Dramatic effects, almost deja-vu, but dialogue suffers...

Rating: 9/10 (11 August 2001)

The 2001 version of "Pearl Harbor" has much in common with another massive-budget film of recent years, "Titanic". Not that both involve ships, but both involve superior performances by supporting players while the headline stars fall far below their potential... In this film the recreation of the event itself is nothing short of phenomenal, to the point of momentary lapses and SHOCK... The visual effects defy imagination and, along with cinematography, possibly art direction, sound, and (certainly) the theme song, there are elements here I expect displayed at the next instalment of the Golden Globes, Oscars, BAFTAs, and others. Among the supporting crew, Academy Award Winner John Voight, Ewen Bremner, Mako, Alec Baldwin, and -- let us not forget, Cuba Gooding Jr., inspire, leading us to laughs, tears, stone cold somber moments, and everything in between. The first, John Voight, was so believable that he could garner an award nomination himself.
The hoped-for romantic 'enhancement' was not, in and of itself, misplaced, as many media reviews have stated. Rather, it was poorly done and here I would recommend a complete script chapter re-write. In other words, these things DID happen (during that era) and it could have been handled. It wasn't, and the film suffers for it. Our leading three characters are basically 'good' throughout (but not great), apart from various moments during said element. All three, at one point or another, stumble miserably through it, with Josh Hartnett doing the best job at 'damage control'. Ben Affleck, for his part, LOOKS just like someone from the era -- stunningly so -- and thus a major success. He manages the exchanges reasonably well, too, to include non-verbals, but for said element. (Hartnett is a little less convincing, but the difference is marginal.) Both men, at this point, however, lose the edge ENTIRELY on sounding like the 1940s, and the effects on the viewer are nothing short of a jarring back to the present = NOT GOOD. With better editing, Kate Beckinsale could have 'saved the day', so-to-speak, on the romance as this was a chance for her to 'manage' the unplanned balancing act (witness how well it was handled in "Castaway", for example), but alas... No.
I wish to emphasise that said element also had the potential to add to this film and unfortunately takes away instead, from an otherwise nearly-perfect production. What were the writers/ editors thinking...???
A few chewy remarks about money, vis-a-vis reasoning for making decisions with the use of aircraft and naval fleets are more indicative of yesterday's newspaper, and mean that even the directorial staff has forgotten the times. I recommend a dose of old WW2 movies to refresh their memories. This 'snafu' alone, however, would have had no more impact than a slight, indiscernable mistake made by a figure skater at the Olympics, e.g. the judges might have marked a 5.8 rather than 5.9. But along with the jarring effect of the failed element just cited, well...
My rating, however, rests with the sound, visual effects, music, song, cinematography and supporting cast, i.e. all of which and whom TAKE YOU THERE to the event itself and that is what I was looking for. This was also true with "Titanic" which could not have been carried without veteran Gloria Stuart retelling 'her' story along with all of James Cameron's creations... For these criteria alone, rating = 5 stars (of 5; but with 1.5 point markdown if I include everything else).