A thoroughly entertaining summer blockbuster -- but one whose ambition exceeds its worth

Rating: 8/10 (29 May 2001)

"Pearl Harbor" is a movie that should be seen in the theatre. From the $140 million-plus-budgeted explosions and lavish sets to the endless barrage of movie-script one-liners (often encroaching on cliche territory), this is a film tailor-made for the summer-movie crowd. And who better to direct such a prepackaged blockbuster than Michael Bay, a man whose resume (Armageddon, The Rock) speaks for itself? I've got to admit it, the man knows how to blow things up, and he knows how to entertain the average American moviegoer.
But that, unfortunately, is also the downfall of this movie. "Pearl Harbor," in the hands of someone more proficient with human emotion, subtletly, and cinematic nuance, could conceivably have rivaled "Saving Private Ryan" in of subject matter and significance. Instead, while remaining generally quite faithful to history, Bay steers "Pearl Harbor" in the direction of big-budget action. The "tenderness" and emotion he attempts to tack onto his visual, action-oriented film are the main casualties of Bay's directorial style.
The first third of the movie unwinds as expected, with tensions mounting and anticipation for the now-infamous attack on Pearl Harbor building. Even in this, though, Bay goes the extra mile to plainly "foreshadow" Japan's plans, and the results often induce eye-rolling ("This is the hospital, and as you can see, no one's ever in here," a nurse informs a group of newcomers to the base.).
Also in the early goings of the film, we are introduced to the principals in a textbook war-movie love triangle, played here by Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale. As you've likely read by now, the trio is physically attractive, natural in 1940s costume, and fun to watch. They are also, however, placed in some ridiculously unnatural environments meant to showcase the period's innocence, and their dialogue borders on verbal saccharine at times.
Not a single actor in this film is given the freedom (or screen time) to stretch him- or herself, and the result is a collection of characters who develop little and basically move from episode to episode of W.W. II action. Again, in the hands of a more human-oriented director, perhaps some true emotion could push through the scenery and effects, but in this film, none of the actors is capable of breaking Bay's grasp on the wheel steering this film.
But in the center of this film, the actual bombing of Pearl Harbor allows the actors to take a backseat to Bay and let him do what he does best: frenetic action sequences, showcasing improbable feats and incredible explosions. This extended action sequence should, in my opinion find its place among the best in war cinema, and the film is worth seeing for this reason alone. Bay made it a point to meticulously recreate the real-life bombing as accurately as possible -- and if what I was in this film was accurate, then I understand some of the emotions Americans must have felt in 1941. It is THIS emotion that is most significant when discussing this movie -- not the canned "feelings" that Bay and his cast struggle to provide.
In the end, the film does drag a bit. And the third act in this drama, while entertaining, does appear to have been tacked on for the sake of furthering a love story whose relevance is almost erased by the movie's "main event." But on the whole, "Pearl Harbor" is, indeed, a summer-movie spectacle, and it does rekindle the viewer's contemplation of wartime America. So, while I could only offer the film 2.5 out of 4 stars, I will still recommend it to anyone able to make the trip to a theatre to experience it.