Yar, you be here: Pearl Harbor > Customer Reviews

Pearl Harbor Customer Reviews (43 - 45 of 144 Reviews)

Who made this stuff up
You'd think that in the decades since "Tora Tora Tora" (1970) and "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" (1944) that there was room for improvement, maybe a more personal story or a more historically accurate one. Instead comes this monstrosity, one of the worst war movies, or movies of any kind, I've ever seen. Not only does it take enormous license with the events at Pearl Harbor, the Battle of Britain and Jimmy Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, but the plot centures on a hackneyed love-triangle plot that was worn out even in the 1940s.

A disappointing film--not what it could have been!
First off, if you collect war genre movies (I do and own three different editions of this film),this is a must! That said, after waiting with anticipation for this movie, I was disappointed. Michael Bay spent big bucks promoting this on it's historical accuracy and basically sold it on it's authenticity. Remember the TV ads and movie trailers? In fact, it was not that accurate or authentic. You simply don't get what you were told you would. That is my primary complaint. Entertaining? Sure it was, but it could have been a truly outstanding work--the opportunity was there.

I lived on Oahu for several years, stationed at Hickam AFB, and spent much of my free time visiting and researching December 7th sites, including hangars on the various bases, and researching the history of the attack--including talking with many veterans and residents there on that fateful Sunday. Does that somehow make me an instant expert? No, not a chance. But, this movie did not do justice to those people or the honor of such a solemn moment in history. The important point is, the opportunity to make a truly inspiring movie, as this was hyped to be, was lost for the sake of Hollywood and the bucks.

The worst episode of the movie to was the response of the P-40 fighters, zipping around at Mach 1 (speed of sound--impossible in a prop driven fighter of the day), less than 10 feet off the ground, in true "Star Wars" style, between computer generated buildings and hangars. One building was so very obviously computer created right in front of the main entrance to an aircraft maintenance hangar, it blocked any access to the hangar. This was to generate the "Star Wars" effect of aircraft buzzing between the "canyons" of buildings. It may have worked for "Star Wars", but not for this movie. Sad--this is the kind of hype I refer to.

The Doolittle Raid, though entertaining, added little to the movie. If they insisted on putting the raid in, as they did of course, they could have at least gotten it right. I guess they did actually--they got Doolittle's name right--that's about all. For instance, during the real Doolittle Raid, the B-25s were not in any kind of formation like the movie portrayed, they flew in trail, minutes apart, in the order they took off from the Hornet. They didn't have the fuel to spend time forming up after takeoff. Most barely made it to the target and few, if any, made it to the planned rendezvous point in China due to fuel exhaustion. They bailed out or crash landed and were scattered all over China--one crew landed in Russia. "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" (see my review of this 1944 classic), although also Hollywood, is a fair representation of the Doolittle prep and attack.

You simply have to expect and accept the love story--like it or not. That's Hollywood! There would have been very little plot without it, the way this movie was produced. Most movies resort to a love story to build the film around--this one was as good as any.

I really didn't expect an actual documentary, but I expected something more professional than this considering the money expended and the buildup about all the research that was supposed to have been done to ensure historical accuracy. The research failed in it's purpose or was intentionally ignored, and we got little for our expectations.

Can't please everyone, I guess. As I said, if you collect war movies, this is must in spite of it's flaws. If you haven't seen it, you should, but don't get your expectations up too high. Two stars may be a bit harsh, but it just could have been better and wasn't. Judging from the variety of reviews--from trash to gold--seeing this is a must just to see where you figure into the argument.





One Hell Of A War Picture-Emotionally Compelling And Heartbreaking On Every Level.
Touchstone Pictures collaborated with Jerry Bruckheimer Films for "Pearl Harbor," an epic story of two life-long friends (Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett) and a lovely nurse (Kate Beckinsale) who are caught up in the tragic attack of December 7, 1941, "A date which will live in infamy," which preceeded this country's involvement in World War II. The performances in the film, particularly of Ms. Beckinsale, are right on target. The soundtrack is excellent. True, the movie DID play loose with history (the real reason behind the attack, etc) but it's Hollywood, what the hell did you expect, for Christ's sake? My favorite scene is the one where Danny (Josh Hartnett; it just happens to be my real name, by the way; what a coincidence) and Evelyn (the lovely Ms. Kate Beckinsale) are in the parachute hangar. I wish that the scene had been more sensual, but it's good as it is. Erotic without being explicit. The sound quality is AMAZING. It enhances the experience even more. Look out for cameos by Alec Baldwin, Dan Akroyd, Academy Award winners Jon Voight, Cuba Gooding, Jr and others. I don't understand why people hate this movie; did they expect Hollywood to stick to facts? You rarely get that from them. I know the actual history of the attack and had no problem with the liberties taken. Great film. It was much better in the theater. On DVD, it's magnificent. Rated PG for intense war violence, images of wounded, brief sensuality and mild language.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Next Page