Let's Not Just Accept it Because We Have to

Rating: Null/10 (3 July 2001)

I've seen so many comments about how younger viewers don't understand how people in that time period felt about going to war or that the characters were to "Hollywoodized". The same can be said of Titanic, but that was a highly acclaimed film.
What truly made this movie bad was the fact that it was muddled. In all truth you could have made two (or possibly three) movies out of this one movie. Now I'm not saying that the length of 3 hours was the problem, but that what we saw could have been six or seven hours of film easily. Cutting out some of the froth around this film could have given the directors a chance to flesh out the events more so than they did. I think even WW2 Vets will admit that although the film provided a decent portrait of what happened there, it still did not capture the heart of whole event.
Titanic had a great eye for detail, and it really tugged at the heart strings, but in Pearl Harbor I did not feel for the plight of these brave and unsuspecting soldiers, not because I did not understand what they went through, but because no one who developed the film took the time to get you to care.
If you really want to see a film that captures the heart of WW2 go rent Saving Private Ryan. But if you are willing to compromise for a sketchy anecdotal depiction about a horrific event in America's history then Pearl Harbor is your best bet.