Nothing less than a masterpiece!

Rating: Null/10 (27 February 2002)

Contains Spoilers Pearl Harbor is easily one of the most critically slammed movies of the decade. By being battered back and forth like a tennis ball by the critics, it has suffered a box office below expectations. However, I knew this would happen a year before it's release. "Why?" I hear you ask, well for the following reasons.
· It was hailed as the next Titanic (a film critics had to praise only to stay in touch with the public). With the fact that they could have a second chance of slating a film, they couldn't resist. · It was directed by a former music video director. · It was produced and directed by a team known for 'dumbed down action films'. · It was released too soon after Titanic.
They are just four measly reasons why it was slammed, and with a soppy synopsis like this, it just seemed like a Titanic rip-off.
Rafe (Ben Affleck) and Danny (Josh Hartnett) are best friends who have grown up together in Tennessee and with World War II going on in Europe, they train to be fighter pilots. When Rafe falls in love with Navy nurse Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale), things look good between them but Rafe is assigned to go to war in Britain, only to be shot down and presumed dead. Meanwhile, Danny and Evelyn have been assigned at Pearl Harbor in the Pacific. They soon fall in love together (not again!) but only for Rafe to return from the dead. Just as things heat up between the three, the Japanesse launch their horrfic surprise attack on Pearl Harbor!
As you can guess, this is not brain surgery, it's just pure entertainment, nothing else. Directed by Michael Bay, this is cinema at it's best with outstanding battle scenes and geniune emotion. Is it as historically incorrect as critics and historians have said? Well, yes actually it is, but it doesn't matter because your not going to learn anything about history anyway apart from the fact that it was Japan who bombed Pearl Harbor. Was the incredibly boring Saving Private Ryan historically correct? Uh, no, so why did it win Oscars? Oh, of course, because Mr Spielberg directed it.
Basically, Pearl Harbor has been criticised only for what it is, not for what it's like. It's an American flag-waving popcorn movie and critics hate these type of films, and seeing it's produced the critic's worst nightmare and the public's entertainer, Jerry Bruckheimer, that's not going to help the star ratings. This however, is going to be a 100% honest and unbiased film review.
Michael Bay has made an excellent three hour long epic with true emotion, breath taking action sequences, tremendous performances, as well with a bit of clunky dialogue. Each shot Bay films is beautifully done with true meaning and wonderful cinematography. Honestly, Pearl Harbor has got to be the best cinematography I have ever seen and it's a disgrace why John Schwartzman wasn't even given an Oscar nomination. Maybe there is one sunset too many but does it really matter? Bay has put a lot of thought into his scenes and shots. For example, when the 'Pearl Harbor' title comes up, it appears in front of a sunset- the Japanesse flag. It's a very simple idea but it's a genious one too. Also, during the build up to the attack, there is a non-diegetic heartbeat sound. The audience notice this without realising it and it keeps the andrenalin and anticipation rushing. The script by Randall Wallace (Braveheart) isn't exactly the greatest ever written and some of the dialogue is awful, "We make refrigerators while our enemies make bombs", but the acting is done well enough for most of the cheezy lines to be unnoticed. Affleck has been wrongly headlined for the film as it's a film about three characters. However he has given his best performance yet and his partnership with Hartnett, especially in the climax, is superb. Beckinsale could have been better but Cuba Gooding Jnr in the role of Dorrie Miller is the film's biggest scene stealer. While the attack isn't as horrific as some people may have wanted it to be, the must realise that with a budget of over $135 million, the film makers needed a wide audience, which resulted in the film being a '12'. If it were a '15', then they would have lost money. By the way, anyone who says the film is offensive to the Japanesse are talking out of their bum holes because more than once, the film portrays them as soldiers of war. Fair enough, the Germans might get offended with references to 'dirty German bandits', but to be offended by that they would just acting childish because in those times, that is what the Americans would have called the Germans. The worst part about the film is the unforgivable amount of cliches. From a black man wanting respect becoming a hero, to a normal love story procedure (I can't explain because that would be a spoiler), cliches almost rule some of the scenes, but Bay has done it so well that you barely notice most of them. While people have criticised Bay's faster than normal editing pace, they are just being stubborn and unprofessional. When Bruce Willis is first introduced in Pulp Fiction, the camera is placed in front of him while someone is talking to him. You can't see the person talking which by film conventions, makes it bad direction. But it's not bad direction because that's just Tarantino's style, so why can't they accept that fast editing is Bay's style? These 40 to 60 year old film critics just can't seem to accept that film making styles have changed since the Hitchcock days.
Complete with a beautiful Hans Zimmer score (I would have personally chosen Trevor Rabin), Pearl Harbor is nothing less than a masterpiece. Yes it's cliched, yes it's historically incorrect, yes the script is nothing special and yes it's gung ho, flag waving, American glorified nonsence, but it's a beautiful emotional film that grabs you from the start and never lets go while also making references to 1940's style film making and wonderful film making as well! 10/10.
By Kevin Williams The Greatest Film Critic in Wales