Pearl Harbor- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Rating: Null/10 (21 June 2001)

Pearl Harbor. The Day that Will Live in Infamy. The movie that would live in infamy, I hoped.
So much for that one.
Pearl Harbor is really two movies in one- the attack that took place on December 7, 1941, and a love story. Most everyone knows the basic story of the first plot: the Japanese made a surprise attack on a U.S. naval base in Hawaii, thus drawing America into World War II. At least, that's the simplistic version. Sadly enough, most everyone knows the basic story of the second plot as well, as it is a giant, mind-numbing cliché.
But beneath the explosions and the tragedy and the boredom, there is something else. Pearl Harbor is not just a cinematic disappointment, but a demonstration of just how little thought can go into plot when all of the effort is directed at special effects.
The Good
Pearl Harbor was not without its strengths. The most notable, of course, is the action footage during the attack. The visual effects are stunning, and on a technical level, this film deserved the hype it was given. The scenes taking place directly after the attack are poignant and extremely effective. Director Michael Bay and writer Randall Wallace produced some very powerful images here, and these images conveyed the despair and tragedy of the attack.
The acting was also very good, although the characters were so lacking in development there wasn't much the actors could do with them. Ben Affleck was forced to fall back on a variation of his character in Armageddon, but it's a character he plays well, so there is little to complain about if you like Ben Affleck. Josh Hartnett fares somewhat better, if only because he has few expectations to live up to (although, based on his performance in this and The Virgin Suicides, I think he is a fine actor.) Kate Beckinsdale does a good job playing an extremely poorly written role, but she's given very little to do besides look gorgeous. The supporting cast holds their own nicely as well, particularly Jon Voight as Roosevelt. Cuba Gooding Jr. is completely wasted in his minor role as Dorie Miller, not because of the size of the role but the awkward way it was worked into the story. But the cast can act. Shame they don't have more to work with.
The Bad
Without a doubt, the weakest point of Pearl Harbor was the writing. The love story was predictable, cliched, and filled with tacky dialogue. I knew the ending the minute I saw the main characters- not a good sign.
Then there is the believability factor. The Rafe-Evelyn romance is given nearly an hour of the movie. Danny and Evelyn have less than five minutes of screen time as a couple (and not talking about Rafe). Five minutes. I am not joking- I timed it. This makes any following aspects of the love triangle much less believable.
The side plot of Dorie Miller was frustrating as well. So much potential there a man denied his dream for three years finally gets what he was asking for, and probably would do anything to return it. Instead, it's reduced to almost a token plot, as if the writer and director felt that this was something that was politically correct to acknowledge. Sadly, Pearl Harbor might have been better off without it- or focusing far more attention on it.
Lastly, Pearl Harbor could have easily been shorter. Three hours and three minutes, and I looked at my watch at least three times. There was a lot that could have been edited out, and the movie would have fared better for it.
The Ugly
Believability, bad writing these things are annoying, but Pearl Harbor would not have struck such a deep chord with me if these were its only two flaws. Like Titanic, I could have dismissed it easily, without any real sense of lingering disappointment and anger. But there are two crucial errors that fatally damage Pearl Harbor.
The first is historical accuracy. Pearl Harbor is touted as a movie about, well, Pearl Harbor. The attack is fairly well documented. And yes, two pilots did get into the air and meet the Japanese that way. And yes, it was only two. An incredible achievement. However, their names were not Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker. This story does more than portray history inaccurately- it takes the achievement and bravery of the pilots who did fly at Pearl Harbor and expropriates it for two fictional characters. And the fact that Rafe and Danny made it into the air does nothing to improve the movie except to give Michael Bay more chances to blow things up.
The second error is the character of Evelyn. Evelyn is far more than the writers allowed us to think she is- and what she is is not complementary. She is presented as God's gift- sweet, beautiful, kind, responsible- but in truth she is manipulative and thoughtless, and very self-centered. An interesting dilemma if Randall Wallace had chosen to acknowledge what he had created.
All in all, Pearl Harbor is not a total loss, but certainly not a winner. What's frustrating is that it could have been so much more. I'd give it 5 out 10.