Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Pearl Habor is mostly just a joke of a movie. I can not believe Bruckheimer and Bay had the nerve to do this film. Our veterans deserve so much better than this. Read my whole review on the film at http://www.epinions.com/content_24230923908

I still haven't seen it...it doesn't really excite me though..judging from the trailer.

The UK premier is tonight. I haven't heard much about it, but at 3 hours long I don't think I'll be seeing this side of a video release.

I'd like t see the actual bombing scenes but I can do without all the other crapola.

As its a Jerry Bruckheimer film expect a very very mainstream american film.

But hopefully Michael Bay should make something out of the film.

Well I for one am gonna see it. It looks cool on the trailer,...the japs sure caught the yanks red handed with that attack.

I was half listening to Jonathon Ross on Film 2001 last night and he absolutly TRASHED this film as a pathetic, long-winded story and an insult to the "Brave men and women who died at Pearl Harbour"

Ben Affleck was ineffectual, Kate Beckinsale was weak and only Josh Hartnett showed any of the star qualities that a film like this needed.

His words remember. Have to say, that with reviews like this, and other similarily bad ones, I'm not planning on seeing this film before a video release...

I just went to see it today and have to say that it's the worse film i've seen in a long time.

It felt like it was shot with a hand held camera, the extreme close ups were nauseating, and the acting was melodramatic. But some of the action scenes are pretty good, but not worth the cinema ticket.

Final verdict 4.6/10

OK, well I guess that seals the fate of this movie for me.

You give 4.6 to a film you didn't like, and you called me generous.

That's probably because it was shot with a camera

I enjoyed the movie, as it was entertaining. I didn't try to look at it as anything more than mainstream entertainment, which it is.

Yeah, I took the movie for what is was:just another Hollywood blockbuster. I was skeptical because I heard it was much like Titanic. However, there was a lot less love and much more action. It was a little long, but overall it was pretty good.

I take it that Darth Gehenna and JediOasis are both americans.

The movie was pro american and showed them as more competent than they actually were, and the British as some weak oppostion.

They were also showed the Japanese as cold hearted in their attacks and the Americans as extremly emotional.

So any american would enjoy the movie.

Actually the filmakers made it out so the Japaneese wouldn't look bad, especially after all the bad press The Patriot got for making the British look bad. But the fact remains, Japan did ask for peace and still sneak attacked us. As far as showing Americans to be more competent, well Pearl Harbor is a true story. Those things really happened. Japan attacked us without warning, yet we still damanaged and destroyed several of their planes.

I'll just jump in as a historian here...

Well, it was a sneak attack to be sure, but both sides were guilty of deception during the whooe diplomatric process before hand.

And the US would have had to have been TOTALLY incompetent not to have destroyed some planes; even the best planned sneak attack takes casaulties. It was a heavy defeat for the US, but so what? They more or less defeated the Japanese subsequently with great ease; after Bataan the humilatiaions were all Japanese.

That said, you will have a hard time convincing me that the Americans were that much in the dark about Pearl Harbour; Bletchley Park warned them ages before hand that an attack was coming.

What do you mean that they portrayed the British as weak opposition, Zed? I haven't seen the film, but I doubt they have much time for Brit-knocking. But don't forget that Pearl Harbour was greeted with considerable relief by the Brits (and especially Churchill) because we NEEDED the US at that point if we were going to have any chance of landing in Europe. So if they portray us as needing them, they are not wrong.

More worrying, of course, is that the UK lost more people than died at Pearl Harbour in single nights during the Blitz, which lasted several years, yet no-one has made a modern day film about THAT.

Well thanks for the info, I know that the British needed America to win the war its just that the british aren't mentioned much in the movie, and its the fact that a film that is based on a historical event has an american spin to thier advantage.

That's not true, most of America dislikes the film actually. It took quite a drop this weekend, from 70 million for the first weekend to 30 million for the second. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I'm automatically going to love it. I in fact thought for the longest time that the government knew of the bombing before-hand and let it happen, but I obviously didn't have all the facts.

You may be right, DG. There is still good eveidence that at least several important parts of the US government knew. We had certainly warned you! Sadly our navies hated each other, and comms were poor.

The US navy sunk a jap sub just before the attack started, The captain on the US boat sent in warnings but they took way too long of a time to send it back and forth. Saw this on discovery channel last night.
I look forward to thre movie looks like a lot of cool effects, then again I`m weak for war movies and often dissapointed when I watch them. Saving privat Ryan was very good though, the big red line sucked

For once the movie critics were right. The battle scenes were okay and watchable. The remaining two hours, the much-heralded love story, were trash. As a woman, I'm all for love stories, but this one lacked chemistry, passion, intensity and just plain 'ole romance. Good actors should be able to overcome bad scripts.

easy now zed, i think the film is yet another occasion when american writers and directors have twisted history into a version which is they believe is suitable to present to the illiterate masses who will go and watch the thing

Why was it such a hit? It was the largest piece of tripe I have seen for a long time. The fact that it lasted for 3 hours is a joke. The Sun hearalded it as a triumph of popular opininion over the critics. I for one think that many people went to see what all the hype was about and mostly left feeling bored. Sure the dogfight scenes were good but that doesn't make a good movie. I for one am fed up of films that rely so heavily on special effects they neglect the basic building blocks of films (i.e. script and characters we actually give a shit about). See also my moan on The Mummy Returns.

It was long enough alright, but it had some brilliant effects of ships blowing up.

The fact is that is was a crap movie. The reason it did so well is because most Americans can be lured in by testosterone packed action scenes and a crappy love story. And it's amazing as to how many Americans are ignorant to their own history. Not only was this movie not very good but it was historically inacurate. One thing I don't understand is how many veterans enjoyed the movie. I can understand veterans getting emotional while watching Saving Private Ryan but not Pearl Harbor. Being an American I guess I just don't fit in with all the people who enjoyed the movie.

What was so historical inacurate?

Most of the problems I had with the movie most people probably wouldn't notice but I am kind of a history buff. For one the attack began around 7 in the morning and in the movie there were kids playing baseball as Japanese planes flew by. Another problem actually has to do with Britain before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Ben Affleck's character helped the British Air Force fight the Luftwaffe before the US had even entered the war. Then after the attack pilots from Pearl Harbor participated in the Dolittle Raid which caused Japan to send Carriers back to the mainland in order to provide defence and allow the US to win Midway. It's not possible that American pilots were involved in Germany's attack on Britain, Pearl Harbor, and Dolittle's Raid. I was a little upset that references to Japan's eventual defeat were avoided in order to prevent upsetting the Japanese. The movie basically showed the basics of the Pearl Harbor attack, which is what it set out to do. The only thing most Americans know about Pearl Harbor is that Japan attacked the US and the movie did a good job of keeping it basic to attract viewers. It bugged me because like I said I know a little history and recognized the problems, and the problems could have been avoided if the producers and directors got help from historians instead of survivors from the attack. Even if these corrections were made the movie still lacked in more important areas.
(Sometimes it scares me that I took the time to know these things. I really need to get a more exciting life)

Well observed Wozz. You probably have equally strong views on U-571 which was not only crap but again historical mumbo jumbo. It's frightening isn't it that Holywood can rewrite history like that and have people believing it.

Well, Pearh Harbour is way more accurate than U-571

This is MY area too...

It is not IMPOSSIBLE for an American pilot to be in all three battles, just unlikely. Several American pilots joined the RAF and fought in the BoB, though most Americans who fought for the RAF died. None of them went back to be able to fight at Pearl Harbour, but it was not impossible for them to do so.

So historically there is no precedent for such a character, but when you are making a fictional charatcer you are allowed a little leeway. Just look at Sharpe and Hornblower...

Despite all the little historical flaws that the movie had it still made money and that is the goal for any Hollywood movie. It is the producers and directors job to make money even if it means ignoring certain things that most people won't notice. But none of us would be talking about this if the movie was any good.

Oh yes, indeed. But bad film as it is I still would criticse U-571 a lot more on being unforgivable historically.

The reason that I would complain personnally is not due to the humungous errors in historical information and the fact that it was an unlikley development, but simply that I didn't enjoy it, I felt that it was sentimental rubbish. Thes script maybe tried to be powerful but I think it over did it and made it too rich to be palatable. HOwever this is simply my opinion and I understand that others enjoyed it, so fair enough...

What are you talking about Pearl harbor was a great movie well atleast to me Josh harnett was a great actor so was ben affleck and the rest of the cast i mean it was a great love story and war story that only thing i did not like was that they dint show more of how we attack them !!!!

one of the reasons I'm not going to rent it is because it's again a war movie with the Americans as the good ones, that always win, patriotic thingie...

Pearl Harbor is a great movie! Well we wherent all that good but we where not the bad ones! We where attack first! Come on That Japanes attack us and kill so many of our people! Innocent people!!!! i am glad this movie show everything that in needed to! And I am glad this script was writting like this! they show how the american people really come togthere when is time to go to war! JUST LIKE WE ARE NOW! PEARL HARBOR is a Great Movie!!!!!

no , now guys it was the worst movie in all aspects that coud be possible . pearl harbor was a movie made becuase their are people out there that are brain dead and still in the movie industary . its like the oscar's instead of giving best actress to ellen burnysnt they give it to a unworthy just down right horrible actress julie roberts

It... it... it just didn't work. I'm sorry, but no matter how hard I try, I can't enjoy this film.

I had high expectations of the movie. The trailer made it look like it was going to be the best movie ever.

I liked the movie. And not just because I'm an American. The movie made it very clear that the Japaneese were NOT bad guys, and that they had no choice but to attack. It wasn't innacurate, it just left out a lot of stuff.

In the hands of a different director, I think the movie would have been much better. Michael Bay is a TERRIBLE director.

I think the only area in which it was demonstrably inaccurate was in the number of downed Japanese planes, but you tend to gloss over that sort of thing in war movies so it wasn't really a problem.

Like I said, history wise, there is much worse than this. But that did nothing to improve the quality of the film.

I think they should have shot it in black and white.

that would be a rip off from "Schindlers list"

and to be honest, I thought somethings would get inaccurate...

it wasnt as bad as alot of people said, i was expecting much worse, aside from all the war cliche's it was entertaining i thought.

ok backfire you have become almost as bad as tomacco with his bad taste in movies

*boondock saints*

*ToMacco smacks Machine for his piss poor attitude*

boondock saints is a great movie

its not original enough to be great.

like platoon is .oh lets make a movie about the veitnam wa HOW ORIGINAL

. . .

yeah, tommaco said it all.

actually platoon is very original, not the story obviously, but many of the situations that are in the film. its the first war movie that made the american soldiers out to be just as big of savages and to be just as evil as the gooks. and its the only war movie (along with paths of glory) to portray war as a tragedy instead of an adventure.

A lot of war movies have portrayed it as ugliness instead of an adventure.

By the way, I don't think you should use the term 'gooks'.

i didnt say it was the only one, i said it was teh first. and no other war movie has been as accurate in its depiction of the battles and situations. i have several uncles who were in the war in many of the same situations, and all of them agree that its the most realistic war movie ever, not to mention practically everything that happens in the movie happened to oliver stone while he was in the war.

oh, my mistake, i did say it was the only one, i actually meant that it was the first one.

in a nutshell platoon created almost all of the cliches that were used in the newer war movies such as saving private ryan and thin red line.

Thin Red Line isn't remotely like Platoon. Not at all. And you can't put Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan in the same sentence saying that they copied something; they are entriely different films.

yeah, i guess you're right, considering platoons good while saving private ryan and thin red line are bad.

Hmm

But really, Thin Red Line is a whole different deal from SPR, and I canb't see how it copies Platoon at all. Especially as the original considerably pre-dates Platoon.

tomacco hahahahaahaha godfather hahahah

Iknow theres probably other threads about this but I saw it last night for the first time and it's easily the worst film I've ever seen. Most vomit inducing line was when one character said "Sir, I think World War II has just started!"
Didn't he watch Pathe News? It actually started in 1939.
Oh, and Ben Affleck is a waste of space. I hope other people agree with me on these matters.

That guy shot down three planes in 30 seconds in the Battle of Britain segment...

What the holy heck did they load his guns with!!?

hmmm, thought that guy said "WW 2 just arrived" or something in those lines... have to update my quotes

I refuse to watch this movie!

why not, it's a class movie. One of my favourites of all time

1. I looks really boring
2. I don't like Ben Afflect
3. I'm not a war-movie person
4. war movies based on true events are inevitably always biased and inaccurate thus i refuse to be led astray.
So there really is no reason why I feel like watching this movie

i like war movies. This one is one of the best

never seen it, never will. why dont they make a movie about saipan, where thousands of japanese commited suicide near the end of WWII
thats men women and children, or is that not gung ho enough. They would rather die than be captured. thats why us droped 2 A bombs on japan, because they new they would never give up, and the casualty level of both sides would be a lot more.

Oh this movie was horrible.Picking Ben Affleck as the star, what were they smoking? A War movie? No A Romance.

Right I've defended this film and Michael Bay many times in the past.... but right now it I can't be bothered. After writing a 5000 essay on Bay, I can't be bothered to do any more.

I can't argue with the fact that the historical inaccuracies are shocking... cos they really are. But the film isn't supposed to be a history lesson. Apart from the awful shooting back in planes scenes and the pointless Doolittle raid, I thought it was a good tribute to the survivours.

Scenes of burning soldiers and death were fantastic. Also Bay was really restricted with the end release. Watch the director's cut of the film and it's much more brutal and 10 times better!

I was initially against this movie, but then I saw it on DVD, and it was not great, but it was not as bad as I had expected it to be.

it's a great movie

they will never make a movie like that because it can be seen as an anti-us film and we all know how the gov will react in such a sensitive time...

yep. They will have to get special permission first. Can't see it happening though

Actually, this thread is a nice little historical lookback through the forums...

Pearl Harbor?

My class had to watch that when we did WWI...It made me cry. sadangel

I cant believe they show this movies at school!

Tora, Tora Tora did it so much better and with a shorter running time. Am i alone in thinking that the Bruckenheimer effort was SO, SO tasteless that one started to root for the Japs in the end, or is it just by Englishness at fault?

This movie sucked, I hated it. It was dull, and it had more love stuff than battle. I wanted less kissing and more fighting.

This is about an event in history. It has be historically accurate. Same with any other movie about a true event. If not, you could be seeing death rays in a WW2 movie instead of machine guns.

If they make a movie about Saipan... who says it has to be done by an American?

I still haven't seen it. When the trailers first started coming out I was all about it. But Affleck sucks and I don't want to give him any of my money.