This film does not have the inspiration or perseverance like other war movies. **1/2 (out of four)

Rating: 6/10 (6 June 2001)

PEARL HARBOR / (2001) **1/2 (out of four)
"Pearl Harbor" does not have the inspiration or perseverance like other war movies. It owes more to "Titanic" than most war films, however. The film makes the mistake of incorporating the events of Dec. 7, 1941 into an obvious, familiar love triangle. That worked with "Titanic" because its love story was convincing and passionate. "Pearl Harbor" feels labored, strained, and we can predict every twist and turn a mile away.
"Pearl Harbor" is yet another victim of commercialization. It's the kind of movie that tries so hard to please everyone, it feels contrived. The filmmaker's were under strict orders to keep the material PG-13; obviously the producer's thought an R-rating would keep its target audience away from the big screen. That has not been the case for other recent war movies like "Saving Private Ryan," "The Thin Red Line," or even "Three Kings." Granted, with its hot young cast and customary love story, this film clearly aims for an under 25 crowd. It is very depressing to see studios sacrificing their cinematic art for the MPAA's often ridiculous standards.
The filmmaker's changed the movie so that it would not offend other areas of the world. Although the alterations were very minor, it is a disgrace that the studio actually dubbed dialogue to please certain audiences. This action shows how gutless these filmmakers are. They also submit to the usual audience pleasers-in the first ten minutes, the film already displays sappy emotions, failed attempts at humor, easy to swallow dialogue, and music that determines the mood of the scenes. There is even one of those mournful goodbye scenes at the end where one character pleads "stay with me," as the dying character states his final request to "take good care of [name here]."
The major subject of the film is an American love story centering on two childhood friends named Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett). They enter the Army Air Corps where Rafe falls in love with a nurse named Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale). Rafe is called to duty in another country. Soon after he leaves, the reports print he is dead, leaving the scene to Danny. A few months pass and before we know it, Danny and Evelyn are under the covers. What happens next comes to the surprise of nobody in the audience- (SPOILER) -Rafe is alive and comes back to America with visions of Evelyn in his mind. He is furious that his old best friend has fallen for his girl. This conflict really should have spent more time on the emotional struggle Evelyn experiences-but instead leads to predictable bar fights and shouting matches. Then those pesky Japanese go and drop bombs on Pearl Harbor, interrupting this bamboozling love triangle.
The historic aspects of this movie are also quite cloudy. There is no sense of history or strategy. Did Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because America cut off its oil supply, and they were down to an 18 month reserve? Would war restore their fuel reserve? At the end of the movie, where Jimmy Doolittle's Tokyo raiders crash-land in China, Japanese patrols attack them. Why are there Japanese in China? There is a brief explanation that the Sino-Japanese war was already underway. As a critic, however, I am all for filmmakers taking creative liberties with a historic account. The events in this film do not have to take place exactly how they really happened.
The casting of Ben Affleck was a mistake. He is not an actor who can inject instant chemistry into his characters. The film does not give him enough time to develop any charisma, so the casting directors should have gone with a more versatile actor. Josh Hartnett is fit for his role, however. He does a good job with the limited material. Beckinsale, beautiful and lush, is also quite the treat. Hartnett and Beckinsale blossom from an involving chemistry, making Affleck's miscasting even more obvious. Unfortunately, neither male lead convincingly portrays his character with enough charm or affection for us to believe they are childhood best friends.
I really liked the segments of the film where the Japanese conspired about the attack on Pearl Harbor. The film depicts them to be the smartest characters here; unfortunately, it also paints them as depressing, mournful individuals. They are people too. They can smile when they drop a bomb and hit a bull's-eye. "Pearl Harbor" tires so desperately to make the Japanese look grim and evil, it never really gives them enough dimension. Equally as interesting is the American suspicions of the Japanese attack. But the movie does not focus on these interesting aspects, instead buries itself in an ignorance and pride.
Most war movies are developed, vivid, and intuitive. "Pearl Harbor" proves to be immature and childish. It certainly has a lot of fun with the attack, but that supplies us with yet another problem. Movies glorify almost everything they touch-many, many war movies can pride themselves in making war look graphic and disturbing; we want no part of it. While "Pearl Harbor" doesn't make war look fun, and I do not think it glorifies war, this movie is not repulsive in its illusion of war. This movie focuses too much on developing a sense of commercial satisfaction. The film's centerpiece is 40 minutes of redundant special effects, not a horrific account of the attack on "Pearl Harbor." This is more of an action movie, not an account of a major US military battle.
"Pearl Harbor" is one of the most anticipated movies of the year, arousing incredible audience interest with a budget of over $150 million. A lot of people will go see this film; it will most certainly be one of the biggest hits of the year. This is a simple special effects extravaganza-made with the intentions of grossing millions and millions of dollars-which probably explains why there are so many things wrong with it.