Visually stunning, but a bit contrived

Rating: 5/10 (15 June 2001)

Admittedly it must be hard for a director to condense a vital historical occurence into three hours, and in a format that will be interesting and appealing to a large audience. Pearl Harbor is visually stunning but the supporting story is a bit contrived. The actual invasion is handled brilliantly. The special effects and direction make it real and painful and painful to watch in some parts. The movie dealt with both sides, Japanese and American, with respect and sensitivity, not casting any "good" guys and "bad" guys.
But the supporting story reminds me of those war and romance movies from the 40's. It lacked substance and reality. The dialogue in some areas was fake and shallow and didn't match up to the grittiness of the invasion scenes. This had a lot of impact on the way I viewed the movie. The acting was a treat and Ben Affleck is always interesting to watch. But I was very impressed with the rest of the cast especially Josh Hartnett. Unfortunately he wasn't given to much of a chance to show off his range but he's worth keeping an eye out for. While it is a watchable movie, it doesn't really provide an underlying statement. I didn't walk away from it that deeply in thought about the futililty of war and the shame of losing so many men. I went into it expecting a patriotic american retelling of the story and that's what I found. It's a good movie but definitely not "a best ever".