Where are the Kamikazes?

Rating: 2/10 (17 June 2001)

Finally, highly awaited and overly promoted Pearl Harbor opened at theaters across the world. like to review this movie 1) on itself and 2) in comparison to Michael Bay's other movie, Armageddon, and I have two major critiques coming out of each review.
1) Firstly, I was so surprised that there was NOT even one scene of a kamikaze diving into a battle ship despite the fact that kamikaze attacks are the most important element of Pearl Harbor story. So why were there NO kamikaze scenes? We all have seen historical movies where the history is told inaccurately due to lack of knowledge or events twisted on purpose but never had I seen a movie where the most important element is disregarded all together with no plausible reason. How can you make a Pearl Harbor movie without Kamikazes?
2) My second critique is based upon the incredible similarities between Pearl Harbor and Armageddon. Here are the ones I have noticed: 1) In both movies, the first hour and 20 minutes is filled with comical incidents and easy-laughter type of jokes. Remember The Armageddon where Bruce Willis' crew was being tested for their space mission? Do you remember the funny incidents that take place during these tests? In Pearl Harbour, it is exactly the same; funny things happen when the pilots are tested for -not for space mission but this time for- war. In both movies, we see that the first half of the story is senseless comedy which somehow spoils the wholeness of the movie to the point of making it look like two separate movies. Some may argue that it is a artistic achievement to combine two parts but I think if they are so separate in nature they should not be combined at all because that makes the whole picture look incongruous. If you are going to make a comedy, you should continue with the same pace and told the story from that point of view. If you are going to make a serious war movie then you should be very careful with the degree of comedy involved. 2) In both movies, a guy is leaving a girl behind for his duty. In fact, it is the same guy, Ben Affleck. He was leaving Liv Tyler behind in Armageddon promising to come back where he does exactly the same in Pearl Harbor. There were romantic scenes before he left for the mission; in Pearl Harbor, again, there is romance all though this time scenes were less sensual. 3) In both movies, there was a aftermath which was filled with tragedy. In Armageddon, Bruce Willis had to stay and sacrifice his own life whereas in Pearl Harbor Ben Affleck's friend gets killed in fight with Japanese and Ben Affleck returns as the sole survivor in both movies.
Briefly, I think Pearl Harbor is suffering from a lack of story. It is simply filled with easy comedy, romance and special effects which are told in such an expected and in such an average way, it takes away the whole excitement. A good movie needs more than that.