Pearl Harbor (2001) User Reviews

Michael Bay's World War II is entertaining, yet deeply flawed

[Screen_Blitz · 7/10 · 8 December 2015]

For the past two decades now, Michael Bay has been known littering his films with countless explosions, and with this heavy special effects, garners wide success at the box office. Here, Michael Bay steps into the war genre with this intense, dramatic retelling of the fateful event that pulled America into World War II in the 1941. Set near the dawn of World War II, Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett play Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker, two Airforce soldiers who have been best friends since childhood. As they grow up, they are caught in a love triangle when they both fall in love with beautiful nurse named Evelyn (played by Kate Beckinsale). Things get pretty complicated when Danny and Evelyn are transferred to Pearl Harbor where Rafe returns from fighting overseas in Great Britain to find the two are in a relationship. Next morning, December 7, Danny and Rafe wake up to find hundreds of Japanese fighter pilots dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor. The two friends arm themselves with the F-51s in attempt to fight off against the Japanese fleet. With the U.S naval base devastated and thousands of innocent lives lost, the U.S declares war against war. From there on, Dafe and Rafe and their army lead by Lieutenant Colonol James Dolittle (played by Alec Baldwin) prepare for a fight against Japan to overcome their country's catastrophic defeat. This film also features Cuba Gooding Jr. who plays Captain Dorie Miller, the first African- American in history to be awarded the U.S Navy Cross.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor was one of the most shocking moments in the history of America, and it makes interesting subject matter to be told on on screen. Although this movie does manage to paint the horrors that took place during that fateful day, this film does suffer from some flaws that director Michael Bay is often known. Now with a war movie being directed by Bay, audience should go into this movie expecting abundance of explosions and this film plenty of these during the 40-minute action sequences that takes place during the attack on Pearl Harbor. The entire scene is very well done and the special effects are great. The scene really captures the grim details of what the civilians of Pearl Harbor suffered through as we watch countless of people killed from gunfire and drowning, as well as others who suffer some gruesome injuries. This entire scene is quite difficult to watch and it really pulls at your heart strings. Now here is where the film falters. Along with the whole Japanese attack and its aftermath, audiences are treated with a romantic subplot involving Josh Hartnett, Ben Affleck, and Kate Beckinsale that takes up a good portion of the film. What we get from this is poor acting and cheesy dialogue between Affleck and Beckinsale, including a line "I love you so much it hurts", a line that is highly laughable and far too corny, especially when dealing with a war flick. The whole love story is not terrible, but definitely takes more than what is needed of the film. With the whole story, the film ends up running 183 minutes.

Pearl Harbor is certainly not one of the best war movies in Hollywood and definitely not the best of what Michael Bay has to offer. I feel that this could have done better if it was handled someone like Steven Spielberg who has been masterful with the World War II genre (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List). Overall, this is film is not terrible. Despite some of its flaws, it still works and is entertaining to watch.

Its entertaining

[damianphelps · 7/10 · 30 September 2020]

Unlike some other war movies, Gallipoli, Full Metal Jacket etc Pearl Harbor seems to be more focused on entertaining rather than deep characterisation of a morales tale.

So not looking for the answers to those deep questions regarding war, this is a movie of love, loss, action and entertainment.

I'm not sure fun is the right word so lets go with enjoyable.

Its a long film that keeps you engaged and interested the entire time.

What more can we really ask?

C'est magnifique, c'est ne le guerre pas!

[hissingsid · 28 January 2003]

(Please excuse my French, it's probably wrong) Roll up, roll up! See the cinematic spectacle of 2001! See the horrible deaths of 2500 or so people commemorated by a film about two guys who fly fast planes really fast. See them go ZOOOOOOOOM, see them go WHIIIIZZZZ! See them reprise the 'flypast and debriefing' scenes from Top Gun. Watch the beautiful love story unfold. See the true love two people have for one another tested and broken when Kate Beckinsale comes between them. See a fine young actor reduced to playing Token Black Guy. Watch as he fights to prove he's more than a Token Black Guy, even though he's given so little to do that he ends up as nothing more than a Token Black Guy (even though, unlike the two guys in the planes, Token Black Guy actually existed). Watch the awful bombing of a military target. Watch the heroic bombing of a city. Watch Jon Voigt recreate Peter Sellars' unforgettable character Dr. Strangelove. Watch the whole reality of war, and the lives and deaths therein trivialised to make a Big Dumb Action Movie that thinks it's some kind of ghastly tribute to the American dead of December the 7th. Or better still... don't! On the other hand, if you want an unrealistic film with ponderously paced romance, fighter planes zooming all over the place and nice explosions, check this out. It's a lot of fun. Just don't take it seriously - you'll only encourage them!

It May Be Long, but at Least It's Dull

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 28 November 2001]

About one third of the way through this mess, my daughter left her friends and came to me for some money to go to the concession stand. I asked her if they were selling pillows there. This is one of the longest movies I have ever sat through (at least that's what my back tells me). It has some of the worst writing I have ever heard. The set-up and the romantic intrigues are predictable and uninteresting. There is absolutely no suspense. The whole plot is contrived. Oh, yes, there is an endless attack by the Japanese, but by the time it happened, my mind was wandering. As far as those tragic lovers, I thought I was watching a bunch of eighth grade girls and boys ticked off because she said he said she said, whatever!! Then, of course, we have Jimmy Doolittle, going on his raid to make up for what those guys did to us. What a slap in the face to the real event. How can a director with 135 million dollars make the attack on Pearl Harbor dull. Yes, it probably looked like that. Those bombers and fighters moving clandestinely in on the island--destroying the fleet with no conscience. What about a script? What about the building of some sort of momentum? How about focusing on the realistic politics of the time and seeing the world from both sides. I was so disappointed in this film. People wonder why it's so expensive to go to the movies these days. It's because the studios are footing the bill for this kind of bilge!

"Get me into a damn plane!" Ben, I think the more appropriate request would be "Get me into a half-decent movie!"

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 6/10 · 23 April 2005]

After seeing this film, I have to say that I'm glad I listened to what all my friends were saying about this film and only paid attention to less than half of this film. The two battle scenes were what I found worth watching, and I hadn't expected anything else, from what everyone told me about the film. Had I not been fully aware that nothing other than those two scenes were worth watching, had my state of mind been completely open to this film, I would have hated it, and my review would have been a thoroughly negative one. It's more than likely that I would have commented on Jerry Bruckheimer's and Michael Bay's lack of actual talent and their extreme use of explosions(usually overplayed and overdone ones) to cover this up. But I won't. I won't comment much on plot, pacing, acting or characters. I could complain that this is just another typical, empty Hollywood film that takes a historical event and smothers in with romance and sappy sentimentality instead of bringing the real story(as if it didn't have enough impact on its own), much like they(seemingly; haven't seen it, for obvious reasons) did with Titanic. I could argue that the plot is thin and everything but the actual historical events seem bland and unimportant, that the acting seems flat, the pacing excruciatingly bad and the characters paper-thin clichés and stereotypes. But I'll try not to. Instead, I will comment on the two battle scenes, for those who share my point of view on the sappy romantic drivel of many late epic films. They look pretty good. The effects are impressive, though the CGI is overly obvious at times. Most of it looks good, and the overuse of explosions supposedly won't bother most action fans(though I, being in favor of realism in war movies, found this to be quite bothersome and annoying). If you really like strong war-action, you should check out a movie that delivers more of it(like Black Hawk Down) or at a far more realistic approach to it(like Der Untergang). However, if you want to see the Bruckheimer version of a war scene, by all means, see this film. I warn you, though, most of it is simply not worth paying attention to. I recommend this to fans of war movies with Hollywood action scenes and/or people who can't watch a movie that doesn't contain romance. 6/10

Another puff piece from the master of puff

[FlickJunkie-2 · 6/10 · 27 December 2001]

Given the choice between producing a popular film and a great film, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (Armageddon, Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop, ConAir) will always choose the popular film. He is nothing if not consistent. His films always make lots of money and seldom deliver much more than slick eye candy for the masses. Bruckheimer has a golden opportunity to depart from his blockbuster mentality with this film, but he goes with his business instincts rather than taking a chance with a filmmaker's approach. The result is another big budget crowd pleaser with a cotton candy plot and terrific battle scenes, aided by impressive digital effects.

The script by Randall Wallace of `Braveheart' fame is the biggest problem. Wallace is clearly capable of writing an engaging script, but that obviously isn't what the boss wanted. It seems that Bruckheimer has Titanic envy and tries to use the same formula of wrapping a piece of history around a love story. Either that or he is trying to follow in the footsteps of `From Here to Eternity', the much acclaimed 1953 story that occurs as a prelude to the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, FHTE did not pretend to be a story ABOUT Pearl Harbor, and only included the attack as another disruptive event in an emotionally tumultuous story. While FHTE was a gripping and powerful story of love, hatred, lust and honor, PH is a trite and predictable love story that serves an interminable prelude to 30 minutes of terrific battle scenes. The inadvertent love triangle between best friends could have been predicted by a teenager (which seemed to be the target audience of this film, based on the PG rating and the sappy dialogue). And of course the resolution of the dilemma is just as neat and obvious.

Director Michael Bay (Armageddon, The Rock) isn't known for his subtle and insightful direction of human stories. Bay is known for his explosions, and predictably the human story is bungled while the battle is extraordinary. Bay directs a period piece without much regard for understanding and reproducing the 1940's. It seems all he cares about is the military angle. The costume design and hair for the girls' is merely good while the military costumes are perfect. Mostly, the ‘40's feel is missing. The music is all wrong. It should have been big band music instead of the standard blockbuster symphonic compositions which did not fit the period at all. Various details are overlooked, like the fact that well more than half of young adults of that era smoked. Not one character in the film smoked, nor was there a single cigarette to be found in the nightclub scene. Rent any film from the forties and fifties and notice how many people smoke. Everybody. Another thing that is incredible is the fact that Evelyn (Kate Beckingsale), who was having morning sickness on December 7 is not showing in mid April, more than four months later. Perhaps if she were 200 lbs I could believe that, but the lithe Evelyn would have shown more than a little pooch by then.

Also missing are the colloquialisms of the day. Not a single `swell', `dame', `jeepers', `say' or `ain't' in the whole film. No Brooklyn or Chicago accents. Everyone speaks perfect twenty first century Funk and Wagnall's College English.

The battle scene is a marvel of action filmmaking. It is highly realistic as a depiction of the battle, but there was a lot of cheating that didn't escape the notice of WWII buffs. It is pretty amazing that Bruckheimer got so much cooperation from the US government in being able to film in the Harbor. The government even loaned the production company numerous mothballed ships. Unfortunately, a lot of them were ships designed and built after WWII and they didn't bother to clean them up in post production. They built a complete digital world and left post WWII ships in the picture. That is just poor attention to detail in a film that is all about detail. Still, by any standard, this is fantastic action sequence that could not have been more realistic if one had actually been there.

The acting is mixed. Beckingsale is excellent as Evelyn. She creates a very appealing romantic figure. Ben Affleck is too moody and sarcastic in the role. Josh Hartnett is much better, coming across as far more sincere and relating to his character better than Affleck. Affleck seems content to play Ben Affleck in uniform rather than trying to actually flesh out a character.

Cuba Gooding Jr. gives an excellent performance in a minor role. Veterans Alec Baldwin and Jon Voight do a marvelous job as Colonel Doolitle and FDR.

I rated this film a 6/10 on the strength of the visual effects. It would have been much better if it had been about Pearl Harbor instead of being a schmaltzy love triangle story that coincided with the attack. The entire event that is Pearl Harbor is shrouded in intriguing questions. Did Roosevelt know about the attack in advance and allow it to happen to get us into the war? Many historical facts indicate that was the case (it is thought to be more than just lucky that the aircraft carriers weren't in the harbor that day). What was really going on in the minds of the Japanese? Were the diplomatic efforts of the US designed to force the Japanese into attacking us as a matter of honor? As much as I dislike Oliver Stone, this film would have been substantial if it had been done in his docudrama style (without the historical rewrites of course).

Instead we have another puff piece by the master of puff. Thanks Jerry.

I'm confused with all the hate of the film.

[joshhylto · 8/10 · 17 April 2019]

I've never written a review before but after seen how many people are saying this film I thought I better. I actually think the film was great the main premise of the film which I feel most people have completely missed is a bond between two guys that is as strong as a brotherhood hood. The alpha one who has the confidence to take over the world and the quiter one both who would die for each other in an instance. And maybe it was just me but I really did feel the emotions that they feel throughout the film. It seems like a lot of people hate the film so maybe I'm missing something but i think its a great film. The film is not totally accurate but films don't need to be and I film is long which is the reason I suspect it gets so much hate.

Not as good as I expected

[jhaggardjr · 7/10 · 7 October 2001]

"Pearl Harbor" comes off like "Titanic" meets "Tora! Tora! Tora!". It's a three hour epic that has shades of those two movies, and in the end I was kind of disappointed. This film should have been better than it turned out to be. The big problem with this film is the director, Michael Bay. Bay directed this film pretty much the same way he directed his last film "Armageddon", sloppy and inconsistent. With the exception of the Pearl Harbor attack sequence which is excellently done, most of the scenes before that attack come off as corny and ridiculous. And the love triangle between Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale doesn't even stand up to the love story between Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in "Titanic". However, the big scene when Pearl Harbor comes under attack is a tour-de-force sequence. The special effects are superb and horrifying. But just think at how much better this film could have been. If Steven Spielberg or James Cameron had directed this, "Pearl Harbor" would have been a much better film. Spielberg and Cameron are directing geniuses compared to Bay, who foolishly tries to integrate comic relief in the first part of the film which comes off ineptly silly. But he's got the special effects in the right place. So all-in-all, I was kind of disappointed with "Pearl Harbor", the film that was predicted to be the biggest hit of summer 2001, but ended up being a slight box office disappointment (at the time of this review the movies' gross was at $197 million, still below $200 million). It's not an awful film, but it could have been better.

**1/2 (out of four)

I don't care what people say, I love this movie

[sophiahwright · 10/10 · 1 February 2021]

I don't care how much people hate this movie and how cheesy it is. It's entertaining, gripping, beautiful, romantic and a good old war/love epic i always circle back to time and time again. Plus Josh Hartnett in a pilots uniform? HEK YESSSSSSS!

Multiple love stories with some action scenes in between..

[vamanatds · 7/10 · 15 September 2020]

Pros: Very good special effects that stand the test of time. Nice action scenes. Good acting from some of the cast. Cons: Too long! Mainly focuses on the love stories and the war scenes are something like a break from them..

Overall a quite good movie but not great or something epic! And 3 hours! is too long, maybe the love stories should be a bit shorter eg. 30 minutes shorter in total.

Historical Trivia

[daniel-mcgarry · 1/10 · 24 November 2008]

In 1941 it cost the Empire of Japan 147 thousand dollars to stage the three hour attack on Pearl Harbor.

In 2001 Michael Bay spent $132 MILLION dollars to film the event, and ran four minutes longer.

Even taking into account 60 years of inflation, the Japanese did a better job with a smaller budget...

Due to the ten line minimum submission this may be too short - but sometimes less is more.

20th Century Fox already did the Pearl Harbor attack in Tora Tora Tora - and did an excellent job. Michael Bay should have left well enough alone.

Two movies for the price of one.

[Bondo20 · 6/10 · 27 December 2001]

Pearl Harbor turns out to be two 90 minute movies. One is the war

history film of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The other is a war-time

romance. Personally I prefer the former. Unfortunately in this

movie gives you both, pleasing only a few and taking three hours

to do so. Much of the non-historical parts are not all that well done

with the first hour suffering from bad chemistry and weak plot

striking in the last hour. In the end it turns out to be just an

average movie and not something you really want to have to watch

three hours of.

A good, entertaining movie. Don't expect Saving Private Ryan though...

[Keyser Soze-12 · 6/10 · 26 May 2001]

I think the reason many critics hated Pearl Harbor is that they went into it expecting Saving Private Ryan. Unfortunately, Pearl Harbor is no SPR. Then what is Pearl Harbor, you ask? It's a popcorn movie. No, it's not a war movie in the traditional sense. No, it is not a great movie in any sense of the word. It is an entertaining movie, and I heavily enjoyed it.

First off the bat, I'll discuss some of the bad stuff. I didn't like how the movie started. There are no opening credits, just a short cut of the title. The opening, in my picky opinion, was too short. I think that they could have slowed it down and made it a bit more dramatic. Oh well, this will do.

Problem number 2: While some parts of the movie move too quickly, other parts move too slowly. Many of the romantic scenes are nice, but they draw on for too long.

Next Problem: There isn't much here that you haven't seen before in terms of character in story. I could have (and did) predict the entire movie before hand. The story is that cliché.

Okay, another problem: This movie didn't take enough opportunities. There are so many stories involving Pearl Harbor, that I was disappointed that the never told any of them. Well, they did tell of Doris 'Dorie' Miller, the first black man to receive the silver cross. But there are so many other stories. The USS Nevada tried to make a run for it out of the harbor and got shot to death. I think that would have been great. Another historic disappointment to me was the USS Arizona. Correct me if I'm wrong (please), but I read in a book that a torpedo hit the ballast tanks (or what-have-you) underneath the Arizona, causing a massive explosion that shot the ship into a 90 degree angle with the water. It sat there, pointing into the sky for ten or twelve minutes then crashed back down into the water. The Virginia or the Utah, I cannot remember which one, was connected to the Arizona, making repairs to it when the Japs rolled in. When the Arizona shot up like spring, the repair ship was thrown like a toy boat into the shore, where it landed face down in the mud. There are so many chances this movie could have taken, but sadly, this isn't Spielberg quality. Oh, and please, I don't want anyone crying about the historical accuracy. I know some things are fictional in this movie, but Lawrence of Arabia and Gladiator are filled with made up crap, so stop your bellyaching.

Final problem: the movie is too long for its own good. After the tragic happenings of Pearl Harbor, the movie goes to the Dolittle bombing of Japan. I think it would have been better just to end the movie at Pearl Harbor.

Okay, the good stuff. This movie has the best special effects of the year (at least so far). Some special effects range from spectacular/photo-realistic to something I could have made in PhotoShop. But, when they're good, hot damn, they're good.

Another good point is the movie is very entertaining. I can't really explain how, it just is.

Well then, next point: this movie will get your patriotic blood pumping like never before. Well, at least since you saw SPR. Lots of people said Gibson's The Patriot made them feel proud to be an American. Well, I never liked that movie, and let me tell you, when our boys start fighting back against the enemy, I have never felt so proud.

In conclusion, Pearl Harbor is not a great movie. But it is a good movie. If anyone hates this movie, they cannot call themselves Americans. As a film critic of sorts, I admit the movie has a lot of problems. Hell, that's an understatement. This is a mess of a movie, and yes, it could have been much better. But see this movie for what it is: a fun popcorn flick. I still can't believe people expected this movie to be Spielberg material. I mean, really, this is Jerry Brockhiemer and Michael Bay. These guys made The Rock, Topgun, and Armaggedon. What the hell do you expect from people who have never made a serious movie in their lives? I laugh at you.

If you want a realistic war movie in the Pacific, just wait a few years. Steven Spielberg has bought the rights to the great, GREAT book, Flags of our Fathers, which is the true story of the six guys raising the flag on Iwa Jima. I hope that he makes it, because it will be one hell of a movie.

Rating: 6/10

From Here To Stupidity

[ray-280 · 6/10 · 24 January 2006]

First, the errata: Dorie Miller wouldn't have been flirting with Evelyn.

Dorie Miller died on a ship a few years after the attack and received his medal posthumously. He did, however, fire the 50-cal and it is believed he shot down one or two planes. His captain also survived in real life.

Oh yeah, people smoked. A lot. They also played poker.

No nurses died in the attack.

The Doolittle raid was tidied up for Hollywood.

While factual, I still do not believe that Jon Voight could ever have sired Angelina Jolie, but give the man props for his creation. His acting? He said it best in the movie, after the attack: "How bad?" It is true that America scrambled a few fighter jets and shot down a few Japanese planes. This may have been one of the reasons that the third wave was called off (Japan suffered 29 casualties).

The plot? The first half is "From Here To Eternity" while the second is Tora Tora Tora. The action scenes of the attack, which run a full twenty minutes, save the film. You really get a feel for what it was like to be bombed like that. Where the film almost, but not quite, perishes, is how it attempts to insert a chick-flick into a war movie. The result is what I imagine it would taste like to mix milk and orange juice, two things which are fine on their own but not pleasant when combined.

The movie's other main strength was in its portrayal of the Japanese as an honorable nation that felt it had to conduct this war to preserve its place in the world. We have certainly done this ourselves, and the film also captured the sense of total victory experienced by the Japanese pilots, many of whom are now interviewed for documentaries on the war. One cannot help but respect the efficiency of the attack, including how the Japanese altered their torpedoes so they could navigate the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. Without question, we got our tails kicked good, and from a military standpoint, it was one of the most lopsided battles of all time.

The movie chose to end with the Doolittle raid, but it would have been smarter to give minor screen time to that attack, and more to the role it played in our winning the Battle of Midway, which was the true turning point of the war. That battle was won by mere seconds, as our bombers beat the refueling Japanese bombers to the attack by a whisker.

The film is a good way to show a historical event to a young audience that can smooth out the inaccuracies in the history books or on the internet. The cast could have been stronger, but Affleck (Rafe), Hartnett (Danny), and Beckinsale (Evelyn) do not drop the ball while carrying the film. Jennifer Garner as the mousy Sandra was an interesting performance, especially in light of her future stardom. Dan Akroyd as the decoder was convincing as only he can be. It was good to see an SNL alum play his role well in such a big-budget feature.

Watch it on cable if you're an adult, and keep the DVD around for the children for when they have a history bug. At 3:20, they'll be occupied all evening.

Someone get me a pair of scissors!

[David-240 · 3/10 · 10 July 2001]

What a great film this could have been! The recreation of the attack on Pearl Harbor is some of the best film-making ever - an extraordinary and moving sequence made utterly believable by state of the art special effects. It ranks up there with the opening sequence from "Saving Private Ryan" and the sinking of the "Titanic" as one of the most harrowing "disaster" sequences filmed in recent years. But like both those other two films, PEARL HARBOR is desperately in need of a decent script to frame the disaster sequence.

Okay - I could almost accept the hokey old love triangle romantic plot - certainly the stars are great to look at - but the dialogue really sucked: "I don't think I'll ever look at another sunset without thinking of you". Please! And all those hero shots from the ground, and the slow motion love bits, and the soppy music, and the eternal sunsets...

But what this film really needed was an editor! The climax of the film is the attack on Pearl Harbor - an American defeat. But it seems the film-makers decided that the American audience wouldn't be satisfied with this - and so the movie grinds on and on for another hour or so dramatising a revenge attack on Japan. And we're supposed to believe that this attack was fought by the very same guys who were on the ground in Hawaii. I mean we all know that America won the war in the end, so did we really need this long epilogue?

Personally I'd cut out all the Roosevelt and the Japanese high command scenes and concentrate on the experiences of the people on the ground at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese stuff was all completely unbelievable anyway. The sad loss would be the superb performance of Jon Voight as Roosevelt - but maybe they could make another film about him. I'd also end the film after the attack at Pearl Harbor, as the survivors pick up the pieces. So why not have a shorter Director's Cut - a novel concept - that makes this film the great film it could have been. If you like I'll lend the scissors!

Why is it so badly rated?

[TyMaTix · 9/10 · 23 September 2020]

I don't understand, why people are rating this film so bad. In my opinion its a good mixture between action and love story. Maybe a little bit more action. And in my oppinion a film hasn't to be 100% accurate, when it's enjoyable to watch it. If you want accurate things, then you have to watch some documentarys and not action films.

Tried too hard to make an epic

[erato_23 · 7/10 · 24 May 2001]

I saw a preview showing last night....I wasn't very impressed. As bad as this sounds, as it dragged on and on I found it more and more amusing, especially Alec Baldwin's character. The director was trying too hard to make an epic - there were a lot of scenes that were obviously fillers. However, I'm sure this movie will be a big summer blockbuster....

Superb film - Believable acting - Well written - Severely underrated

[D-Gal · 9/10 · 3 November 2015]

I seriously do not understand the utter hate toward this film by critics when writing their reviews. "Historically inaccurate" or "Just another love story" or "boring!"... If you want to see a film that is totally historically accurate, watch a documentary for heavens sake. This movie goes way out of proportion to what really happened that day in Pearl Harbor, but it is a MOVIE! Get over it. It's not supposed to be real.

The film as a whole is brilliantly written; it's not too soppy with the romance and not too over the top with pure action. People are saying that it's just too much shoot 'em up and too many explosions. Well, I got news for you... They're at war! Bombs will go off and guns will be fired from all places possible. If you want to see a movie that's not so explosive, watch Twilight.

To me personally, character development is very important in a movie and I believe Pearl Harbor succeeded with this. I grew attached to individuals and felt vulnerable as a member of the audience at the best of times. Absolutely superb watch, and I'd highly recommend it! If you're offended by a film not being entirely accurate, steer clear and stick to your documentaries.

9/10! Excellent!

Pearl Harbor: Michael Bay Style

[mildlyintrusive · 6/10 · 1 December 2023]

Pearl Harbor is what Titanic could've been if Michael Bay directed it, cause the similarities are very, well, similar. This one is set during a tragedy, the attack on Pearl Harbor in this case. There's also a love triangle, a very sappy one indeed.

My main issue of the movie is well, the love story. It doesn't serve much in a wider context and feels rote and cheesy, it takes up most of the bloated runtime but there's a satisfying conclusion to it at the end. I must say, I wished the script was more focused on the relationship between the Navy's rather than this, it just screams Titanic to me. Other than that I didn't really have much of an issue with the movie besides the laughable script which I had a chuckle from. The cinematography is crisp and wonderful. The performances weren't half-assed unlike other Bay efforts but Ben Affleck was especially wooden here, as wooden as a log. Josh Hartnett fares better here and I found him more interesting. The action sequences here were mostly positives, there were shaky-cam scenes that were distracting but for the most part, it's typical Michael Bay explosions, its fun explosions especially at the attack on Pearl Harbor, the movies' centerpiece and also its biggest strength. It's a forty-minute extravaganza of special effects and signature Michael Bay firework-explosions. It made the movie for me.

Im no historian but I found the Japanese reasoning to attack Pearl Harbor especially odd. The context here is that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because America cut its oil supply. I kept asking myself, would attacking them make the situation better? Does it perhaps, restore the fuel sources?? I don't know, movie never says.

Overall, this movie was serviceable, I didn't hate it to the point where I'd start ranting nor did I love it to the point of being infatuated with it. By all means, its decent. Should've focused more on the Navy instead of that goddamn trite love story, the more I talk about it the less I appreciate it. Check it out, especially for the forty-minute sequence.

Not a bomb, but lots of explosions.

[Shiva-11 · 7/10 · 24 May 2001]

Pearl harbor

For Europe, World War II began with Poland's invasion in 1939. For China, it began eight years earlier with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. While the fighting waged abroad, the United States clung to its isolationist stance in the hope that these "regional" conflicts would be decided without them. This laissez-faire attitude was shattered at 8:00 am on December 7th 1941 with the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. While the intention was to immobilize the US fleet before they could become a factor in the Pacific Theater, it instead served to galvanize a nation.

True friendship is a rare commodity, something that Danny and Rafe are lucky enough to share. Friends since childhood, they join the military together to become fighter pilots, find adventure and look after one another. Their relationship is strained by Rafe's decision to join the Eagle Squadron, a unit of the British Air Force filled with American volunteers. Although upset, Danny tells him to be careful and promises to look after Rafe's newfound girlfriend Evelyn. They soon discover that love and war are difficult bedfellows.

If you skip the entertainment section of the newspaper, don't watch tv , never go to movies and live in a cave, it's possible that you haven't heard of this movie. Maybe. With a voluminous cast of name and no name actors, a budget bigger than most films gross, and lots of special effects, this film is going to draw huge crowds for the Memorial Day weekend. I have no doubt of this. What I'm curious to see is how the audiences will respond to it.

Once again the trailers are deceiving: while there are hints of the romantic nature of the movie, the focus is on the attack of Pearl Harbor and leads you to believe that it will examine the whys and wherefores behind the event. The bulk of the screen time (and at three hours plus there's a whole lot of it) is devoted to the relationship between the three main characters. I found it interesting that the marketing campaign in Japan meanwhile stressed this aspect over the action. Enough about the marketing you say, what about the film?

Historians and battle aficionados take note - other movies on this subject have been more historically accurate and informational. This movie is the Coles notes version of the events surrounding the infamous day in question. However, that means it will be more accessible to the casual moviegoer and no one will quibble about the superb special effects sequences (it is often difficult to discern what is a set and what is computer generated). I was surprised that the battle sequences, originally intended to be as graphic as those in "Saving Private Ryan", were considerably toned down. They opted for hazy dream-like sequences at the hospital that proved to be more disorienting than disturbing. The attack should have taken a more central role and been introduced sooner - there is little action for the first hour and a half - because younger viewers, and men (okay I'm generalizing here but it's true) will quickly lose interest. Especially when they have to sit through mushy stuff. : )

While the romantic triangle is captivating (although things become a bit too complex at times - and no I won't give anything away here), the characters have little depth and the actors don't have much to work with. Ben Affleck is his usual affable self, giving a far better performance that he did in his last romantic lead (I've always liked him better than his cocky alter ego aka Matt Damon). Kate Beckinsale (looking remarkably different that she did in "Brokedown Palace") acquits herself adequately as the lovelorn lead, and Josh Hartnett, smolders as the fresh new kid (to me at least - I haven't seen him in anything previously) and demonstrates a modicum of skill along the way. Others aren't so lucky - Cuba Gooding Jr. barely qualifies as a supporting actor (things have been downhill since the Oscar), and Alec Baldwin has the misfortune to utter some of the worst lines ever written.

Ultimately, Pearl Harbor has the elements required to be a summer blockbuster: it's being released at the right time, it has impressive special effects and action sequences, the story is pretty straightforward and it is very American. That doesn't mean that it's a good movie. Don't expect too much and it will make for a decent matinee (albeit a long one).

Great Special Effects. Not so good story line.

[buiredintime · 7/10 · 28 May 2001]

Before I went to see this movie I heard that the reviews were going to be not so good for it. Friday I read the paper and it was excactely as I thought ,but since I don't like critics even though I have become one. I said I am going to see it. I did and I agree with the critics this time. First of all the Special Effects were absoultely awsome. I mean this is one of those movies where it is very hard to tell the anything digitaly created. It was just so great.. The plot is were I had problems It seemed that Ben Afflek and Josh Hartnet seemed to get into Every single major battle out of coincedence... Don't get me wrong it was good but it's not worth the hype.

Grade 8/10

The Film just doesn't work!

[Firehawk · 6/10 · 26 May 2001]

Yet another piece of hollywood drivel by Ben Affleck - the actor who can't seem to find another Oscar hit after "Good Will Hunting" or a performance that would actually challenge him (Chasing Amy). Pearl Harbor was a movie whose whole purpose is to try to please as many people as possible, and fails to do that on all fronts. While a lot of the big details ARE historically accurate (The lipstick, Cuba Gooding Jr's character, the fact that two planes DID get off the ground to fight back at Pearl Harbor, and other small things) the story just doesn't really "take off". Without spoiling the movie, one can say that the love triangle portrayed was a typical hollywood romance with no dynamics. Invariably, anyone who's seen a romance can see where the romance will head. The battle scenes show gratuitous violence. There were many more explosions in the movie than there probably were in Pearl Harbor or Tokyo. And, as it turns out, Dan Ackroyd gives the most convincing performance... and he's monotonous, with only a few lines! Also, while there are several scenes that seem to skip around, and are used to portray the plot and describe the history (ie, FDR standing, the Japanese planning the battles), it also distracts from the movie. They even try to portray the movie from the viewpoint of the Nipponese, by having a "voiceover" read the letter than one of the Nipponese pilots is writing home. In the end, I gave this film 6. Generous, because of the somewhat historical value... The movie itself goes nowhere for 3 hours. They tried to do a Titanic/Saving Private Ryan... but in the end, they got the worst of both movies. Just rent Tora! Tora! Tora! and give that a go...

Pearl Harbor: Movie Review

[anastasiia_shystovska · 10/10 · 8 April 2020]

'Pearl Harbor' is a wartime drama that was directed by Michael Bay and released in 2001. The scriptwriter who worked on this movie is Randall Wallace. Before this movie, he wrote for such projects as "Braveheart" (1995) and "The Man in the Iron Mask" (1998). The soundtrack was created by unsurpassed master Hans Zimmer, who also wrote music for "Pirates of the Caribbean", "The Prince of Egypt", "The Dark Knight", etc. The stars that played the main characters were Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale and Josh Hartnett. In 2003, Kate went on to star in "Underworld" and in 2004 she took on a leading role in "Van Helsing".

On 7th December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, where the US Pacific Fleet was situated, leaving the US deeply shocked. It is a movie about war, love, courage and honour.

The trailer, which I have personally seen more times than I had expected, really made me, and I hope you, want to watch this movie. The movie length is 3 hours 3 minutes and to my mind, this is just right. You can watch it the whole thing in one go. Moviegoers won't be able to look away from the screen because of the stunning visuals and deep emotions that they'll no doubt feel. Both the main and minor characters are highly convincing and during the whole movie, they effectively engage with each other and what is more, with every member of the audience. You truly believe every moment.

Written by Anastasiia Shystovska

Good fighting scenes, okay soundtrack, bad inspirational moments...

[weezus · 6/10 · 26 May 2001]

Allright.. it wasn't as TERRIBLE as I expected, but it wasn't Saving Private Ryan, either. The actors all seemed to fit their roles with the exception of Alec Baldwin's impression of Jimmy Doolittle. As Doolittle, Baldwin DID LITTLE. Jon Voigt was a great FDR, and had most of the jerky movements as our 32nd Prez. I think that the first 45 minutes could have been a bunch better but what do I expect from Jerry Bruckheimer and his gang? Cuba Gooding Jr.'s part wasn't really necessary except to appease the NAACP (no offense, but really.. where DOES he fit in?) He seemed to be reprising his Men of Honor role, and if it had been Denzel Washington he would seem to reprise his role on Hurricane...

Overall, good fighting scenes, bad inspirational moments (specifically Alec "Doolittle" Baldwin's 'that's just me' business).

I Don't See Why this Movie gets So Much Hate,

[lesleyharris30 · 8/10 · 3 January 2015]

Pearl Harbor is a terrific movie with a well developed storyline and a fantastic cast.I really don't understand why this movie gets so much hate,it's a good story and despite the historical inaccuracies,I think it stays true to the events in the way that the characters behave and the drama that develops throughout.Many people complained about the love story,saying that it was unnecessary,but I completely disagree,the development of these three characters and the love and rivalry that occurs makes their story a lot more personal, it is definitely what kept me watching for the whole three hours,it was sweet,romantic and tragic,and I don't think the tragedy at the end would have been any bit as upsetting without this conflict that was shown previously.Ben Affleck,Kate Beckinsale and Josh Hartnett all deliver great performances,they really became these characters and were living in the moment for each scene,there was great chemistry between all three,and despite some of their lines being very cheesy,they certainly didn't deserve Razzie nominations.Where the movie does fall flat is the fact that it tried to be the Titantic of war movies,I get that it was a huge movie at the time and Michael Bay was trying to make his own version of it,but trying to be like another film is never a good mind set for filmmaking and that is certainly a significant part of why many people criticized this movie.It may have a few flaws,but I still had a great time watching Pearl Harbor and certainly didn't consider it a waste of three hours,and would recommend it to anyone looking for a good drama or war film.

Follows the lives of two best friends as they enter the war as pilots and both start to fall for the same woman.

Best Performance: Kate Beckinsale