Hey Harry,

I caught a screening of Pearl Harbor this morning here in Atlanta, and just wanted to toss in my two cents...

I have to put it in the context of a Bay/Bruckheimer production... meaning that we all know what to expect from those two fellas by now. I liked The Rock & Armageddon, and even kinda dug Bad Boys for it's style and look. But that's what these movies are really all about anyway, right? You have to go in knowing that you aren't going to get the character, reality and emotion of American Beauty or Shawshank Redemption. But Bay movies are some of the most beautiful and visually spectacular I've ever seen. I enjoy them for the "Holy Shit I can't believe what I'm seeing" moments... and I got more than my share of those in Pearl Harbor.

I basically sat there with my jaw to the floor during much of the 40-minute attack sequence. I mean, literally I caught myself saying "Holy F$#%" 3 or 4 times, and dammit, I see a lot of movies and that doesn't happen often. The air battles, the sheer magnitude of the Japanese attack and the devastation on the American fleet was just amazing. And I didn't get lost in what some of Bay's detractors call his "Attention-Deficit-Disorder" style of cutting. It was engaging.

Now the movie's not perfect, and I really wish that some day a director would come along with Bay's visual skills who also cared more about character development... someone who would insist on sharp, original dialogue... but until that day comes, we'll have to enjoy what he brings us. There were actually some pretty emotional moments... I sucked it up and held maybe a tear or two back (I occasionally drop a tear at really powerful war movies... "Glory" being the greatest example), but it's possible to become human during a few spots of this film, and I had to remind myself that it was a Michael Bay movie and I was probably being manipulated.

Oh, and by the way... regarding those parts that were "reminicent" of Titanic, Top Gun, etc... yes, I did notice the similarities, but it didn't really bother me. I mean, ships sink the way they sink... just because people hung on for dear life and slid down the deck of the Titanic as it sank, doesn't mean soldiers didn't do the same when the Arizona went down. I suppose people would be happier if they fell up or sideways, or if the ship found a different way to sink. By nature, this film had to show certain events and situations. If they have been shown in other movies, that sucks... but you can't ignore the sinking fleet simply because you don't want to "copy" Titanic.

***WARNING!!! ENTERING THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY AND EDITORIAL ZONE***

Recalling "Glory" makes me think about how great a film like "Pearl Harbor" really could have been. If Hollywood could only trust the public's level of intelligence and capability of understanding and appreciating something a little different, something that takes a risk or two, then we might get a film as emotionally fulfilling as "Glory" with the big-budget grandeur of "Pearl Harbor." But since "Glory" only made $26 million, we'll likely see more films that can guarantee big bucks and appeal to the masses.

***END OF EDITORIAL ZONE***ENTERING CAST BREAKDOWN***

Cuba Gooding Jr. was great... underplayed... and I won't say underused as many people have about his role. It was simply a small part. He even shared one of the few truly sincere and sad moments of the movie that I won't spoil for you. He was great. Jon Voight was really good as well... he gave life to some famous historical dialogue that could have been really lame if not treated properly. He rose above the level of acting of the typical summer flick. I really have to add that I loved Dan Akroyd's part, too. He was one of the most believable actors in the film, and treated his part with genuine sincerity. Some of the very best work I've seen from him.

As far as the main characters go... I'd have to say that Kate Beckinsale fared the best. She was impressive, especially during the hospital sequences in the aftermath of the attack. I really wasn't expecting the movie to cover this aspect as much, but she was really touching and handled herself as well as anyone in the entire film. Josh Hartnett seemed to underplay most of his part, and served himself well, too. He used subtle facial expressions, and I grew to like and identify with his character. I've liked Ben Affleck ever since "Mallrats" and refuse to join the masses who hate his work in Bay movies... there's a lot about his personality that I like and that I've seen in my own friends growing up, so when people say that he's always himself or goofy or not-very-believable, I say that's exactly how some guys are in real life. Watching his character in the film, I could really see one of my buddies acting the very same way. And yes, the animal cracker scene in "Armag! eddon" was pretty stupid, but I've done and said stupid shit to my girlfriend, too. I say stupid things precisely because they are stupid to make her laugh, which is how I saw that scene. Damn, film-geeks love to be negative. Ben was likeable... unless he's the kind of guy who beat you up when you were in high school... then I suppose you'd hate him as always.

All in all, this was a hell of a movie... You may even shit yourself a couple times during the big attack sequence. Just don't expect any huge surprises or inspiring dialogue... I don't think we'll ever get that in a big-budget film as long as people throw their money at crap like "The Mummy Returns"... Good Christ, people - can't you tell a bad movie from it's trailer??

I'm tired of writing and you probably won't post this anyway... so I'm outta here. Hope someone finds this helpful.

Overall rating - 8 out of 10

-Chains