Well Worth It's Rating . . .

Rating: 3/10 (28 January 2008)

I have seen war movies of poor quality like Battle Of the Bulge etc. However, they were ten times better than this one. It's been a few years since I have seen this movie, but I have not forgotten much. Of course, there is great special effects in the battle sequences and the soundtrack is absolutely wonderful, especially the Japanese-themed music, but that is not enough to redeem this film from the bad points.
DIRECTION: Not too impressed. The camera angles were not so bad and it would look like it is well-filmed, but there were times when the camera just shook way to much and was not in the right position (I will talk about that later). It looked like the scenes were filmed in one take. It looked as though the director was not doing much directing at all. It seemed liked he told the actor/actress to do or say something but not how to, which might be one reason for the horrible acting.
CAST/ACTING: Also pretty bad. Why was Ben Affleck chosen for the main role? In my experience he showed one of the worst performances I have ever seen! He looked like a puppet being pulled by strings. He should have won his Razzie Award nomination for worst actor! As for Kate Beckinsale, she was not a bad choice, but mainly because of her good looks. Her acting was okay but would not win an Oscar.
SCREEN WRITING: Quite bad. Actually the emotion and settings would make this script closer to average, but thanks to the unbearably simple dialogue and historical inaccuracy and pointless love triangle, it makes this screenplay much below average. I understand that romance was put to reveal an anti war-like message, but that is not powerful enough. It is just so weakly portrayed. And war was not just about leaving your loved ones, but also about children losing their father and ladies losing their boyfriend/husband. They insulted that truthful reality by making Americans look invincible in the second half. I say that if Randall Wallace included something more realistic, and the second half of the movie was edited out (when the Japanese are bombed) he might be able to redeem this film, but sadly he didn't. Another problem is that you don't even care about the characters because they don't seem important. Josh Hartnet's character was decent, but Ben Affleck's character was wooden. The movie is simple American propaganda. It makes them look like invincible heroes and Pearl Harbour their victory. 4 planes shot down expertly by 2 American pilots and them making evasive manoeuvres to clash the Japanese planes. That is not how the battle went. This is not a documentary, but to make a good script about history, you need to stay true to the facts. This is why we should not respect Hollywood films like this for their style.
CINEMATOGRAPHY/CAMERAS: I did not last see it at my house so I don't know if the TV had wide-screen, but if it did cameras were not well-positioned. The angles were fine, but in the beginning when Capt. Rafe McCawley reports to his commander at the airfield the camera is aiming at him from his front-right and cutting almost half of his face. Who in the world could think of doing that. Also, earlier on when the kid at the field runs and follows his dad. The crane shot for only one second has the kid in view at the left then it just shows the field itself for a few seconds more. Seeing all this it probably was the TV, but regardless of that Michael Bay should have studied these scenes better and try to make the camera shoot at the right position.
I won't say any more because all I wanted to list were the really bad points. So trust me, there are much better films worth 3 hours of your life which are a little bit less than 5.3 stars. Not to mention even better ones. So I have one thing to say . . . this movie is well worth it's rating, if not lower.