Another galling example of how film producers are misguiding the punters.

Rating: 5/10 (3 June 2001)

So, where to start? Firstly, let me be fair: this is not a bad film. It is however symptomatic of a period in Hollywood film-making where historically based subjects are being dealt without the care that they deserve. The fact remains that films like Saving Private Ryan (which I generally thought was excellent), U-571 (appalling, dreadful and insulting) and now Pearl Harbour misrepresent almost all of the parties involved in the events that they describe.
Certainly, an amount of story-telling is required, but so many incredible acts of bravery have come out of World War Two that the need to invent more beggars belief. I am doing a history degree and my grandparents fought for Britain and the Allies in the Second World War. I understand that the film is being toned down for German and Japanese audiences, for the sake of me retching in the aisle, could the editors consider toning down some of the America-saves-the-day heroics and marginalisation of the European effort for our sakes?
As for the likes of Braveheart and The Patriot, don't even get me started. Needless to say they were so historically inaccurate as to be slanderous.
OK, toys are back in the pram, I have had my little moan. As for the film, the special effects were awesome, but the love story was unconvincing - Kate Beckinsale just came across as a Slapper, the dialogue floated between corny and wooden, and some of the acting was distinctly average - though Voight as Roosevelt deserves special mention.
If you are American, go and see it and feel proud, noble and invulnerable. If you are not, then have a look if you want but I, for one, came out with nothing but a sense of shame that comes from knowing that millions of school children are going to believe that that is how war actually happened.