaully find themselves and a beautiful young nurse (Beckensail), in the middle of the attack from Japan. The love triangle love story in the film is nice at first, but gets tiresome after a while. Even though the film makers got alot right in the movie, there was alot that was either wrong or not even talked about. The 40 minutes of the attack is a visual wonder thanks to CGI affects ,but the best part of this film is that people are once again talking about that fateful day and remebering those heros who died fighting for our country.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Action, So-So Love
Review: If you haven't yet seen the most anticipated movie of the summer, I suggest you see it simply for the 45 minute attack sequence. It is the most spectacular recreation I have ever seen on film. The film could have easily received an R rating, but it was intended to appeal to a wide audience, so the producer (Bruckheimer) had to cut back on the violence. He did it by easing up on the bloodshed. There isn't much of that, but there IS a good deal of graphic violence in the form of bodies being flung like rag dolls by explosions. There is a scene a la Titanic where rescue boats wade through pools of floating corpses looking for survivors, and more than one occasion where the Japanese strafe pilots running for their planes. The love story that was so widely frowned upon by critics wasn't as awful as I expected it to be. In fact, I thought a couple of the scenes were quite clever, as young Danny (Hartnett) struggles to deal with his feelings for the beautiful Evelyn (Beckinsale). I feared the movie would be nothing but gushy romance until the anticipated attack, but I was pleasantly surprised by the excellent manner in which the movie built itself up to the climax. Acting on the whole is good. Veterans Alec Baldwin, John Voight (who plays a convincing Roosevelt), and Dan Akroyd lend their presence to the screen as always. Newcomer Josh Hartnett has already guaranteed himself roles in future films with this strong performance--he plays a likable character. Beckinsale, a British actress, pulls off the American nurse-in-crisis very well. I was slightly disappointed with Ben Affleck, who at times seemed unemotional in his part. In short, if you're looking for a good, entertaining movie, this is definitely one to see. War buffs might be a bit disappointed, as there is a good deal of romance, but I felt that I got my money's worth.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie
Review: This was the best movie that I have seen in a long time. I loved the plot and it really filled me in on what actually happened at Pearl Harbor. The acting and casting were great and Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett are incredibly hot!
Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste 3 hrs of your life.
Review: This movie was incredible...that is, incredibly bad!!!! I can't believe i wasted 3 hrs through this drivel. Sure the attack scene was amazing...but to wade through the first 90 mins of mush was unbearable. Then, just when you thought there was light at the end of the tunnel...more mush. If you're looking for a classic action flick from Michael Bay...you will only find 40 mins of it in this movie. I was actually chuckling at the dialog and some of those beauty scenes were just to much to handle. As far as I am concerned Enemy at the Gates was a better war picture than Pearl Harbor. Don't expect a war movie out of this...and I suggest Military Historians stay away...wait for the video to come out, then jump to the attack sequence. I'm sorry to say...a grave dissapointment...now i'll have to wait for Speilberg's/Tom Hanks "Easy Company" on HBO for the next great war film.
Rating:
Summary: Pearl Harbor
Review: Pearl Harbor was awesome. It wouldn't be a good idea to bring some one to the moviez that were in world war 2!!! It might bring back some bad memories!!!! Since this is based on a love story, i would recommend the teen age/adult 12-55. But that is only what i recommend. I would definetly go see this movie a couple of times, since it was great!!! i would recomend you see this movie sum time this spring, or rent it out at blockbuster when it comes out........ YOU WON'T BE DISAPPOINTED AT THIS MOVIE!!! SO ENJOY!!!!!!
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.
|
