Genres

Visitors Review

David Severy 2012-05-24 07:58:22

What a waste of eight bucks

The movie Pearl Harbor, through the previews i originally saw, looked likeyour typical Bruckheimer/Bay film. The film had everything it needed tohave hype: blockbuster actors, (Cuba Gooding Jr., Affleck, Voight, AlecBaldwin, Dan Akroyd, etc.) amazing sound and special effects, and somecliche taglines. Thus, coming into this movie, I was expecting the worst,yet the hype, which was a blatant corporate onslaught for the last fourmonths, made it seem bearable, at least for the first of the three hours.As I entered the movie, in my somewhat intoxicated state of mind, themovie started with an overused example of a boy saving his friend from hisdeadbeat dad after he and his friend got busted for accidently flying hisdad's plane on the typical midwest farm. After watching this, I knew itwasgoing to be a long movie. As the movie progressed into the time of WorldWar II, we meet the older Affleck, who we learn is an aspiring pilot, yetissomewhat illiterate, which is rarely touched on in the film. Thus, in aneffort to join the navy, he sweettalks the eye exam nurse into letting himpass his exam becuase it was "his dream ever since he was little to flywiththe birds". Consequently, Affleck and the nurse hit it off, yet thisproceeds for another 90 minutes, until Pearl Harbor is even mentioned.Affleck and his friend compete for Evelyn's love, until the attack on theHarbor, which was a blatant attempt by Hollywood to make the Japanese looklike murderers. After the attack, you can probably guess how the movieunfolds, the good guy getting the girl, and so on.All in all, this movie sucked. The appearance by Cuba Gooding Jr.wasirrevelant, and Roosevelt is portrayed as a god. There was no mentioningofthe legacy of the attack, and the events leading up to the attack werecompletely misrepresented. I wont digress into a history lesson oranything, but America did know that an attack on either the Phillipines orGuam or Pearl Harbor was imminent. In this film, all the chiefs of staffare clueless, and try to act as befuddled as possible when they lose sightof the Japanese fleet. The story surrounding the movie was as thin asever,very Bruckheimer-esque. Basically, the story was merely a backdrop fortheattack scene, and also so the movie could be shown on two tapes. Thebottomline, save your eight bucks, and go rent Tora, Tora, Tora.

famousgir1 2012-05-24 04:02:17

The biggest blockbuster movie of the year is here and what can I say, it's ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.

Pearl Harbor definitely has to be one of the most amazing films, I have everseen. It sure does qualify for the best film of the year. (And, one of thebest films of all time.) This true tale has everything you could want in amovie, brilliant acting, amazing special effects and much more. The greatromance story just adds to this fantastic film. All the actors/actress'involved in the movie are brilliant, especially: Josh Hartnett, Ben Affleckand Kate Beckinsale who are all *true* stars. Jon Voight and Alec Baldwindid a great job too. I'd advise anyone to go see this movie. I can't imagineanyone disliking it and I give nothing but praise to this movie. I couldn'tof asked for better directing, (Michael Bay.) producing (Jerry Bruckheimer.)and writing(Randall Wallace.) to Pearl Harbor. The film is also VERY sad andVERY moving and I had my fair share of tears. Pearl Harbor is a must-seemovie for EVERYONE, so go see it now. I give Pearl Harbor a 20/20.BRILLIANT!

clapham 2012-05-16 16:40:24

My mouth was open for the entire movie........

My mouth was open for the entire movie ..... it was that bad.This movie is a total disaster. Nuff said!Apparently I need four lines for this review, but I can't say anymore..

Lin Black 2012-05-16 07:14:25

I wish the Japanese...........

........would come back and blow this film out of the water!!It is a poor film and one wonders how on earth it ever won an Oscar,and for what? It is not hard to see how it received so much criticism.It is completely OTT (over the top), CGI effects run riot from start tofinish, the various plots (such as there are) are confusing, and onedoesn't care what happens to the characters.In fairness to the actors they try hard and give their all in a lostcause (the film) and all deserve a medal! The action scenes, whetherreal or computer generated, are good and so is the photography, andthere appears to be some sort of a genuine attempt to stick to historicevents. To make the film a success it should have been shorter andsimpler.

revival05 2012-05-14 14:20:49

Nothing new... (contains some spoilers)

When I see a movie that I somewhat don't appreciate, I can easily sit andsearch any little flaw to rack the movie down with. So I'll try not to.PEARL HARBOR doesn't put away the grease. But that's not really a secret. Asusual in Hollywood Blockbusters the movie is parted in three differentparts. Part one invites us to a lovestory between Ben Affleck and KateBeckinsale and their friends, especially Affleck's life-long-buddy (JoshHartnett). The lovers have one last night before Affleck has to go off towar. However he gets shot down and is reported dead. A new love story comesto life when Hartnett comforts Beckinsale. Naturally, their romance doesn'tend the story. Of course, Affleck isn't dead. He returns and his longtimefriend becomes an enemy. The same old story, that is. The lovestory isn'tpale but it's rather predictable and I'm afraid to say the concept isn'timmortal.In part two Japan bombs Pearl Harbor. The five minutes right before theactual bombing is perhaps the only really impressive thing in the wholemovie. It lays a layer of suspense over America and nobody expects anything.Slowly the worries and the "wait a minute"-feeling increase before it takeseverybody with surprise. After that it's basicly an hour of war, withAffleck/Harnett and the boys confused and surprised by the attack. CubaGooding Jr also appears with a nice, but strangely vapid character here. Itis a very well-made scenario with many big booms and powerful effects. Thekind of things that doesn't need any greater thinking to enjoy. It's thebest part of the movie.The third part is all about USA's big revenge against Japan. The twofriends, the supporting-actors and some other pilots, are trained by a navalofficer (Alec Baldwin) to execute a top secret plan; bombing Tokyo. Thispart is held up by Baldwin, but gets boring at many times, especially at theend when the group crash in the middle of Japanese troops.This part contains some of the most overflowing USA-cheers I've ever seen.Especially Baldwin's character talks loudly about his brave American men andteach the pilots how to say "I'm an American" in Chineese. As the patriot heis, he would rather die than be prisoned by the Japanese.I think PEARL HARBOR has potential. But the script simply has too muchclichés. I mean, do people in movies still say "I'm so cold" before theydie? The movie has some great editing and special effects, some half-vapidbut OK music and the three hours pass very fast. The acting is without anybigger surprises.Jon Voight does the best job as the American president. He is a verytalanted actor and he really makes a powerful and believable job. Though Isympathized mostly with the character Goose. His line "I have a girlfriend"really got a laugh out of me.Overall I'm generous and give this movie a 6/10, and that's even though thelack of new ideas and the large number of clichés

mterracciano 2012-05-14 01:24:59

Half bad, half good

PEARL HARBOR was really two movies; one part was a horribly written lovetriangle (that makes the love story in STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THECLONES look good) between Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett and Kate Beckinsale.The other part was a gritty, in-your-face action packed historical tripbackto the early '40s that showed the attack of Pearl Harbor.Like so many movies I've seen recently (HEAT, ATTACK OF THE CLONES), thisisa movie that could be started half way through the film and you wouldn'tmiss a thing. Actually, the whole first half of the film deals with thereally boring love triangle mixed in with the foreshadowing that Japanwillattack us. If you took out the whole love triangle thing, this would havebeen a superb movie.As of this point, I will pretend the love triangle (which was most likelythrown in for the DAWSON'S CREEK teenybopper audience) thing didn't exist.What we have here is a great, typical Bruckheimer film that keeps you ontheedge of your seat. The action is superb. The performances by Cuba GoodingJr. and Jon Voight as President Franklin D. Roosevelt were on themoney.I would recommend this movie, just skip the love triangle scenes and itwillbe that much more enjoyable.I give PEARL HARBOR two stars. (out of four)

KatGem 2012-05-13 06:04:59

So bad that it's...bad (contains mild spoilers)

Pearl Harbor was a truly awful film. I tried to like it. I felt I ought tolike it. But I just couldn't bring myself to enjoy such utterrubbish.It suffered from plot 'twists' that were visible from some twenty milesaway, as well as bad acting and terrible dialogue (notably Ben Affleck'sline "Please ma'am, don't take my wings!")I admit, the special effects were excellent. But I don't feel that theywereenough to save a film that in all other respects was totally subpar.I also felt that the 'love story' was confused. It was obvious by the endofthe movie what you were supposed to WANT to happen. But little feeling wasinjected into either relationship, and I was left wishing that all threemain characters would just get blown up so that I could go home and watch'Coronation Street'.As a British viewer, and a teenage one at that, I was unable to warm to theblatant promotion of America and it's all round brilliance."Come on, we're great! Those evil Japanese people may have caught usunawares, but look we can get them back for it! And kill off a character inan attempt to make this film a tear jerker at the same time! Could thisfilmbe any better?"Well frankly, yes. It could have been much better. By the end of PearlHarbor, I wasn't in tears for the fate of the characters. I was glad to getout of the cinema and stretch my legs!

calvinthebold 2012-05-12 16:10:02

Does not deserve the poor reviews I've read

This movie does not deserve the mediocre reviews I have read. Pearl Harbordelivers on all fronts. The acting is good, the script is thoughtful andmoves the story along, and the special effects do a great job!Many reviews I read said that the first hour was boring, and that the lovestory was stiff and contrived. I saw the movie, expecting to be entertainedby the special effects only. I was pleasantly surprised. The love story isromantic and the characters are engaging. The setup before the attack letsthe viewer get to know the characters and their environment. My emotions ranhigh as I saw the drama that the characters went through. The impact isgreater on the characters that had been developed, but even the suffering ofthe many nameless ones still affect the viewer.I did not think the movie dragged at any time, and I easily sat through thethree hours. The drama of that fateful time is well presented, and Istrongly recommend this movie.

eskjellum 2012-05-03 09:51:29

A three hour yawn

The fact that *anybody* can find this movie even mildly entertainingtotallyescapes me. I had a fairly open mind when I went to see it, although I didexpect a sickening display of American patriotism. And I did of course getthat in bucketloads. That's not the problem though. The problem is simplyput: this film is the worst film I've ever paid money to see (well, I'llmake an exception for Dungeons & Dragons).For the first two hours I couldn't help moaning, groaning and looking ateverything BUT what was happening on the screen. The only things that weremildly amusing were the HORRENDOUS dialogue, and the almost equally badacting. This film shattered all my illusions of Ben Affleck as a decentactor. However, I saw 'Chasing Amy' just a couple of days ago (an EXCELLENTfilm by the way), and he does a really good role there. This leads me totheconclusion that it's not the actors' abilities that are lacking in thisfilm- it's just that the film is so badly written - so flat and boring - thatthey don't have anything to play with (like the horrendous performanceawardwinning Jeremy Irons does in Dungeons & Dragons). Not even Anthony Hopkinswould've looked good in Pearl Harbor. And God knows what on earth CubaGooding Jr. is doing in there. I suspect only to include the mandatoryeven-black-people-can-be-good-people-bit all Hollywood films have thesedays(we know this Hollywood - stop being so insecure).I simply cannot believe that the script in this film was written by thesameperson that wrote the script for Braveheart (Randall Wallace). AlthoughBraveheart has elements of sentimentality, I love that film. I think thecommercial forces of Hollywood pulled Wallace's writing abilities down incliche Hell. Talking about cliches - I won't even try to put you throughthemisery of telling you about the pathetic love story. It's the most horriblycliched I've ever seen.A problem with the film is also how totally one-dimensional and barbarictheJapanese are portrayed. I find the scene in which the Japanese plan theattack on Pearl Harbor almost shocking. They stand around a pond with someguy standing in the middle of it pointing at little models of warships witha wooden stick. "This is how we're gonna attack". This brings up thequestion: Do the Americans think that they are the only country in theworldwith military installations? And of course, the Japanese admiral in chargeof the attack fleet that is actually portrayed as a somewhat sympathethic,is only in there for the purpose of delivering this line "I fear we havewoken a sleeping giant". An American audience will of course appreciatethisa lot more when it's coming from a semi-nice guy. Everybody knows the USarmed forces are the most powerful in the world. So where does all thisinsecurity that calls for the rubbing of the military ego at every turncomefrom?And whereas the Pearl Harbor attack shows a lot of suffering on theAmerican's behalf, the attack towards the end of the film on Tokyo whereapparently the Japanese casualties were ten times higher than theAmerican'sat Pearl Harbor, doesn't show ANY Japanese people being blown to bits.What's going on here? Is it so hard to accept that America has inflicted alot of pain on the people of the world? Do they have to HIDE the fact thatthey are killing people as well just to make themselves look even moreheroic?I will of course admit that the effects are spectacular, but the attackitself is fabulously unexciting because of your state of mind at that pointin the film. If the attack was put into the film one and a half hourearlier, it would be spectacular entertainment (the aerial combat overBritain is pretty good just because it's so early in the film the storyhasn't gotten to you yet), but you're just not ready for it when you'vebeenbored out of your mind for two hours. Also the last fourty-five minutes(raid over Japan) are pretty interesting, but it's just toolate.This film could've been good if only it focused on what the title suggestsit's about instead of the most pathetic excuse for a love story you're everlikely to see. Not even the music is decent.However, I'll give it 3 out of 10 simply because it has very good effectsand some pretty nice scenic (albeit very cliched) photography attimes.As a last comment, I remember how the audience in the movie theatre reactedwith standing ovations when the White House was blown to pieces in ID4.Hollywood is actually making the rest of the world loathe the Americanmentality. They should start rethinking their strategy before it's toolate

Tavison 2012-05-03 03:34:27

Readers digest's condensed view of WWII pacific theater films.

This film begs the question, "Why bother?" Every aspect of this film hasbeen done better in at least one movie. The love story cannot compare to"From Here to Eternity." The events at Pearl Harbor are surpassed by "Tora,Tora, Tora." The Doolittle raid was covered more enjoyably in "60 SecondsOver Tokyo." This film is a pale version of all those great movies. Was thismovie great as some reviewers contend? Not when compared to those and "TheBattle of Midway", "The Flying Leathernecks", or even "South Pacific". TheCGI was impressive at some times and unwatchable at others. When crewmembers fell off the bombed out ships, they flew in parabolic arcs. Now Idon't expect animators to be physics majors, but I would like them to haveseen something fall. The "Top Gun" gimmickry was hard to take as well. Oh,look at the bad boys. Make sure you remember what they get chewed out for,because it's the secret weapon later on.Moving on to the events of the day. Yes, we were caught by surprise, thoughnew evidence presents intriguing new questions to the debate. Yes, the baseswere devastated. Yes, there were signs that any Monday morning quarterbackcould spot. But, as the attack happened, training took over. "Pearl Harbor"depicts most of those caught in the event to be wholly inept cowards. I'vesince gone back and reviewed some real footage of the event, and watchedbrave men strip machine guns from crippled planes while under fire, steppingin to take the place of those who are shot. Damage control teams fightingfires as enemy planes strafe. This movie is a disservice to all theirmemories. "If you want historical accuracy, go to the library" is what I believe onereviewer wrote. I have two very important questions for that reviewer, andall who believe that. Was Pearl Harbor such a boring event that lies need tobe told in order to be entertaining? Did the brave men and women who choseto defend our country at a time when most turned their backs on the eventsin Europe and Asia need to be portrayed so poorly, and on the day that isreserved to commemorate them? Idiotic scenes of Americana saturate thebeginning of the attack; a group of boys playing baseball, a woman hangingclothes on the line. IT WAS 7:00 IN THE MORNING! Does anyone who watched themovie know why Cuba Gooding Jr's character got a medal? I'll give you ahint. It was not for boxing.There are many wonderful stories yet to be told about Pearl Harbor, and CGIcan bring that event to us more vividly than ever before, so save yourpraises for this horse. It's dead.

James 2012-05-02 19:28:23

POSSIBLY THE WORST "FILM" IN THE LAST CENTURY...

This movie doesn't deserve my time or my thought (or anyone else's for thatmatter), yet I feel the need to save my fellow mankind from degrading trash like"Pearl Harbor," so I'm simply going to write a to-the-point review. First, the single positive element this film has going for it are thespecial effects. They were fantastic in the one scene of the film that they needed to be--theprolonged action scene. Yet I must ask...because this movie is about such an integraland vital part of history, yet is so appallingly horrendous in its acting, directing, andstory, aren't these great special effects a complete waste? The film makes it abundantly clearthat the makers of this movie care nothing about the significance of the events atPearl Harbor, but solely about gaudy imagery and box-office dough. If this is the case,and boy is it ever, these special effects aren't in the picture to capture the emotions ofa certain time and place, but rather to keep the ignorant drones that make up the majorityof American society content in their seats. The special effects here serve offensivepurposes and are utterly drowned in the midst of a plot (saying this movie has a plot is amassive compliment on my part) that is so terrible one can't even come to appreciatethe effects. I can envision the makers of this film predicting that audiences would bebored after awhile, and the timing of the battle scene is precise in a way onlyHollywood can be--the effects aren't intended to be meaningful or historically accurate;they're just to try and keep us from storming out of the theater. Anyway, I'm not even going to go into the acting, story ordirecting...take my word for it, they were all awful. A handful of clever camera shots and wide,colorful cinematography were an agreeable viewing experience, yet in the end merelyflaunted the film's high budget. The cute lil' threesome leads represent the futureof terrible cornball cinema, and the Michael Bay/Bruckheimer combo was almost too muchfor my stomach to take. Please, if you have a brain, don't bother renting thismovie. Maybe if you're writing a paper on the formula of bad films, then its ok, butotherwise, let this movie collect dust on the video store shelf. I especially don't recommendthis movie if you know more-than-average about history, or if you're Japanese. The moviepaints a lovely patriotic picture of the conniving Japanese, hell-bent on destructionon the first half...but then, later on, we get the famous "woke a sleeping giantquote"....oh, isn't it cute? The little Japanese, always filmed in robes sitting in a circle insome ancient outdoor meeting ground, have learned their lesson. Uh....I'm afraid thingsdidn't actually happen like this people. Does anyone know what stereotypes are? This movie made America look like a wonderful combo of heroes and victims, and,although people think it captured history flawlessly, it neglected to mention that Americawent on to drop nuclear bombs on multiple Japanese cities, killing hundreds of timesthe amount of Americans killed during Pearl Harbor. The movie dedicated itself to showingthe events leading up to Pearl Harbor (with the nauseating parallel plot of a 1940'slove triangle), and then drops history with America as the hero's. I can't goon...

Behan_01 2012-05-01 21:29:38

Good effects... but nothing more that.

I for one love a good war film and when watching a film titled PearlHarborthats what I expected. However I was very disappointed. The first part ofthe film bored me to tears, as any film staring Ben Affleck usually does.The movie does have amazing special effects, which are very difficult tobeunimpressed by. I would have thought that any film about an event asdramatic as Pearl Harbor would have focused more on event itself ratherthansome cheesy love triangle. The movie turned out to be one that I wouldonlywatch again for the special effects. The film needs to be remade using thespecial effects of this movie and the storyline, and historical accuraciesof the 1970 film "Tora! Tora! Tora!", which has nothing to do with anyromance, it just delivers a detailed account of the Japanese attack onPearlHarbor. And is far more gripping than "Pearl Harbor".

SanDiego 2012-04-25 09:19:01

Disney cartoon could have used Donald Duck.

Splashy FX (CGI actually) can't save one of Hollywood's all time big bombs(and no, I'm not giving away the ending), a fictional soap opera spun arounda real military attack (Bore-a! Bore-a! Bore-a!). The bad (and sometimeslaughable) performances (with sometimes odd casting choices) make this longmovie even longer, and the audience's reward is a contrived ending (againbased on another famous military attack) that proves that film makers reallyare even more stupid than they are on the Oscars and Politically Incorrect. Taking one part TITANIC and one part SAVING PRIVATE RYAN may have sound likea sound idea, but maybe if the Disney had actually tried to make a filmabout Pearl Harbor they would have made a good movie. Instead this is justa really sloppy cartoon from a studio who is has done much better mixinglive-action and animation.

meehawl 2012-04-25 05:44:18

More bombs, less baloney

the trailers are *all* about the key sequence, which is the fight.Subjecting viewers to 2+ hours of baloney beforehand is just plain stupid.Playing hard to get only made me realise how sore my bum was after so manyhours in the seat waiting for something to happen and praying thatsomewhere, anywhere, the $150m+ budget had left room to hire a screenwriterwith some understanding of snappy and/or engaging dialog. Suckiest megaflopmovie since Waterworld... or it should be.

wgreid 2012-04-24 10:49:21

Are we all idiots ?

This movie sucked ! Are we in such a cultural malaise that this is whatpasses for entertainment ? This movie was an hour and a half too long. Horrible acting, predictable story, embarrassing writing, etc. Didn't weall go through this with `Titanic'? Okay, the effects were great but notworth sitting through a story that had all the sophistication of an episodeof `Sabrina'. I've sat through cricket games with more to offer. I knowthis movie is being marketed to fourteen year old girls who go over and overagain, I know I'm old and cynical and weary, I know that the B.O.B.'s areholding us hostage culturally the way their parents did in the sixties, BUTCOME ON !! And another thing, whose golf pants am I wearing ?! Wait a minute...golfpants ? Oh Christ, there it goes...you see that ? I've become my god damfather ! Noooooooooooooooooooo!

leo1 2012-04-23 16:31:35

Not Bad, but 45 mins toooooooo long!

Incredible Action Scenes, Beautiful Cinematography, Very pretty girls andboys, I think its time for the the big budget summer movie.Unfortunately its also far too long, historically inaccurate at times, ifyou can stand the unbelieveably corny Doolitle (Alec Baldwin) then give it ago, but be warned, bring refreshments and a bored (sic) game to pass thetime.

Jack Gattanella 2012-04-23 14:19:11

One of the most manipulative movies I've seen in a real long time

Pearl Harbor comes from that brought you Armageddon (which after furtherreview is actually for me a lot lesser than what I once thought it was andshows what Fellini and Bergman can do to an under-developed mind) of MichaelBay and Jerry Bruckheimer. And like that movie, they make the audience cryand automatically feel patriotism at no extra charge. That is not fair inmany respects, especially during Memorial day weekend. For all those whothink Spielberg and his company make manipulative films (which is arguable),you should take a gander at this piece of work.Harbor here takes a Titanic type of approach (bad idea) as for nearly anhour and a half before a torpedo is dropped a tree sap filled love storysubmerges with 2 people falling in love (Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale whodeserve better than this) and then when the pilot Affleck supposedly dies(no one feels pity as thanks to the unimaginative innovation known as thetrailer we know he's fighting at the big battle), she falls in love with hisbest friend, played in one of the lesser roles of the year by Josh Hartnett. But of course, this is all before (and sadly also partially after) the bigattack by the Japanese on the Hawaiian base.Credit should be given where it's due and that's why this film isn't acomplete failure- the battle and action sequences are excellently puttogether with visual effects helping a lot and chaos giving good tension tothe film. BUT, the droning other story of the bad love triangle is sodistracting it might just be worth waiting for video (or DVD might beappropriate) and just singling out the fine bombing. One of the lesserblockbusters ever made, and now along side it's co-companion Armageddon (butat least the Rock is still intact).Two little notes though: 1) this is to point out a pretty obvious flaw andgoof. Was it just me, or did it seem weird that several months afterBeckinsale's character reveals she's pregnant that she's as thin as she wasearlier in the movie? I would think that Bay could've at least taken acouple of bucks from the 140 mill budget and supplied some stuffing orsomething. 2) Randall Wallace who wrote the outstanding Braveheart and goodMan in the Iron Mask proves that even though a blockbuster doesn't need 10writers, one can still botch things up. Oh well, at least Shrek is stillaround. C-

Peter Elefant 2012-04-23 03:32:06

I liked this one, I did.

ME SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THE INDUSTRY:There a thing people have to understand. When wanting to recreate thebattleof Pearl Harbor, for the reason of entertaining, you need money. A lot ofmoney. And those money are bound to come from people who have them, yes?These people, who lend you the money are bound to wanting to get theirmoneyback, yes? So naturally there'll be A LOT of poll-searches done on aprojectof this magnitude, before the filming begins, yes?So what do we end up having is a "Usual" story, with unusual images. Whichis all the "Pearl Harbor" is... and that ain't all that bad.THE "PEARL HARBOR" WALKTHROUGHThe characters are thin, but believable (This is entertainment, people, not"The late hour" with Siegmund Freud), and the love-story that goes on forthe first hour is okay. It's a warm-up for the inevitable.And then: Battle. For 45-minutes of incredibly digital imagery, you get afeeling of how stratigicly brilliant, the Japanese war-machine was. Theyblow up practically everything, which really is not that surprising tothoseof you, that know history a little.So: There's gotta be some sorta happy-end, right? For the americans, yes?Soour pilot-boys, though strugling for the same woman, take on asuicide-mission to bomb Tokyo. This bit is a silly add-on, as nothingcomepares to the battle at "The Pearl".And then: End Credits.ME TALKING ABOUT GOOD STUFF.I like first part of the story. I feel entertained and moved, by all thatlove, and all that war to set it apart. And naturally I like thebattle-scenes, and the thinking: "This is what it was like"I like the acting of:Ben AfflectDan AkroydAlec BaldwinI love the whole quality of sound and image. It's incredible. There's beenmasters at work here.ME TALKING ABOUT BAD STUFF:I don't really like the end-bit. It's too long, and becomes too much of a"And so on and then and so on".I don't like the acting of:Cuba Gooding Jr.I don't like the patriotic feel to the last bit either. The whole "We candoanything c'os we're americans"-thing. But that's just me beingdane.ME RATING THIS FILM AND ENDING THIS HORROR OF A REVIEW:I give it a 7. It's viewable (In the cinema only), but not deep and full ofspecial messages. You'll like this one, I guarantee. But you won't fall inlove with it.

smk 2012-04-19 16:00:42

Spectacularly brilliant!

Pearl Harbor is one of the most spectacular movies I have ever seen. It issimply brilliant! And I can't believe the critics said it had a weak lovestory. It was such a good, refreshing love story - entirely original withstrongly developed characters! In fact I was surprised at how welldeveloped the characters were. I thought that it would basically just be anaction movie, but was I pleasantly surprised. The movie totally gripped meemotionally AND visually. It's simply out of this world. It was funny, itwas sad, it was exciting, it was tragic! This movie has everything! PearlHarbor deeply moved me. Ben Affleck was awesome, Kate was endearing, andJosh - well, what can we say about him? He is simply stunning - WOW! Ireally wish him well in his future - his future in a movie career looksreally bright. The attack scene was excellent. I've never seen anythinglike it in any movie. It really made you feel as if you were a part of it -as if you were right there! Good work, everyone! What else can I say,except that I simply LOVED the movie. It's BRILLIANT!!!

chimpinabikini 2012-04-19 07:14:39

Insulting

It seems to me that Bruchheimer must have said something like this tohimself: "People who see movies today are stupid, so just stick some stuffthat worked in other movies in there. Who cares if it fits together. Whocares if the story is developed. Who cares if it's been seen a hundredtimes before. Who cares if we have to ram an emotion down the audiencethroat. The audience is stupid, and they won't catch on." I'm toofrustrated to even write a review here! Rather than spend an hour or socollecting my thoughts on the film's empty love story (it's as if it waswritten with a "Movie Love Story Ad-Lib" with the appropriate names filledin the blanks), it's absolutely comical patriotism (I was waiting forsomeone to scream "I just baked an apple pie! I have to save the applepie!!"), its unsympathetic heroes (that you all but forget about once stufffinally starts blowing up), the plot's lack of structure (it can't evenfigure out how to finally end), and the fact that what we actually see isnothing more that a disjointed jumble of scenes, lines, and even specificshots stolen from war and disaster films before it, I'm just going toattempt to convey the one emotion this film succeeded in making mefeel--insulted! I don't know if I have ever seen a cheesier, more heavyhanded film--at least not one that pretends to be some sort of epic. Why dowe, as a film audience, have to tolerate this annual Bruchheimer summergarbage?