Pearl Harbor-bum rap?

[lisap]

I finally saw Pearl Harbor last night and thought it was much better than the critics rated it--most gave it an average of C. Is it because critics want "serious directors and producers" to make "important" films and pooh pooh films that try to make enjoyable films that entertain?

Yes, some parts were cheezy (the part where the lovers were having a tryst in the parachutes was hilarious) but for the most part it did not disrespect the memory of Pearl Harbor and perhaps will make young people check out the real story of the attack.

Remember, Steven S. made Amistad with many factual errors and they were even teaching the movie in school as historical fact--I suspect because his name was on the project, not Michael Bay's.

[AK Wolf]

Personally, I thought the movie was sub-par - it seemed to me that somebody REALLY needed to keep Michael Bay in check when it came to editing (as MANY directors need a guiding hand in this aspect; I mean this as no slam on Michael Bay - it often just comes from being "too close to the project"). However, I felt that he was probably ENCOURAGED to keep the ridiculous length of the film, as the American movie-going public seems to have equated "3 hours" with "epic" as of late. The timing was hideous, in my opinion - I mean, the attack on Pearl Harbor itself doesn't occur until an HOUR AND A HALF into the movie! Do we really need 90 minutes of backstory?!? And then the last 45 minutes of the film, which dealt entirely with America's retalitory counterstrike, seemed tacked on to the end of the film, just so it could end on a positive note for the U.S. (Michael Bay is notorious for overbearing patriotism). Don't get me wrong - I think that the story of the counterstrike is extremely interesting, and worthy of a film in and of itself (and HAS been made as a film in and of itself - see "30 Seconds Over Tokyo"). It was just completely out of place with the movie. By the time the attack on Pearl Harbor was over, every thread in the film had been tied up with the exception of the love story, which could have been resolved here, I suspect.

I like some of Michael Bay's work, myself - "Armaggeddon" is a great popcorn flick, and I really enjoy it for what it is. I just don't think that "Pearl Harbor" was as good as "Armaggeddon" - or "The Rock", for that matter (although I would definately rank it above the painful-to-watch "Bad Boys").

[lisap]

Trust me, I'm no fan of Michael Bay's--I don't go out of my way to see any of his movies. I just thought the critics were extra harsh over this film--not that it was perfect by any means--(you have some very good points)----but I was almost discouraged to see it for myself. I'll I'm saying is that I don't feel my money was wasted for three (yes, overlong) hours of entertainment.

And I kinda liked the ending with the strike on Tokyo. I know that there was so much more to the history of it, but they wanted to give us something to show how the US fought back.

Overbearing patriotism? Not sure about that--I must be an overbearing patriot 'cause I didn't have a problem with the rah rahs for the USA.

[Alex S.]

Interesting, I am going to have to turn around the filmography.

I thought Bad Boys was decent. The Rock was good entertainment for an hour - as long as you never thought about it or saw it again. I'd watch Scrappy Doo's Greatest Moments on continual loop for a week before I would let Armageddon anywhere near my eyes again.

I haven't seen it (and probably won't in the theater) but I'm guessing that Pearl Harbor will fall somewhere around the Rock, if for no other reason than that history movies almost always **** me off (my BA was in history).

[EandCDad]

A two hour PH would have been a better than average flick, as it was it was only ok. Good action with some real heart pumping scenes, but the love story was a real drag. When Ben and Kate met after the bombing and started talking about their relationship you realized how trite it was.

I wouldn't expect anyone going to see a Bruckheimer movie for a history lesson, just go for the fun.

[Permanecer Sentados]

One question, which basically tells you how I feel about this movie:

Where were the Hawaiian people? I thought Pearl Harbor was in Hawaii. Call me crazy but, there were no Hawaiians in the movie. That is enough of a disgrace.

[lisap]

Very true. I wonder if the Hawaiian press made any noise about that at when the film came out.

[karl]

On Hawaiian people - there were a few arrival shots - which map into some historical footage of Pearl I have seen.

Of note, I did catch "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo" the other night. Even for its wartime sensibilities, I really enjoyed it moreso than Pearl. Combine that with Tora Tora Tora and I think you have a better viewing evening.

One quick observation on Pearl - It really has a weird, partially downer ending. Maybe trying too hard to get a new angle on love stories, when far simpler (say as that in Thirty Seconds) would make sense. Of course, those were 40's / wartime sensibilities.

-- Karl

[lisap]

I think they were going for the "My Heart Will Go On " draw of Titanic. That film had a bittersweet ending as well--and the gals went wild for it. The love song by Faith Hill is so similar to Dion's it's crazy.