Disappointed in so many ways...

Rating: 1/10 (27 May 2001)

The mention of the two words Pearl Harbor conjures up so many different emotions. One in particular, is sorrow. Another is anger, and with hindsight, regret.
When I think of Pearl Harbor, I view it as the day that the U.S. lost its innocence and its reluctance into entering WWII wilfully.

Even critics of the U.S. Military policy would be hard-pressed to see this day of infamy as anything but.
Over 3000 people died, most of them, even before they even had a chance to know what hit them. To them, a motion picture that would document and help us to remember the spirit of these brave men and women would go a long way for the rest of us to remember them by and to never forget what sacrifice for love of country really is.
That being said, this movie doesn't even come close to render justice to those who lost their lives. In fact, this movie trivializes and may down the road; even contribute to the falsification of its memory. That is even beside the fact that it's an awful movie.
****** THERE ARE SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS PORTION OF THE REVIEW. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE, DO NOT READ ON (OR READ ON AT YOUR OWN PERIL) ******
What is the point of showing lots of stuff being blown up and planes whizzing around doing acrobatic tricks in a historical context?
This is confusing for me because for a film that wants to 'accurately' depict what it was like to be there, it sure likes to gloss over the human component. Why are explosions, crashes, bullets, fire, ships sinking and pilots rah-rahing are given absolute cinematographic clarity and visceral impact, yet the hospital wards filled with the burned, the wounded, the dying and the dead - the result of such a blatant act of war - blurred almost to the point where they're nothing more than figures pawing their way through the ether?
I certainly abhor pain and suffering, but in this case, blurring and softening the human plight of this attack doesn't offer a counter-point to the pyrotechnics we're seeing. It removes the consequences of using instruments of mass destruction, and it certainly doesn't help us re-sensitise ourselves to the fact that regardless of what this war was about or who started it, it was messy, dangerous and tragic.
I think we're past the point where we can make overly-glorified movies that forget their sense of history and perspective. Back in the late 40s and early 50s, they could justify their glorifications due to the Hayes code, and the massive debt of sensitivity owed to the men and women of the Armed forces, who still had these events fresh in their minds. You would think 60 years would be enough to give a more sound perspective. Apparently, for some movie directors and producers, it's not enough time, nor a compelling enough reason.
Had the premise of this movie were to be a video-game or a popcorn movie, then my chief criticisms would be the lackadaisical acting, the boring love triangle, and the simply awful dialogue in places. `Just get me into a plane' says our square-jawed hero. Sounds like a 12-year old wanting to get into those virtual video-game rides down at the arcade centre.
But this movie can cause more damage than simply be a vessel of bad acting, bad dialogue or story. It has the potential to re-write history like it was an arcade game, and worse, make us forget what really transpired on December 7th, 1941.
If this movie makes mountains of cash, it will be a testimony on how we consumers effectively turn historical moments into trivia, and our ability to draw understanding from tragedy reduced to terms of bankability.