What is wrong with Hollywood? Spoilers possible.

Rating: Null/10 (26 October 2003)

In an era of different cultural contrasts as well as preaching of hatred towards races, the so-called 'protectors of peace' should be providing an example. Despite two horrific World Wars, mankind has still not learnt from his previous mistakes. World War 2's central catalyst was Adolf Hitler's self belief that the Germans were a superior race. It was his refusal to accept or respect the nature of other cultures that, in theory, led to his attempt to create a global German Empire. An attempt which caused the deaths of millions of men. In this age of knowledge and cultural understanding, man should have learnt to diminish the notion of the 'white man's burden', a term invented during the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century. In order to create a world of cultural appreciation and respect, propaganda must stop in inferiorating the world by continuously illustrating the apparent 'greatness' of one nation. This is a concept that is clearly not understood by the producers of expensive Hollywood films.

'Pearl Harbor' is a pathetic attempt to create sympathy towards the tragic event that began the war for control over the Pacific. Where do I begin? The story is simple. Affleck, a pilot based in Peal Harbor meets and falls in love with nurse Becksingale. He then joins the British RAF and has to leave Pearl Harbor. He asks his best friend Hartnett to watch over his girl. Affleck's plane is then shot down and he is assumed dead. After 3 months, Hartnett and Becksingale fall in love, and despite their gut emotions telling them that their relationship is morally wrong, they go ahead with it, yet to their disbelief Affleck's character returns. In the midst of all this emotional chaos, the Japanese attack and destroy Pearl Harbor. The film then goes on to deal with the love triangle as well as the United States' desperate attempt to regain a minor feeling of their supremacy and immense power over any other nation.
'Pearl Harbor' has re-used the genre hybrid remarkably seen in 'Titanic'. The combination of a love story within a disaster was an outstanding formula in James Cameron's 'Titanic' that created one of the greatest love stories seen in cinema. 'Pearl Harbor' has jokingly taken the formula a step further by adding a love triangle to the equation; a move that appeared to be a very bad choice. Whether it was the poor acting or the terrible screenplay, the audience gain absolutely no emotional understanding or attachment to any of the characters. The love between Affleck and Becksingale does not grasp the viewer; their relationship is not poetic and attracts no warmth. Neither does the friendship between Affleck and Hartnett. Their best friend status is poorly reinforced and there is no sense of reality amongst it. This grows even worse when Hartnett falls for Becksingale, which makes him almost despised, especially when the film predictably hints Affleck's return by portraying an emotionless response to his apparent death. The weak bonds between the characters causes a lack of concern for them when disaster strikes. There is no grudge or sympathy.

Contrary to the poor dimensionalization of the characters, the action is outstanding and maintains Michael Bay's well reputed ability to create perfect images of disaster scenes, i.e. Armageddon. The Japanese attack is amazingly shot, and detailed to perfection. The camera angles are beautifully positioned to provide a realistic sense of the attack. The horror and fear within all the characters is about the only emotional aspect they seem to show believably.
With the poor start to this film leading on to an outstandingly impressive display of the Japanese attack, one would only assume it would get better. However, the viewer is terribly let down with a change in plot, that whether or not was historically accurate, was quite simply not necessary. It provides no balance for this story and almost seems pretty careless and stupid. I will restrict myself from detailing the events as I feel I would be wasting my time considering how out of context it was. For certain viewers, it may provide the need for a sense of self satisfaction, yet for the film to give itself some credit, the change in plot should have been avoided.
The final insult of this picture is the closing message at the end celebrating the US's victory over Japan. To remind readers, the US's victory resulted in the use of mankind's deadliest invention, the atomic bomb, which was dropped on two different Japanese cities instantly burning hundreds of thousands of lives. This is an event that deserves to be dramatized just as much if not more than the attack on Pearl Harbor.
All in all a poor film. Its attempt to become another 'Titanic' fails miserably. Despite the good action sequences, the plot is bad, the performances were not grasping, with the exception of Cuba Gooding Jnr's lovable character as the chef, and the overall quality of this film was not as high as expected from the director and producer in relation to their previous work.