Virtual semi-imaginary history

Rating: Null/10 (16 April 2002)

Many of the comments already made I agree with. Same basic central plot as Titanic, a lot of historical inaccuracies, too long, some totally pointless political correctness, not very good acting from the two male leads, an absolutely awful script etc etc.
What I can't understand about all the above is why? Is there a collective lack of imagination in Hollywood that someone there can't think of a more original central plot? The actual event is minutely documented in historical records, notes, books, eye witness reports, film and living survivors, so why and how could it ever become so innacurate? It's supposed to be about Pearl Harbor, so why try to soften the reality of this by tacking on a so called happier ending with the Doolittle raid. If the film kept going and included the rest of WWII, the allies won, so we would have an even happier ending there!! It's not acceptable to show people from the 1940s smoking, but its OK to show them killing each other? No-one calls the Japanese something naughty, we have comments like, 'the Japanese are just like us but with a different point of view'? Come on!! The acting is one of those variables which sometimes work and sometimes don't, but some of this will have been because of the script!! And whats with the soft focus scenes in the hospital?
Calling it a script is being quite polite! How ever could the makers of this film plan to spend more on a movie than has ever been spent before, and be satisfied with this standard of writing? What is the point even, of thinking big budgets without a reasonable storyline and script? A reasonable storyline already existed, the true story of Pearl Harbor. But apparently this wasn't acceptable enough!! I'm not sure what some of the lucky and courageous survivors think, but I would imagine the real story would have been enough for them.
One obvious truth which does appear with this movie is the use of modern technology. With the development of digital effects, CGI, is it?, means that absolutely anything can now be portrayed onscreen. This does should not mean, (but probably will mean ) that this is the reason some movies will now be made; cos' we can. Wrong reason!!! Hollywood please take note.

One thing does bother me greatly, and this has already been shown by reading some of the other comments. This is that there will be a lot of ( probably young ) people who will think this film is a pretty accurate account of the Day of Infamy, and be completely mislead from the reality. It should not mean having to watch a documentary to get the true story, otherwise you might as well have made a totally fictional war movie.

Also speaking as someone from England, ( who were part of the eventual allied forces ) America did not win most of WWII by themselves!! Why can't your film makers resist the temptation to make a comment in that vein? In Private Ryan, an absolutely brilliant film by the way, the only comment about the English forces at Normandy was an innacurate critisism of the leadership of General Montgomery. In Pearl Harbor it was the excruciating comment by an RAF Squadron leader to Rafe saying something like 'at first not being sure about the Yanks being involved but by God if there are anymore like you back home I pity the enemy if America ever gets into this scrap'! For God's sake Hollywood wake up, get real, and remember we were, and are, on the same side!! By the way, someone serving in the US forces at that time could not apply to join the RAF, the US govermment and his CO would not allow it. You would have to try and resign or leave first. So Rafe turning up at an RAF station in full uniform, with the full backing of the US and his CO, is what we here would politely call a load of cobblers!
Final comments, could do better. 3 out of 10, only for the effects. Best thing was the sound which was truly good.