Genres

Visitors Review

2013-05-19 01:04:43

Slightly disappointing but beautiful

This movie was the most anticipated movie of the year, and it let me downa little bit. First off, I was expecting more out of Jerry Bruckheimer.After his amazing production- Remember the Titans- I thought this guy coulddo no wrong. I do like Michael Bay's amazing dramatics and camera shots, butI like Jerry Bruckheimer better. These two are not the ideal team (ieArmageddon. it was good, but not great) The love story was a little annoying. Now don't get me wrong, I am a 16year old gal who ADORES Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, but the sappy scenesand dumb script messed up the already dumb love triangle. The outcome waspredictable. Kate Beckinsale is good, but she wasn't the right gal for thispart. And there definitly wasn't enough of William Fitchner in thismovie!But life goes on. Other then those minor things, this movie was pretty good. Thephotography was breattaking, and the Pearl Harbor attack scene wasspectacular! Ben Affleck pulled off some impressive acting, as did CubaGooding,Jr., even tough he wasn't in it a whole lot. There were a few funnyparts in it to lighten the mood, but when they wanted to scare you out ofyour pants the did that in the fight scenes- edge of the seat! I saw thiswith a man who had been at Pearl Harbor and he said it was incrediblyrealistic and very similar to that fateful day. One other thing- Hans Zimmerpulled of another great score, just as great as Gladiator- we will see if hegets a Golden Globe for this one.stars: *** out of *****

2013-05-18 07:44:08

A Must See

I just finished watching this movie. It was really great. Granted the movie was more of a love story than a war movie, but it gave you a different look at how people felt about the war and people they loved risking their lives to protect and defend our county. I really enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone. I plan on buying for myself.

meggie24_04 2013-05-17 18:57:05

A great romance and war movie

This was a great movie because the actors, (Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett,andKate Beckinsale, SP?) all have awsome chemistry, and are just wonderfulactors. The story of Pearl Harbor is great and the romance added makes itappealing to a wider adueince. It is very touching and I recomend it toeveryone!!!

NixonCarmichael 2013-05-16 23:44:30

Have you ever noticed that each Michael Bay film is worse than the one before it.

There are only two things worse than bad war movies and those are thefollowing: A. Bad war movies interlaced with lame love subplots.B. Bad war movies about WWII with no basis in reality and with lamelove subplots.Pearl Harbor is the latter. Basically, whats happening here is thatMichael Bay essentially made a war movie specifically for high schoolgirls. The only two historically accurate bits in this film is the factthat Pearl Harbor was actually attacked in 1941 and F.D.R. waspresident at the time. Those two facts aside, the rest of this movie ismeaningless fluff. The American accents attempted by the British actorsare atrocious, and the Southern American accents attempted by Americanactors Josh Harnett and Ben Affleck are equally as terrible. Bay didn'teven have the never to shoot Pearl Harbor as an R film. so now, we'vegot a terrible love story, and WWII movie without a single drop ofblood. I can't think of a reason for anyone to watch this film. Thereis literally nothing good about this film, even with all of the topnotch CG work, there are still no less than 12 SFX shots in the filmthat make no sense. Skip this film.~J.

theneil 2013-05-14 03:41:05

Watch it again--you'll stand and cheer!

This movie is one that gets better and better on repeated viewings. Forthose who had a bad reaction to the movie when it first opened, theyowe it to themselves to watch it again. Too much of the negative presshad to do with Ben Affleck's negative nitwit hyper publicity at thebeginning of the decade when this movie was released. That obstacle isnow mercifully in the past, and the movie can now be objectively judgedon its own merits, and they are many. The wrap-around love story worksincredibly well to frame the actual attack and personalize it. Also,the movie espouses strong American values and virtues, showing usAmericans at their best. Cinematically, this movie couldn't bestronger. It is visually stunning and audacious--a triumph of the moviemakers' arts. It saddens me that such a great movie has been given suchnegative press. The negativity, I think, stems from something notrelated to the true quality of the movie. Watch Pearl Harboragain--it's great!

2013-05-13 13:59:14

Pearl Harbor

I enjoyed the combination of a wonderfully real depiction of the historic events that "Changed the Face of History", and the emotional love story that is woven amist the events of the attack and the days leading up to it. It was one of those movies that my family will watch again and again.

JohnnyCNote 2013-05-01 19:56:48

A veritable encyclopedia of clichés...

Now, in one movie, every possible war movie cliché ever made! "Just get meinto a darn plane!"I did like the scene when the Zeros fill the sky on their way to the attack.If you want to see something worth seeing, watch "Tora Tora Tora". It's muchbetter, even if it is a bit dated....

bastet22000 2013-05-01 18:20:58

?

People I know that went to see this movie, thought it was crap. (this wasjust 2/3 people) How wrong were they?! This was one of THE best movies Ihave EVER seen!!!!! And i hate war movies!!!!!! It had an excellentstoryline, the special effects were brilliant, and the cast were really goodin their roles. If you haven't already seen this movie... YOU'RE MAD!!! lol!just kidding!!!!! Go see it you won't be dissapointed!!!!!!!!!

Grann-Bach 2013-04-27 15:03:57

"Get me into a damn plane!" Ben, I think the more appropriate request would be "Get me into a half-decent movie!"

After seeing this film, I have to say that I'm glad I listened to whatall my friends were saying about this film and only paid attention toless than half of this film. The two battle scenes were what I foundworth watching, and I hadn't expected anything else, from what everyonetold me about the film. Had I not been fully aware that nothing otherthan those two scenes were worth watching, had my state of mind beencompletely open to this film, I would have hated it, and my reviewwould have been a thoroughly negative one. It's more than likely that Iwould have commented on Jerry Bruckheimer's and Michael Bay's lack ofactual talent and their extreme use of explosions(usually overplayedand overdone ones) to cover this up. But I won't. I won't comment muchon plot, pacing, acting or characters. I could complain that this isjust another typical, empty Hollywood film that takes a historicalevent and smothers in with romance and sappy sentimentality instead ofbringing the real story(as if it didn't have enough impact on its own),much like they(seemingly; haven't seen it, for obvious reasons) didwith Titanic. I could argue that the plot is thin and everything butthe actual historical events seem bland and unimportant, that theacting seems flat, the pacing excruciatingly bad and the characterspaper-thin clichés and stereotypes. But I'll try not to. Instead, Iwill comment on the two battle scenes, for those who share my point ofview on the sappy romantic drivel of many late epic films. They lookpretty good. The effects are impressive, though the CGI is overlyobvious at times. Most of it looks good, and the overuse of explosionssupposedly won't bother most action fans(though I, being in favor ofrealism in war movies, found this to be quite bothersome and annoying).If you really like strong war-action, you should check out a movie thatdelivers more of it(like Black Hawk Down) or at a far more realisticapproach to it(like Der Untergang). However, if you want to see theBruckheimer version of a war scene, by all means, see this film. I warnyou, though, most of it is simply not worth paying attention to. Irecommend this to fans of war movies with Hollywood action scenesand/or people who can't watch a movie that doesn't contain romance.6/10

Dorthonion 2013-04-27 08:13:02

Rewritten history

History is a very convenient thing when you can re-write it as you see fit.This film helps maintain the legend that the Japanese did a sneak attack onPearl Harbor which responsible leaders in the US knew nothing about. Whilehistorians may argue that no serious researcher would fall back on Hollywoodas a source of facts, people will readily accept what they see, because thisis a convenient tragedy to believe.The film in itself is an attempt to recreate the Titanic success formula(love story set on a catastrophe tableau sketched with meticulous detail).Directing and acting as well as the CGI are solid quality, but the researchbehind it could have used a dash of Oliver Stone. Another attempt atrewriting history and eliminating unwanted facts -> see also U-571(2000). Watch if you're into war fantasies, avoid if you want truth infiction.

khan2705 2013-04-22 13:57:38

A bad movie.

When the Japanese military launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harboron that fateful day in December of 1941, the United States was caughtcompletely off guard by the formidable force of 350 heavily armedaircraft -- leading to one of the most tragic events in U.S. militaryhistory. How could the military base not have known about such amassive attack? Was it due to the amazing strategy of the Japanesepilots, or did their fighters just hit the right place at the mostunexpected and vulnerable time. Perhaps it was a bit of both. Now,thanks to Eagle Rock Home Video, viewers can explore this landmark dayof infamy and find out how the attack on Pearl Harbor still resonateswith the U.S. military over half-a-century after the fact.well i was really surprised to see such a low ratings from Critics forthis movie but i realized once i saw this movie. i realized very wellwhy such a low rating for it. i really don't actually know about itshistorical inaccuracies, i really don't know what actually happenedthere or what really was not there or was mistreated or missed out fromthe original history here so i can't really talk about that but if itis true than that is not a good thing. i am not one of those people whohorribly to death hate Michael Bay nor i am his fan or his movies fanbut here i think i really don;t think if the name of your movie isPearl Harbor then you should have at least known or tried to understandwhat really happened there, if he had to add his own views or his ownthings in it then he should have called it a fiction movie.the reason why i don't like this movie is that it just don't work, itsawfully written and maybe one of his worst movies. i am even surprisedto see that its been mentioned here the running time is 1 hr. 39 minwhich clearly while watching this movie felt to me above 2.30 hrs.editing was just not done it seemed that bad. story seems nice and plottoo but its very dragged. plot could have been far more better. as isaid screenplay is bad, it has many hollow places, very dull anduninterested. movie is filled with so much of romance and is shown insuch an over the top over done way that a romance lover like me feltreally bored after a while.cinematography is good and so is art direction and costumes, score isnice too. it looks good and so is those war and action scenes reallylooks good. all the flying scenes i loved them. and that was the onlything i liked about this movie. it is a sad war movie with romance init but the movie just doesn't work. it should have been better. i thinkMichael bay is not good with romance in his movies, it actually isright. it stars Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale, CubaGooding Jr., Tom Sizemore , Jon Voight , Colm Feore , Mako , AlecBaldwin , William Lee Scott , Michael Shannon , Scott Wilson , PeterFirth , James King , Catherine Kellner , Jennifer Garner . actingperformances were not that good either.you may like it for a while but at the end you will feel what i felt,emptiness. NOT RECOMMENDED to those who watches a movie with criticaleye and brain but for the entertaining value or for the director or oneof those actors you may like to check it out but i didn't liked thismovie the way i thought i will.

Ryan 2013-04-22 03:16:10

Bombs Away.

Note: The actual bombing sequence is actually very well done and extremelytouching. Unfortunately, this is from Michael Bay, so it's not tooimpressive.Everything else is almost laughably mediocre. The story is pathetic,"Titanic" once removed. Ben Affleck remains one of the most lukewarmactorsof our generation, and Josh Hartnett does a good job emulating that.Everything here is predictable if you're even half-awake, and it feelslikeit'll go on forever.Grade: D+Note: Jerry Bruckheimer actually called Michael Bay "the Spielberg of ourgeneration". The complete vacuousness of that statement isunbelievable.

2013-04-18 04:35:31

Fresh entertainment that sustains...

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.

gws-2 2013-04-17 12:45:19

Dumb, Dumb, dumb

Despite its stirring subject matter, "Pearl Harbor" is a high-pricedfailure. The action sequences are effective, sometimes moving, and largelyhistorically accurate. Nevertheless, these virtues are not enough toovercome a love story that is lame even by the standards of WW-II propagandapictures, which it tries to emulate. In its romantic subplot, boy getsgirl; boy loses girl because she thinks boy has died a heroic death; girlthen falls in love with boy's best friend. Has boy really died? What doyou think? I could go on but you get it. Had I not recorded the movie onTiVo and been able to fast forward through some of its sappy excesses, Iwould never have been able to get through its turgid three-hour runningtime. I rated it 5 out of 10, and the only reason I gave it that much wasbecause of the action scenes, which are (mostly, but not entirely) excellentand true to history. If you miss a movie this year . ..

2013-04-09 10:06:06

It's okay

The action was awesome! It was some of the best action I've ever seen. The romance ruined the movie. It was a shame that they put it in there. When I get the DVD I am going to just skip all the chapters with the love scenes.

david rayner 2013-04-08 19:08:24

Only managed the first 5 minutes (is that a record?)

Ok, I'd had a hard day and was irritable, so I knew I was risking it rentingPearl Harbour. So I see the bits where the boys nearly fly, but manage tosafely land a plane, and then the bit where the friend hits his friends Dadwith a lump of wood. Two bits of hokum, but the real problem is that this isobviously setting the scene for a BUDDY PICTURE.I knew I wouldn't be able to support that.. so I hit the eject; luckily I'dalso rented "manos Hand of Fate........"

jennifer-99 2013-03-29 21:46:37

Surprisingly enjoyable

I went into this movie with low expectations as to how much I would enjoyit. I'm not a war buff, or an American, and my knowledge of the factualevents behind this story is pretty limited. Not to mention the fact that Iam not normally a fan of Bruckheimer's overhyped action pics that areusually loaded with big budget effects and a low budget screenplay.Imagine my surprise when three plus hours flew by and I found myself walkingout of the theatre having thoroughly enjoyed the movie.The character development, while not flawless, was well done. As a viewer,you grow to care, not only about the three leads, but about severalsupporting characters as well. Admittedly, I cared enough about Rafe, Dannyand Evelyn to shed a few tears during the emotional climax scenes.The comparisons to Saving Private Ryan are inevitable. However it isimpossible to fairly compare this movie to the Academy Award winningspectacle that was Saving Private Ryan. Pearl Harbour never pretended to beanything more than a big budget summer blockbuster film - this much isevident from any of the trailers that were being shown before its theatricalrelease. Saving Private Ryan was a film steeped in realism. It was a graphicrecreation of the horrors of D-Day on the beaches and a piece of cinematicgenius (even though it doesn't rank on my list of favourite films).To compare these 2 films is to compare apples and oranges. Perhaps a moreadequate comparison would be to liken it to another tale of love and romanceset against the backdrop of a historical tragedy - Titanic. While the filmfalls drastically short of the mark here too, it is far more similar to thisfilm than to the aforementioned SPR. Anyone who went in to this movieexpecting to see the events of the attack on Pearl Harbour with a SavingPrivate Ryan edge, was bound to be heartily disappointed.Taken on its own merits, Pearl Harbour stands up quite nicely. It adequatelyrepresents and recreates the events surrounding December 7, 1941 whilegiving the movie a greater range to allow it to appeal to a wider audienceby adding the fictional story of friendship, love, betrayal and heartbreak.Granted it is flawed, and it is served with a large helping of Hollywood"cheese", but when was the last time a perfect picture made it to the bigscreen? They are few and far between. Check your history books at the door and go in expecting to be entertainedby this 3 hour saga. To that end, Pearl Harbour succeeds. It is a thoroughlyenjoyable summer blockbuster that should have something to appeal toeveryone.

2013-03-29 03:43:09

Extrememely Bad Movie Making

Normally I don't let the little blooper or errors in a movie bother me.But this Pearl Harbor movie was so full of such obvious crap, well theyreally spoiled the movie. I know the movie makers were lazy and figuremovie watchers are stupid, but come on now, at least make a LITTLEeffort to get things right. I'm glad I didn't waste any money going toa theater because "YUK", what a waste of time. Now if I can justremember the director and producer, I'll make a point of never watchingone of their movies.Angled flight decks on carriers, modern cruisers in Pearl Harbor,license plates with later years,.. the list goes on and on. And these(among others) were noticed the first time (and only) time I watchedthe movie. I find the quality of the entire movie an insult to anyonewith a brain. Since a there was considerable CGI there is no excuse forthose kind of errors.

2013-03-29 09:48:54

Bad ?

I'm sure why so many hated this, especially guys. Sure it has a mooshy romance sub-plot, repeat sub-plot but it still has it's marcho guy war stuff in there as well. Plus I really liked the performances, especially Josh Hertnett who steals the show from Afflick. The one perfomance that I think deserves oscar consideration though is John Voight, he was so good that you would think he was Anthony Hopkins in this movie. He really deserves it, even if you didn't like the movie I doubt you could disagree. I found the war scenes that most people called cartoonish very engaging and well done. The only bad things are that it's too long, the whole love triangle thing is predictible and it trys too hard to be dramatic. Oh yeah plus Cuba Gooding Jr. is pretty much playing the same role he had in Men of Honor. Other than that I was really into this film and had trouble seeing where it was actually......bad.

gberns 2013-03-29 04:38:11

Too bad the casting director was on acid when he chose the male leads for this film....

Pearl Harbor. Another mindless, pointless, emotionless, senseless, &entertainment-less big-budget Hollywood Flop by Micheal Bay. This guyhas tanked more movies then.....Ben Affleck, for chrissakes....WhyHollywood even promotes Micheal Bay's mega-flop movies is beyond me.All I gotta see is "A Micheal Bay Film", and I know I'm gonna see lousyacting, over the top special effects that insult your intelligence,slow motion crying scenes with crappy pop music background noise, andmost of all, a lousy overall plot.....Since this was based on Pearl Harbor, I had to see it for myself,simply out of respect for those who died there. This could've been agreat movie, considering the $100+ million budget. The saddest part ofthis whole debacle was casting. They cast the two most monotone,emotionless, talentless jerk-offs in Hollywood as the leads, BenAffleck & Josh Hartnett. These two guys make Frank Stallone and JimHanks look like Oscar worthy actors. Over the years Affleck has quicklybuilt his own reputation for ruining big budget movies, and Hartnett isabout as likable as a case of hemorrhoids. Unfortunately, these twoidiots are in the movie too much for any other part of it to beremotely enjoyable.The actual attack scene was very well shot, but the over the top flyingsequences where Ben & Josh turn into the flying Mancini's and startpulling off barnstorming stunts with planes that simply weren'tcapable, is truly annoying. It's kind of like watching Armageddon, onlyin 1941. There's virtually nothing believable about the flying scenes.The best parts of the movie are the scenes that neither Josh Hartnettor Ben Affleck are in. The Japanese attack was very good. As well asthe storyline of the Japanese command and the American high command.But, as stated, enter the Bobbsey twins, Ben & Josh, and every oz. ofrespect just flies out the window.Overshadowed by Affleck & Hartnett's lame Bo & Luke Duke imitation, isKate Beckinsale's performance. Too bad the casting director was on acidwhen he chose the male leads for this film....Alec Baldwin did a okayJimmy Doolittle imitation, but once again, the attack on Tokyo with theB-25's storyline was ruined by the presence of Affleck & Hartnett.A great start to this film would've been for Affleck & Hartnett to befailed out of flight school for being idiots, sent to the front line inGermany and killed, then get on with the rest of the movie without themin it.....