Pearl Harbor: What's up with it?

Rating: Null/10 (31 May 2001)

I've been reading a lot of the current reviews, praising the film, while many bash it. I can understand and agree with some of the valid points that are brought up while nailing the film for numerous mishaps. I walked into the film with utterly low expectations after reading numerous reviews describing how weak the core of the film was and how awful this turkey really was. I found myself amazed after I walked out of the theater. It sounds like usual clichÃ©s you'd hear from anyone, but ever since that film began, m eyes were glued to the screen and for the next three hours straight. 3 hours have never gone faster in my life before. I had no back aches or body aches at all. This was the first film, as far back as I can remember that I saw in a theater without taking my eyes off the screen. I really loved this flick, and I was pleasantly surprised. I thought the film succeeded at all levels, yes yes, including the love story which was obviously Hollywood and cliched, but hey, it beats Titanic by a long shot! As I said before, the complaints brought up are valid. But all the documentaries I saw on Pearl Harbor looked exactly like the manner the film was made in, the veterans agree that the films accurate. Sure I'm sure the film's not accurate word-for-word, such as I don't believe that the Japanese sat down in one setting and planned the entire surprise attack out. But hey, you really want authenticity, see a documentary, and you will not find as many differences as you seeked out to do so. About the love story: Ok, remember Tora! Tora! Tora! It was interesting and all, but essentially, it was an empty hollow historical story. We need this love story and Hollywood characters to excel the story. But the love story does not bombard the premise of the film, unlike Titanic, which is the bombing. The relationship rather stays in the backdrop, not hogging the film time. The acting was fine; I liked the way numerous characters stepped in and out, like Cuba Gooding Jr's. If they had stayed longer, then the film would have become what many accuse it of. Story was fast moving, and timing was just fine. People say that the movie could have been cut an hour. Sure it would have been shorter, but there would have been no tension leading up to the attack, hence an entire part of the film would be missing. The movie is cliched, it is Hollywood, but what is everyone complaining about? Last time I checked, Titanic had cliched Hollywood written all over it, much worse than this, and everyone surprisingly loved it, including the critics, and it walked away with an entire 11 Oscars (Why that happened I'll never know). And I thought everyone likes Hollywood flicks! Films I thought were used by most as a tool of escapism, now all of a sudden, everybody's changing. You don't want Hollywood, then check out a great movie by the name of "Autumn Sonata" or Affliction. But if you want Hollywood, this is it! And there's nothing wrong with liking Hollywood type films! After all, all movies are made in Hollywood. But now everyone accuses this movie, for what reason? The critics make up false accusations like the film is "horribly historically inaccurate" or "a 2 hour movie made into a 3 hour movie" for one reason: they only hate this flick for the same reason they hated Gladiator: the public loves it. And for some reason, that gets to them, so they make up things like that mentioned above. Another reason people "say" they hate this film is because of the whole Bay/Bruckheimer production. I didn't like Armageddon or the Rock, but I didn't hold those against this for a simple reason anyone could notice: This isn't wither of those films. It's not a sequel, it's not a prequel and is not connected to either of those films in any way. Some people seem to have a hard time figuring that out, including the critics. Lately I've been disappointed by the numerous films that have been hailed by critics as a beautiful departure from our cookie-cutter movie era (I could list some examples, but I'd probably never stop). Don't get me wrong though. I agree with a lot of them. Thin Red Line is one of my favorite films, as are many underrated gems such as those from Paul Schrader, and many more. But I have had so many hopes crushed with praised films, so I find it relieving to see a film that would guarantee entertainment. But once again, I saw much more to this than just entertainment. This film is a great one, and though many may disagree, much better than the so-called "masterpieces", and a lot of films that have been hailed by the public and critics, such as Titanic. It's worth it. You want an "ultra-real non-phony Bay/Bruckheimer depiction of Pearl Harbor," see a random documentary, and you will, deny it or not, find similarities running parallel with that ad the film. But if you don't want a documentary and want a film that doesn't "have a cliched stupid romance," rent Tora! Tora! Tora! And in about 10 minutes you'll be gazing out the window. I, myself, being an avid film lover, was quite surprised at how this turned out to be. I understand the criticisms that the people who've seen the movie bring up, and can see why they thought that. But at least see the film if you plan to bash it.