a moral dilemma, Hollywood style

Rating: Null/10 (8 September 2004)

*** may contain spoilers ***
Let's get to the good part right away: the attack sequence is stunning. The visual effects are spectacular, and the sense of "you are there" is palpable. Plus, they portray the air raid itself with a reasonable degree of accuracy. (I appreciate strict adherence to historical accuracy as much as anyone, but we do have to remember, "Pearl Harbor" is not a documentary about the titular event.)
Once we get away from the attack sequence itself, things start to fall apart. Quite a few continuity mistakes dog the film, making it hard to concentrate on the story itself. (Examples: a plane gets shot down in broad daylight and crashes into the sea, but when the pilot swims to the surface, it's night time. A train passing near what looks like the Rocky Mountains would not arrive in New York that same evening. Ships at sea don't sail so closely together that they look like a fleet of toy models in a bathtub.)
The Japanese come off looking very cold and calculating. They always speak in rather stilted language ("we shall destroy the great American fleet" as opposed to, say, "we'll cream the jerks!") and the background music is a bit ominous whenever we see them making the pre-attack preparations. The film portrays the attack as being made as a result of the Americans cutting off their oil supply, but they never mention that the U.S. cut off their oil because they were conquering China and other places in Southeast Asia. So it makes it seem as if, for no good reason, we provoked the Japanese into attacking us. They show Roosevelt as badly wanting to help the British fight the Germans, but at least they stop short of suggesting that he knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened, as some revisionist historians have suggested.
And then there's the love story (actually a love triangle), "Pearl Harbor"s raison d'etre. Yes, it's rather sappy. But (and, judging by the other reviews, this appears to be a minority opinion), it's also reasonably engaging. Specifically, the filmmakers set up an interesting moral dilemma:
if someone appears to be dead, is it wrong for the deceased's best friend and the deceased's lover to then fall in love with each other? And then, when they find out that the presumed dead person is in fact NOT dead after all, what should they do? Will the girl choose her first boyfriend or her second one? And will the best friend choose his friendship with his un-dead buddy, or his love for their mutual girlfriend? In a situation like this, there are no easy answers . . . except of course in Hollywood, where they arrange things in such a way as to work it all out much too neatly.
Discounting the too-pat resolution, I did think that the film explored these issues in an interesting way. And here was one detail that I, for one, found quite refreshing: amazingly for a contemporary Hollywood production, one of the boyfriends refuses to hit the hay with the girl when the opportunity arises, because he does not want to ruin things between them. (Regrettably, the other guy doesn't have the same morals, so -- in typical Hollywood fashion -- the two new lovers get it on right away.)
All in all, for a good, accurate portrayal of the air raid on Pearl Harbor (and the events leading up to it), skip this movie and see "Tora! Tora! Tora!" instead. For impressive special effects, actually, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" is quite good in its own right, but "Pearl Harbor" is amazing. If you want a sappy love triangle, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" will disappoint you, because it doesn't have one; the one in "Pearl Harbor" isn't too bad.
My recommendation: see the movie, but don't expect much out of the first hour and a half. Just sit back and enjoy catching the mistakes. The attack sequence is worth the wait. After that, you can watch the love triangle get resolved all nice and neat, then get on with your life.