Can Anyone Recommend "Pearl Harbor"?

[Jabos]

It was bad, but I don't think it was as bad as Memphis Belle. What a waste of film that was. They had all those B-17s together, and even lost one in filming, all for that cornball portrayal. A singing tail gunner? A navigator fearing his number up? Hot shot co-pilot and overly motherly pilot (reversing the real life characters). Awful, awful, awful.

I'm still waiting for that "Saving Private Ryan" caliber show for the air war in WWII. Until then I'll just watch 12 O'Clock High I guess.

 

[Smithy]

Bloody dreadful movie, an absolute steaming pile of you know what!

Watch "Dark Blue World" instead, very similar storyline but executed a million times better than PH.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Don't be rediculous. It is a MOVIE - it's not a documentary - we all know the news story about Pearl Harbor. This film is story woven around the historic event of Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid, enjoy it for what it is; it's like reading a novel.

I really chuckle to hear some of the pontificating that goes on over such subjects. Not a one of us could muster the energy, the talent, the funds, and the credibility to put together a motion picture presentation of the caliber of 'Pearl Harbor'. Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay put together a top notch motion picture that will be seen again and again for generations to come. AND THEY GET PAID FOR IT EACH TIME!!

I challenge any one of the arm chair Producer/Directors at the FL to assemble the elements required to make a better movie... and even get it released...and in the theatres..and win awards for it... and earn PROFITS! I won't hold my breath!

Methinks sometimes that our egos get in the way of rational conversation of such subjects. It's a movie, designed for a couple of hours of entertainment! It is not Churchills "Memoirs of the 2nd World War" set to film, it's a story - a fantasy set in WWII. Don't make it more than it was intended to be.

I for one enjoyed the first time and would be happy to sit through it again anytime I have the time to spare. That goes for "Memphis Belle" too!!!

-dixon 'realist' cannon

 

[Spitfire]

So Dix - what you are saying is, as long as it's a movie intended for amusing people it's ok to bend facts and lie about the truth.
It's ok to invent characters who never ever existed. And make them do heroic stuff that never ever happened.
I could do that! Easily. And get paid too!!! I do it every day. (I am in advertising for Gods sake!)
But I will not.

Because its history. Our common background.
Because we all have a responsobillity to the millions who sacrificed their lives.
In order to do what? To acchieve what? - Be entertaining? !!!!

If we do not tell the truth, future generations - not people as bright as you - will get a very wrong impression on what went on. WWII??? - Oh yes, that thing where the USofA first was almost beaten by the Japs in Pearl Harbour - but not really, because of these two pilots who shot down the whole Japanese Airforce.
Later on we (that's the US Navy) stole the German Enigma Codes - even before we entered the war!!!
And finally we (that's the US army) liberated Europe all by ourselves, with Tom Hanks in the first line. Supported by Brad Pitt togetherer with som bloodthirsty jews, who actually blew up Hitler in a cinema in France. Hey man - cool!

I could do that too - I just wont!

 

[Dixon Cannon]

So Dix - what you are saying is, as long as it's a movie intended for amusing people it's ok to bend facts and lie about the truth.
It's ok to invent characters who never ever existed. And make them do heroic stuff that never ever happened.
I could do that! Easily. And get paid. I do it every day. I am in advertising for Gods sake!
But I will not.

Because its history. Our common background.
Because we all have a responsobillity to the millions who sacrified their life.
In order to do what? To acchieve what? Be entertaining?

If we do not tell the truth, future generations will get a very wrong impression on what went on. WWII - oh yes, that thing where the US first was almost beat by the Japs in Pearl Harbour but not really, because of two pilots who shot down the whole Japanese Airforce. Later on we (that's US Navy) stole the German Enigma Codes - even before we entered the war!!! And finally we (that's US army) liberated Europe, with Tom Hanks in the first line. Supported by Brad Pitt togetherer with som bloodthirsty jews, who actually blew up Hitler in a cinema in France. Hey man - cool!

I could do that too - I just wont!

Come on Spitfire! Your a rational guy; we'd have to eliminate most of the movies ever made (and the novels that most are based on!) with that criteria. It's the difference between 'Fiction' and 'Non-Fiction', novels and testbooks. Not everything written is fact or fact based - most rational, discerning people can tell the difference or eventually learn the difference. In a free society creative people can make stuff up and sell it under the label entertainment - and get paid big bucks to do so - they're called artists.

The fact that Bruckheimer DOES DO it and not just talk about it makes him a successful artist and storyteller - a career of his choice. He chose not to be a history teacher, a professor or a documentarian. He succeeds at making stuff up and people around the world freely pay to be entertained and amused by it. Maybe one or two of those in audience will be intrigued just enough to study more about the subject and learn the true facts (and then make another documentary for the History Channel!). In the mean time it's just storytelling.....hmmm, not unlike 'Casablanca'!

-dixon cannon

P.S. I'll be the first in line to pay to see your first theatrical release should you get around to making one. I'll use your strict criteria when I write my review. lol

 

[Spitfire]

Hopefully you won't wait long, Dixon C.
I've just send my manuscript "OLGA" to a danish filmproducer.

It's a story built on US fighterpilot John Godfreys own memoirs of his escape from a POW through Germany in the winter 44/45.
Where he was hidden by a German farmer and fell in love with the farmers daughter.
Besides the direct drama in the story, I also want to question the truth. Is it right to tell the truth or is it better to keep some things hidden? So besides an escape/love story it's also a highly moral drama. And true!

I have tried with all my knowledge to make it as accurate - and yet entertaining - as possible.
Worked on and off with it - when I had time for my job - for more than 4 years.
Let's see what the producer has to say.

 

[Shangas]

The film was good, but it wasn't great. I agree that there were a lot of things that could've been done better, that kinda made me upset about the film's quality. Certainly not the best WWII film I've seen.

 

[Smithy]

Don't be rediculous. It is a MOVIE - it's not a documentary - we all know the news story about Pearl Harbor. This film is story woven around the historic event of Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid, enjoy it for what it is; it's like reading a novel.

I really chuckle to hear some of the pontificating that goes on over such subjects. Not a one of us could muster the energy, the talent, the funds, and the credibility to put together a motion picture presentation of the caliber of 'Pearl Harbor'. Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay put together a top notch motion picture that will be seen again and again for generations to come. AND THEY GET PAID FOR IT EACH TIME!!

I challenge any one of the arm chair Producer/Directors at the FL to assemble the elements required to make a better movie... and even get it released...and in the theatres..and win awards for it... and earn PROFITS! I won't hold my breath!

Methinks sometimes that our egos get in the way of rational conversation of such subjects. It's a movie, designed for a couple of hours of entertainment! It is not Churchills "Memoirs of the 2nd World War" set to film, it's a story - a fantasy set in WWII. Don't make it more than it was intended to be.

I for one enjoyed the first time and would be happy to sit through it again anytime I have the time to spare. That goes for "Memphis Belle" too!!!

-dixon 'realist' cannon

Dixon, the reason why I hate PH is because it was crap film making not just because it bent the truth. It had a rubbish script, rubbish acting, the plot line had more holes than a sieve, the directing was so-so and the editing poor.

If you liked it then good for you. I personally thought it was utter twaddle and would rather watch "Dark Blue World", which IMHO does what PH wanted to and probably on a 50th of the budget.

And good on you Søren, all the best with the script mate :eusa_clap

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Dixon, the reason why I hate PH is because it was crap film making not just because it bent the truth. It had a rubbish script, rubbish acting, the plot line had more holes than a sieve, the directing was so-so and the editing poor.

If you liked it then good for you. I personally thought it was utter twaddle and would rather watch "Dark Blue World", which IMHO does what PH wanted to and probably on a 50th of the budget.

And good on you Søren, all the best with the script mate :eusa_clap

Funny! I LOVED 'Dark Blue World' and felt it was right on par with 'Pearl Harbor' and 'Memphis Belle'. I own all three on DVD!

-dixon cannon

 

[KilroyCD]

While I understand Dixon's view that it is just entertainment, I feel that since it is based on history it would be a good thing to present it in a reasonably accurate manner. I have to wonder how many school-aged kids who saw the film think that events happened as they were depicted? The way WWII history is taught in most schools nowadays borders on pitiful, and films like this would have kids thinking that the same pilots who flew in the Battle of Britain also flew at Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid.
I also found the blurring of the time line irritating, as that film would have one think the Battle of Britain occured only a few weeks before Pearl Harbor.
Really, the film was not much more than the Japanese attacking a love triangle.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

My Dad took me to see 'The Longest Day' when it first came out around Christmas of '62. I wasn't eight years old yet. I loved that movie and I developed an interest in WWII. The fact that it was semi-fictionalized didn't lessen it's impact and catalytic effect on future historical study and scholarly research. I can watch that film today and know that it didn't all happen that way - that it is a movie - that there is artistic license - that there is Hollywood dramatic elements. But, it doesn't lessen the entertainment value of the movie. I feel the same way about movies like 'Pearl Harbor' and 'Memphis Belle' - and 'Dark Blue World' for that matter.

I don't think too many people confuse the movies with real life - I know my Dad was quick to remind me of the difference.

-dixon cannon

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

Dixon,

the fact the Bay and Bruckheimer get paid for their movies doesn't imply that people isn't free to criticize them

I'm with you saying that, after all, it's only entertainment;
and, being actually involved, thank God, in the movie industry (in Italy) sometimes I feel like someone should actually stand up and try to make his own thing, realizing how hard and frustrating it can be, before criticizing my work

That said, there's nothing wrong in saying that a movie could be more realistic with no detriment, but maybe some improvement both to story and to audience.

Ciao!

 

[kampkatz]

It's been mentioned elsewhere, but for the best historical depiction of Pearl Harbor watch "Tora!Tora!Tora!"

 

[Dated Guy]

It's been mentioned elsewhere, but for the best historical depiction of Pearl Harbor watch "Tora!Tora!Tora!"

Or just look at the recently discovered camera pictures, taken at the time of the real attack, and think of the effects it had....you cannot really have romanticism and wartime all in the same movie of this significance and importance, and then lean heavily on the side of romanticism, that is a slight to the people involved in the original conflict, surely..??

 

[David Conwill]

the guy was comparing the movie to some sort of comic book, with Ben Affleck's superhuman character saving the day, from the Battle of Britain to the Doolittle Raid and everyplace else in-between!

That’s a very good way to view it. In literature it’s what you’d call an Epic. I really enjoyed the film, personally (but then, in high school Advanced English, I authored a WWII-set epic, so maybe I'm biased). The big thing that bothered me was the use of real, anachronistic ships and planes (OHP destroyers, late-war Spitfires and P-40s, etc.) amongst all the CGI. Why not just do everything in CGI and have it look accurate, was my feeling.

Otherwise, it’s just a movie, and the story, clothes, sets, and props are all pleasing. If you want to watch a documentary about the Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor, and the Doolittle Raid, you’ll have to go elsewhere, but if you want a fun film set in the 1940s, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it.

Interestingly, if this movie had been made in 1962, and starred John Wayne, nobody would say much bad about it, I think it’s just that it’s a contemporary film and Ben Affleck tends to attract naysayers.

-David

 

[rumblefish]

*yucky*

Someone here started a thread that asked "If you could see one last movie, what would it be?" or something to that effect. My answer was "Pearl Harbor, because half way through I'd wish I were dead". Somewhere else I believe I confessed to yelling at the TV while this odious heap was playing. To be fair to audiences, the title of the movie the title could have been "Story set in 1941 on Hawaii". Really, why tell a story, call it Pearl Harbor (Which is synonymous with December 7, 1941), create a love story around Army personnel, make accounts of the attack, and be so wrong?
The Wright Field insignia on Alec Baldwin's (James Doolittle) jacket should have been>
I want MisterCairo's and my two and a half hours of our lives back!

 

[Viola]

My thought is, if I want to see an utterly silly WWII movie (and I do, I love them) I will watch the Rocketeer. At least then I won't have to see Ben Affleck making strange faces as he exerts himself acting.

 

[Diamondback]

My thought is, if I want to see an utterly silly WWII movie (and I do, I love them) I will watch the Rocketeer. At least then I won't have to see Ben Affleck making strange faces as he exerts himself acting.

+1--Bonus Points for getting to see the obnoxious Timothy Dalton character roasted...

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

Looks like Pearl Harbor is to american audiences what "Captain Corelli's mandolin" is to italian ones:
silly romanticism mixed with too much historic liberties and some gross mistake, plus some stereotype just to add flavour... [huh]

 

[Smithy]

Looks like Pearl Harbor is to american audiences what "Captain Corelli's mandolin" is to italian ones:
silly romanticism mixed with too much historic liberties and some gross mistake, plus some stereotype just to add flavour... [huh]

Add to that list "and it's badly made" and you've hit the nail on the head Italian-wiseguy