Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Review

PEARL HARBOR review

I headed off to see PEARL HARBOR tonight with a regular audience in a regular theater in little ol Austin, Texas and I thought that I would hate it.

I had spoken with Joe Hallenbeck earlier in the day who has decided to condemn going to see PEARL HARBOR and will go see MEMENTO instead this weekend… Good advice that… MEMENTO should be seen by everybody before they go see PEARL HARBOR… I’ve been preparing myself for not liking PEARL HARBOR… I had whole parts of my review in my head, I remember commenting to Father Geek, "You know what PEARL HARBOR is going to be? It’ll be just like an A-ticket ride at Disneyland. A long line, mild entertainment along the way, then big flashiness, followed by pleasant non-offensive exit stuff, but twice as long."

Frankly, for a film with the ambition that Michael Bay sat out to make, well I expected more. Instead apparently this was Michael Bay’s version of Steven Spielberg’s answer to James Cameron’s TITANIC.

Is that a bad thing?

Yes and no. I enjoyed PEARL HARBOR far more than I was expecting, but it is my least favorite of Bay’s films. Before you go jumping on Bay for that though, you should know that the people that went tonight that are ordinarily Bay-Haters… well the few I talked to came away saying things like, "Well that was pretty good…. For a Michael Bay film!"

However, Robogeek came out of the film with a disgusted look on his face and shock when I said I liked it. Robogeek loved ARMAGEDDON.

I liked PEARL HARBOR with reservations…

I feel the movie is too long. Generally I hate it when people say things like that, because usually it is a flippant remark to mask an inability to finger out a real critique of the film. However, for me, I know what I’d cut… First, I’d cut the entire Cuba Gooding Jr character. I love the character, I like his scenes… I thought he was quite good… But in a film as bloated as this, you have to focus on the story, and for me, this is a story about 3 people. Rafe, Danny and Evelyn. Cuba’s character, while a heroic side story of PEARL HARBOR… it was a heroic side story and felt arbitrarily inserted. Rafe, Danny and Evelyn don’t know this character… He isn’t really a part of their lives… His story doesn’t impact them. His story doesn’t move their story forward. It’s filler, and with a Three Hour Plus movie filler needs to be slimmed. Great DVD material though, the sort that requires a commentary or introduction where you discuss the pains of the editing room… How it felt like cutting a toe off to remove it, but while the side story was great, it didn’t advance the story. Secondly, trying to do a 10-minute study on segregation in the American Military in 1941… well, the topic and the man Cuba Gooding Jr plays deserves his own film… not 10 minutes.

Next, I would cut nearly the entire opening. Beginning the film on the train with the nurses. The entire boyhood flying fantasy sequence makes a great Coke commercial…. Makes for idyllic sweetness… But really, watching the film… Kate Beckinsale’s Evelyn is really the central character that should be telling us the story of Rafe and Danny. Affleck and Hartnett’s character revolve around her…. Their conflict between one another centers around her, and the choices she makes helps to drive the film. I would start with the nurses heading for leave in New York, her story about Rafe being coaxed out of her… and then we meet Ben for the first time at the train station. Everything between Ben and Rafe before that moment is not important to share, because we as an audience should be discovering these characters with Evelyn. All of the ‘early’ stuff between Ben and Josh… It all gets reiterated to Evelyn over the film, so why give the audience that information before… To force our hand… To LABEL the characters easily? We should hear about Rafe leaving for England to fight the Nazis at the front of that hotel, so we could react with Kate, instead of knowing that the scene would be coming because we already knew that he was going to be headed there. It makes the scene redundant and less impactful… in my opinion.

Next… AND MOST IMPORTANT… The film should have ended with the reuniting of Kate and… well you’ll see. Everything that comes after is painfully awful. Literally it is like the worst ending to a good movie in film history. I was aghast to see how the film was ending. It was awkward, amateurish and pathetic. It was literally like following a great meal by a bulimic moment in a stall somewhere. RAAAAALLLLPHHHH…

Minor trimming would include exceptionally cheesy bad moments of Alec Baldwin pontificating about why we’ll win this war… Every American flag shot except for the water one…

Getting tough with the story, this film could have been two and a half hours and a much stronger focused movie.

HOWEVER… as is, I enjoyed the movie. I liked it, but wanted it to be better… to focus on the main characters more. I have no problems with 3 hour plus movies… my problem comes when 30+ minutes of character development is being spent on characters non-integral to the lives of our main characters. The flyboys around Rafe and Danny… and the nurses around Evelyn… They are important to our central characters, but flashing over to various characters giving us a constant update of current events… well that was a major problem with the watchability of TORA TORA TORA, here… Well, I want to see our characters… these new people reacting to what’s happening around them. The friends lost… the shock of being thrust into war. The incredibly awkward position that Danny and Evelyn find themselves in… well that needs to be illuminated better.

Also the Newsreel footage was snipped so short to feel awkward and obtrusive… It felt unnecessary to me.

OK, so gosh is the only thing I liked the EXPLOSIONS?

No, not at all… The original Randall Wallace script was incredibly weak in the ‘romance’ between Rafe and Evelyn and the way that is handled at the opening is Soooooooo much better than what it was. Sure, it is still a brief quickee, but ya know… these were the scenes that my audience reacted absolutely best to. Ben is very charming here and Kate is disarmingly beautiful. Later on, the romance in Hawaii works… well it is flirtatious and awkward and genuinely sweet, albeit corny and contrived, but hey… young love is corny and contrived. Everything about my sister and her husband’s early romance felt like swallowing 3 pounds of powdered sugar… Although the parachute love scene struck me as a bit PENTHOUSE FORUM LETTERISH… But hey, Bay is a visual fetishist and it is beautiful… and the thought about how erotically cool all that parachute silk would feel making love in… Hey… 10 to 1 it would completely rule and be "The most incredible night ever!"

The supporting characters are entertaining and fun and tragic. My favorite being Ewen Bremner aka ‘Red’. I recognized him as being Brad Pitt’s buddy piker in SNATCH, and his stuttering nervous stud character really got to me. He’s been good in the two films I’ve seen him in thus far… Next he’s in BLACKHAWK DOWN, and I’m now looking forward to noticing this actor in his upcoming work.

Mako didn’t have much to work with as Admiral Yamamoto, but I don’t care. Getting to see Mako for just a few minutes on screen makes me smile. I love this actor and he is incredibly underused in modern cinema. MORE MAKO!

Tom Sizemore seems to step into legend with his shotgun in his ‘I don’ give a shit’ moment of defiance, but then… He’s become a professional "I’m not a Sgt. but I’ve played one on TV and Film" sort of guy… and he should continue. He has a great place as a William Bendix in these types of films.

James King…. What a babe! She plays the nurse that Yakko and Wakko are always exclaiming about! Oh my.

Akyroyd and Voight are both dead on in their character portrayals… and Akyroyd makes me wish he did more drama more often, because he’s fantastic if given the opportunity. Voight’s FDR makes me salivate in anticipation of his Howard Cosell in Michael Mann’s ALI this Holiday season. Moriarty seems to like what he’s seen of Voight’s Lord Croft in TOMB RAIDER, but somehow I don’t think it is going to carry the weight of either of these other two roles this year. BUT WHO KNOWS… COULD BE WRONG!

Ultimately I leave PEARL HARBOR a bit sad… I wanted Michael Bay to grow all the way up as a filmmaker. Bay is the biggest rich boy in Hollywood. Some would say Spielberg is, but that’s wrong. Steven grew up somewhere around 1985 or 86. And even before that Spielberg never had the pure immaturity or lack of confidence that is exhibited in Michael’s work.

WAIT A MINUTE! You thought I was a fan of Michael Bay’s?

I am… I am a painfully immature fella myself, but I have minor and transitional periods of inflamed maturity that I take inoculations of coolness to bring down. But Michael loves the BABES, THE TECHNOLOGY, THE STYLES, THE COOL and so on. Why can’t the world be sunrises and sunsets? This is Hollywood, and in Michael’s world time is frozen in the Magic Hour.

What I wanted Michael to do in this film is to pull back and look at the film for the sake of NARRATIVE FILMMAKING instead of Cinema of Cool. I wanted Michael to make the hard decisions in the editing room that would have or could have made this movie a more mature film. Of course the problem is Jerry Bruckheimer is a kid too. So he doesn’t have a producer or a partner that can step back and say… Ya know what Michael, greatness is in this movie… but throwing it all up on the screen hoping that the audience and the viewers and the critics will find the greatness for themselves… Well it’s a bit lazy.

This movie has greatness in it. In 1941-42 America was a naïve world staying out of the scraps. It was a time where the youth felt that nothing could touch them, that the moment was lasting and staying forever. THEN Pearl Harbor happened and the United States collectively grew the grey hairs that next morning. The moment could be destroyed. Lives crushed and innocence taken. The key moment in the film features Danny and Rafe in that beautiful Oldsmobile (I believe) and Rafe says something along the lines of, "Danny, I just don’t know how anything could ever be the same with us," and then the next morning… Petty differences even serious differences no longer mattered. Hell came to paradise and staying alive and trying to keep others alive washed over all of that.

This was a time when people believed on inspiring others by taking impossible missions… and dying. The love story… I could almost hear Bogart saying, "I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that." Well, that’s what a worldly, wise, eroded-by-life man would say given the same situation these kids find themselves in, but dammit… Josh Hartnett’s character is just a kid… Kate Beckinsale is too. Ben Affleck’s a bit older, but not at heart. We older, wiser, more experienced people… well we look at them and want them be Bogart… We’d be Bogart… We judge the love triangle by CASABLANCA, but there’s a difference. They had Paris, these kids have New York and Honolulu. They had long leisurely love, not puppy love, but adult love, these kids are falling for the first time and this happens. This is crazy desperate love, the type you believe you have once in a lifetime because you’ve never had it before and you think you can never have second helpings. This is the innocence of pre-WWII United States. It’s corny and cheesy, but ya know… Young love is.

I don’t LOVE or HATE Pearl Harbor…. I like it. I like it and wish it to be better than it is, because inside this film… a few slight layers from what we see in the theaters is a greater film. But Bay missed the tree for the forest. His sights were too wide, focusing on trying to give us more than we needed… believing that more is better… when in reality, enough is enough.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 24, 2001, 4:05 a.m. CST

    unforgivable

    by Uga

    When Michael Bay makes a horrible movie about a big rock in outer space, I can look past it. But when he makes a horrible movie about such a grand, definitive moment in our country's history - and in effect takes that story away from other filmmakers for quite a while - it's unforgivable. He should have known he wasn't up to the task.

  • May 24, 2001, 4:07 a.m. CST

    Wellllll...I'm still indifferent towards this film

    by lostoptimist

    I'll take THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS (Rob Cohen will soon be a God--Heh) over this pastiche any day of the week. That is all.

  • May 24, 2001, 4:07 a.m. CST

    ahaaa...i understand now

    by Rox

    all this fuss over a bloody war film...sheeeeesh!. I always thought that Pearl harbour was a chinese restaurant in Manchester

  • May 24, 2001, 4:13 a.m. CST

    Ewen Bremner...

    by RSGumby

    .. didn't play a pikey in Snatch.. he played that cowardly snitch that Bullet-tooth Tony gets information from. He also played Spud in Trainspotting.

  • May 24, 2001, 4:17 a.m. CST

    Finally Harry's reviewed Pearl Harbour, can we go home?

    by Lord_Soth

    I hope it's over now.

  • May 24, 2001, 4:21 a.m. CST

    Ewen Bremner...lest we forget Archie

    by lostoptimist

    The man played the most dazzling character in Mike Leigh's NAKED--And that's saying something. That little Poof made me laugh so hard. His speech was even more incomprehensible than Pitt's in SNATCH and what he was speaking was an actual dialect. Talk about scary.

  • May 24, 2001, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Once again, I'd like to thank the creators of Pearl Harbor for e

    by Mister_Pink

    Film critics, fans, even the general public will be challanged to invent new words to describe the film. Ordinarily, that would be a good thing. But in this case they'll all be variations of "tripe-arific".

  • May 24, 2001, 4:40 a.m. CST

    Michael Bay- awkward, amateurish, pathetic

    by houndog

    Enough said.

  • May 24, 2001, 4:44 a.m. CST

    I still don't know, Harry...

    by Halloween68

    I think I would really hate this film. When I first saw the trailer I was really awestruck. It is very moving. One of the better trailors I've seen in a while. After going on line and doing a little reading on the film, I almost immediately became disinterested. I don't want to go see a potentially great film and be treated to the Bay/Bruckheimer crapfest I'm about now used to. I agree with pretty much everything you said about the duo. I guess I would need more than to be satisfied that it's not a terrible movie. I would not even be satisfied if it were even an okay movie. I would want it to be great, and frankly I'm tired waiting for B & B to grow up. Someone else has suggested that Bay take a step back and to make a small character/plot driven movie with no explosions, just good old fasion drive. I agree whole-heartedly with that. !!!And on a side-note: Harry, the new FOTR trailer is supposed to be attached to Pearl Harbor this weekend. Have you seen it? If so, How does it measure up to the footage you've seen at Cannes? Why has no one really said anything about it at AICN? I'd be curious to know if it's worth sneaking into the beginning of Pearl Harbor to see it. That's my plan, but then I'm detouring to see Shrek!!!

  • May 24, 2001, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Harry don't know shit

    by Azzamckazz

    Harry..get your facts straight you self-righteous fool. Ewan Bremner was not one of Brad pitt's pikey (not PIKER) mates...he played Mullet, the guy that was dragged down the street by bullet-tooh tony. He's also been in trainspotting and the acid house..but seeing as you pay heaps of attention to non-hollywood films that are outside america that you have can't have direct involvement with..i'm sure you knew that

  • May 24, 2001, 4:46 a.m. CST

    I Agree Completely WIth The Guy Who Says "Vote with your dollar"

    by RightWing Dude

    By the way, is there any mention in this film of how FDR was fully aware beforehand that the Japanese would mount an attack upon the American military but chose to ignore the reports so as to have a perfectly good excuse to enter the war? Just curious!

  • May 24, 2001, 4:49 a.m. CST

    You want a Michael Bay epitaph? It'll go like this

    by lostoptimist

    If we're talking justice, on a tombstone the size of Gibraltar, the following words will be found: "He lived, he died and he added a couple of nifty 'Got Milk?' commercials to the world of celluloid"

  • May 24, 2001, 4:54 a.m. CST

    I wonder...How hard would it be to dominate a talkback?

    by lostoptimist

    If I just made a post commenting on every other TB's post, could I earn a cheap gold medallion or something?

  • May 24, 2001, 4:59 a.m. CST

    FDR

    by Uga

    A mention in the movie of how FDR might have known about Pearl Harbor? Are you kidding? This is liberal Hollywood we're talking about - FDR is their God!

  • May 24, 2001, 5:04 a.m. CST

    I will not watch this film

    by Miss Aura

    I am sorry but I do not want to see this film, I can understand others wanting to see this but if its anything like TITANIC (Crap film, Crap acting, Good CGI) then I will give it a miss. I am tired of watching films about the USA triumphing over all the odds, Armaggedon was the daddy of these and that was plain bad (No offence to people who liked it, it is only MY opinion). And if ANYONE has not seen MEMENTO and are planning to go to see this first, You are missing a complete treat. This is the thing that gets on my nerves, You have a film of absolute Brilliance that is MEMENTO and it will not be seen by the amount of people who will watch MUMMY 2 and PEARL HARBOUR, now that is an offence worthy of Capital Punishment. No doubt Pearl Harbour will win awards, but as was seen with Gladiator scooping the Best Film Oscar and Best Actor Oscar for Russel Crowe, these Awards mean nothing. I doubt anything will stop people flocking to the cinema to watch Pearl Harbour, I just wish instead of choosing their films by Hype they would choose them for actually being good. MEMENTO v PEARL HARBOUR, only 1 winner....1 is a film of absolute class which will live in your memory for the rest of your life, the other a film which will give you nearly 3 hours of entertainment but leave no trace in your mind once the next blockbuster comes out.

  • May 24, 2001, 5:22 a.m. CST

    saw it last night

    by Tippex

    and despite the ridiculously stereotypical portrayal of us brits, it was a phenomenal piece of cinema. I felt it was going to become as hammy as Armaggeddon at one point but it turned away and stayed on the path of genius. the performances are excellent and the bombing of the harbor is awesome, but the highlight is the hospital scene straight after. For once, ignore the cynics, go see a great movie, and try and go with an open mind. you'll love it.

  • May 24, 2001, 5:26 a.m. CST

    about directing...

    by weird v2.0

    Michael Bay (or maybe Disney itself) hasn't learnt yet that making a movie is, more than joy, real PAIN. Pain when you write dialogues and action, more pain when you shoot and agony when you edit. I, as an amateur filmmaker, have know all of those stages, and ALWAYS had to sacrifice good ideas, cool moments and nice dialogues just because they didn't fit. And it seems that, like in the 2nd Mummy, big studios think now more than ever that 'more is more': more budget, more minutes, more stars and more FX (sometimes deFX, like some cheese moments in The Mummy Returns), means always more quality and more money... but when you edit and see that the actor has achieved to express emotions with only his eyes, a director should cut the off-voice, explicit shots, etc., which means that often 'less is more' (Hitch's "Rebecca" is a MASTERPIECE of this). First you'll have to cut those moments, but with time you learn to use them, and even no to shoot then at all. What the hell am I trying to say? Well, maybe directors, maybe BIG studios, should see the movie as a whole, from upstairs, and see what works and what sucks in it. Bay doesn't use this way of working (just think about the cracker scene in Armageddon without any dialogue- little better, aint it?), and still seems tied up to those limitations. I'm not going to see Pearl Harbor, sorry. By the way, nice post-Cannes review.

  • May 24, 2001, 5:29 a.m. CST

    That damn Pearl Harbor ad screws up my browser!!!!

    by jimmy_009

    This happen to anyone else or just me?

  • May 24, 2001, 5:30 a.m. CST

    My Opinion

    by Lobanhaki

    First, before I get into this, I think I should address that fellow who's offering up that conspiracy theory about Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor before it happened: Think quite clearly about what the effects of losing a major fleet in a surprise attack is. It's not the ideal way to start a war. If he did know, he would have given the fleet advanced word, so they could shoot the living hell out of the Japanese as they come in. Then, they'd have both a reason to declare war, AND a victory to kick things off with AND a decent fleet in the Pacific. If you think Roosevelt was as brainless as you described, well, you are discussing the man who pretty much oversaw one of the greatest wars in US history. Personally, my thinking is that it's Ultra-Conservatives cooking up this stuff because they can't believe a liberal could lead a proper war. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyhow, I think Harry makes some rather pointed comments on some rather important areas. I think there have always been people, independent and studio whose approach to film has always been the Cinema of Cool, where people are expected to prefer the imposition of tons of exciting stuff onto the screen to the mental exercise of dealing with mature, well-structured film. Ironically enough, though, it could be said that it actually is more of a mental exercise to deal with most of these Cinema of Cool films, because they don't abide as much to a central core of narrative that people can follow along with effortlessly. Instead, they tend towards post-modern pastiches that are less friendly to people trying to make sense of things. Additionally, these movies don't age well, the structure of the story looking less and less inviting as people view the film familiar to what they are watching. Mature, well-structured films depend less on immediate impressions, and more on the emotional and mental logic of the piece in question. Because of that, they age better, since it's easier to find such a sense of things again if everything doesn't depend on the quality of novelty. It doesn't take a genius to understand how long it takes for the next big thing to become the last big thing.

  • May 24, 2001, 5:31 a.m. CST

    a couple of things, harry

    by devil0509

    First off, thanks for the review. However, I don't understand you sometimes. I've heard you absolutely blast films for missing out on great potential - wasted opportunities. Now I admit that I have not seen the movie - but even from what you've written it seems that this is a film that could have been great, but to some extent Bay just blew it. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone - the whole Pearl Harbor story lends itself to greatness. Bay, on the other hand, lends himself to cheese. Not a great combination. Good point, though, on the Dorie Miller story - an interesting story that should not be relegated to the side stage in a bloated three-ring circus. Now, my other bitch. I know Bay wants to present the situation as America the niave being woken up by this heinous attack. However, America was not so idyllic in 1941. The country was just barely clawing its way out of the depression. The country was perfectly well aware that the world was at war, and was staying out of it more because of fear than because they were enjoying some sense of paradise and eternal peace. Americans were scared shitless, not basking in the sun.

  • May 24, 2001, 5:40 a.m. CST

    There's nothing I hate more than a mediocre movie

    by Kyle.Reese

    And from what Harry is describing that's exactly what Pearl Harbour is... I think the hype factor has damaged this film the same way it had for The Phantom Menace... Additional note, I always knew Cuba Gooding Jr was only inserted so they have a token black guy (I know he's playing a real guy)... Face it, the magic of Titanic will NEVER be recreated now matter how much money you throw at a project... Hell I bet even James Cameron wouldn't able to pull it off again. It was a freak incident, it was never planned to make as much money as it did, it just happened. The making of that film was just one disaster after another as I recall.... By the way Harry, what were your thoughts on Zimmer's score and Faith Hill (vomit) on the soundtrack?

  • May 24, 2001, 5:42 a.m. CST

    you guys are worse than my wife

    by looking-for-love

    first you guys bitch about Bay not giving enough time for character development. Now that he has taken the time to development, you guys are bitching like a bunch of HOs who can't make their minds up. ________________Anyway, I think this review that Harry gave was due to the fact that he wasn't invited to the premiere. _______________just kidding...

  • May 24, 2001, 6:07 a.m. CST

    Amen! PH is a RAPE of American History!!

    by Saint7

    Hey WrathfulBuddha, "The only language anyone understands anymore is CASH" How right you are! It's those no-talent pieces of shit who run Hollywood (and the Game Industry and the Music Biz) that make me so fucking mad! Michael Bay and Pearl Harbour is a like Hype-Nazi General sodomizing a cash cow up the ass: people thinks it's disgusting and want him to stop, but they just can't resist watching! The return of the "good story" is almost at hand! -Saint7, a very jaded Canadian

  • May 24, 2001, 6:18 a.m. CST

    Abomination

    by mghammer

    This movie is an abomination. It's a corny, pompous and idiotic glorification of war and the army. You have to be so naive and braindead to buy that crap... it's discouraging.

  • May 24, 2001, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Innocence

    by Hud

    Harry, the people who were teenagers in 1941 had lived through the most brutal years of the Depression. Unless they were mentally impaired, they knew full well that life was no picnic. You're being wistful for a world without Doritos.

  • May 24, 2001, 6:28 a.m. CST

    more new fiction

    by buster29

    Too much money being spent on sequels, book/comic adaptations and real events. More investment in new fiction would be nice, though i am bit of a hypocrite as memento was based on a short story albeit his brothers story so its a little bit different.

  • May 24, 2001, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Has everyone's memory faded?

    by darth kubrick

    Titanic was(is) a big bloated distortion of a historical event with a cheesy Romeo and Juliet love story tacked on to it. It is not the measuring stick for quality filmmaking now and in the future. The comparisson of this movie to that one is not a promising sign.

  • May 24, 2001, 6:32 a.m. CST

    I LIKE Michael Bay...but

    by Jack Burton

    His movies are escapist entertainment and nothing more. Armageddon, despite what its' detractor's say, is great entertainment. It's stupid, but strangely involving. Same with The Rock, and Bad Boys. Bay has a style that pulls in the audience and makes the viewing experience fun because you know that what you are seeing cannot POSSIBLY happen in real life. While I have not seen PH yet, I can already tell that Bay dropped the ball. Hyper-reality and slow motion shots are great when giant rocks are hurtling at the earth and a team of oil workers are the only chance for hope. When the plot is about an event that actaully happened, it should be handled with a degree of solemnity. Say what you will about Titanic, but the final scenes in that movie are extremely powerful. That film had reverence for the tragedy. From what I have read so far, PH seems to be capitalizing on theirs. I'm still seeing it, but my hops have been diminished.

  • May 24, 2001, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Your least favourite Bay movie Harry? Jesus Christ, that means i

    by BeaucoupSexmoves

    I agree with the earlier post - don't see this out of curiosity or ennui - stay away. It's the only way these people will learn.

  • May 24, 2001, 6:40 a.m. CST

    Poor looking-for-love

    by Alceste

    His hero is a one-dimensional salesman who flounders when he tries to stage a scene where something isn't blowing up. I give Bay two years before he retreats to the safety of commercials, where his "brilliance" begins and ends.

  • May 24, 2001, 6:45 a.m. CST

    The Producers

    by Mr. Biege

    You know how you see these combo-produced movies now? "Brought to you by Dreamworks and Paramount Pictures"? I'm wondering if Pearl Harbor will begin "Brought to you by Disney and the U.S. Navy"... Some of the shlockier moments sound really funny. I saw a melodramatic clip with Alec Baldwin that gave me a good laugh. Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. Too bad it isn't a musical. Not since Springtime for Hitler...

  • May 24, 2001, 6:48 a.m. CST

    audiences

    by SimianSidewalk

    look at audiences today, waiting on line a heard a man say to his wife "I don't want to see Frequency again , I saw it twice and still don't understand the ending." during the LOTR trailer, a kid said " they're coping Star Wars" and after memento a man said to his wife"I din't understand that. Tehy shouldn't have had it that way,it should've went in order so we understand it." This is where audiences ra etoday. But i have a feeling this movie is going to wake them and some of hollywood up. To understand we have to go back to Titanic. Through various reasons I saw it twenty times in a theater. I saw it in state of the art thearers and the most run down ones. In each one there was near silence during the sinking but also during the rest of the film. Why because there was characters we cared about. Plus they showed us what happened. We knew something had to have happened to Jack, we knew Rose never talked about her experiences, and plus we knew how the ship was going to sink. We knew what they didn't. We knew what they were going to face.------Now in Pearl Harbor we know the attack iscoming and that's it.(except if you paid attention in class,or read books, or watch the history channel)Plus by not ending it after the attack we know none of our three leads are going to bite the big one until another hour. The whole triangle has been done in almostevery military romabnce , two best friends/brothers have a friendship with a woman. She loves one of them and he loves her while the second man secretly loves her. The lover goes off to war and is supossedly shot down and the other two beome better friends and then lovers and on the day the other guy comes back war comes to town. Hell except for the war coming to town this was part of the part of Cider House Rules. Brukheimer has penis envy of every filmaker out there. Cameron does the sweeping romance against tragedy,Spielberg does a war film , so bruekheimer has to do a btter battle scene. Bay is a good second unit director. Ever Don Simpson died Brukheimer's film have gotten worse. the rock was his last great film and it's also micheal Bay's only good film.

  • May 24, 2001, 7:19 a.m. CST

    HOW IS THE SCORE??

    by CarreyAsBombadil

    Who cares about the characters, story line, length and direction? Normally I do, but we all knew it would be crap anyways. So the only thing I want to know is: HOW IS THE SCORE?? Vintage Bay score, or better/worse. I particularly loved the score for THe Rock, but of course this movie needs a more grand score. So tell me, good or bad??

  • May 24, 2001, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Almost no reference is made to Adolf Hitler

    by Hate_Speech

    "Some weird things go on in Pearl Harbor, too. Nearly all the scenes are orchestrated with music that is melodically similar to a slow version of Flashdance ("What a Feeling"). The Japanese, whom the filmmakers struggle to make sympathetic for international release but who nevertheless sneak attacked Pearl Harbor and killed 3,000 U.S. soldiers, come off as stock characters from a Benihana commercial. And almost no reference at all is made to the Germans or Adolf Hitler, who had something to do with World War II, I can't remember what."

  • May 24, 2001, 7:34 a.m. CST

    guilt

    by WFCall

    As of last Thursday I have done my duty as a responsible filmgoer. My wife and I went to see Memento. Loved it! It's truly original and and bears repeated viewings. I will go see Pearl Harbor sometime in the next week, and I am already preparing for the morning after guilt. I have every reason to believe that I will hate PH. I have hated every single Bay film thus far, and I am yet to see any reason to think otherwise about this one. But as someone who is a strong beliver in "if you have not seen it you can't critique it" thinking I have to go. I want to be surprised, I want to sit in the theater in awe, I want to squeel like a little girl when I see the Zero's coming in. But I won't. I'll hate it, and I'll hate myself the morning after for going to see it. I should just mail my 7 bucks to Disney direct, and cut out the middle man. Damn it! I hate being a mindless cow!

  • May 24, 2001, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Pearl Harbor sinks more than the Arizona

    by JedHarris

    I have just come home from the screening of Pearl Harbor here in good old Buffalo, New York, and I'm hungry for a real movie. What a boring mishmash, a stupefying rehash of everything Bruckheimer and Bay (B & B) have done before. There's even a shot where the pilots strut out of the hangar in the EXACT SAME goofy formation that the oil rigger astronauts used in Armageddon. The 45-minute bombing of Pearl Harbor is slick, but empty. It's video game, digital whoop-di-do time. The main problem is that the screenplay never really develops any characters, so you don't really care about anyone. The deaths at Pearl Harbor are cold and distant. B & B make the mistake of thinking we'd really care about a TV commercial-style action flick with a silly, and I mean SILLY love story around which to hang the well-known plot. Hey Ben Affleck, your 15 minutes are up. Couldn't you have tried to have read ONE line with feeling? Josh Hartnett is the better of the leads, and that's not saying much because the script is so empty-headed. Kate Beckinsale keeps losing her American accent. All the nurses are photographed as if they've stepped out of a retro-ad for hair care products. And why on earth did B & B decide to shoot the chaotic hospital scenes during the bombing as if we were watching 3-D without the glasses. What's with that? Or maybe the footage was damaged and B & B decided to pretend to be arty and figured that all that out-of-focus stuff and humans with light rings around them (halos?) would seem miraculous or mystical. Overall, on a scale of 1 - 10, Pearl Harbor earns a 4. On a scale of 4 Stars, it earns 2. On a letter scale of A+ to F-, it earns a C-. A great movie could have been made about Pearl Harbor and its strategic importance to America, it's history, why our bases were there, its native people and what they thought about white bread Yanks. But no, B & B wanted to have bombs away fun. Well, maybe this film's no total bomb, but its long and boring and at times the love story is laughable. The movie keeps repeating moments, as if, B & B and their screenwriter, Randall Wallace, truly had no ideas in their bag of FX tricks. This movie is less about Pearl Harbor and more about B & B's egos. I'm gonna go watch Tora Tora Tora and From Here To Eternity.

  • May 24, 2001, 7:54 a.m. CST

    How to write a movie review

    by fear of a ted

    Idea: Perhaps outline the movie briefly in the first paragraph so your play by play analysis....with....so....many.....pauses....between......sentences.....you....sound.....like....Kirk....will make sense and be coherent, instead of a guy who just got out of a movie and is babbling. Or not.

  • May 24, 2001, 8:18 a.m. CST

    I'd like to hear you thoughts in about two months Harry.

    by wato

    When I left Armageddon I thought "Well, that was...OK". That remained my opinion until I saw it again on video. I remember being so shocked that I gave that festering pile of poo any credibility. I know no-one cares, but I'm not going to see Peal Harbor. I can feel the manipulation a mile away. Michael Bay should not be given a pass just because he makes good looking films. A very pretty pile of poo is still a pile of poo. I'll watch the FX when my sister-in-law buys the DVD. That's about it.

  • May 24, 2001, 8:41 a.m. CST

    ok this and mummy 2 will make millions and billions

    by BComing

    last night i saw requiem for a dream, and i am stil...twitchy...but i just feel sick they they can spend $200millin plus on this and it will make that back and the mummy 2 will make $200million, and requiem makes less than $4 million. this is what i hate. i can see people keep saying it about memento, but remeber, it has already made more money than requiem. so sad.

  • May 24, 2001, 8:52 a.m. CST

    who couldve known?

    by jaminator45

    I had a gfeeling this thing would suck. One this harry didnt mention was whether or not it had that super fast editing style of Crapageddon. To me that was the worst thing about that movie. You could tell he was a music video director by all the fast cuts in that flick. Hopefully we dpont have more of that in this one

  • Just wondering....love the site but Moriarty has it all over Harry on almost all reviews. re: Hitler quote above maybe we will see Verhoeven's biopic in the coming years lol

  • May 24, 2001, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Better than 99% of this junk... (off topic)

    by Spamagnet

    Can I rant off-topic for a minute? I have not seen Pearl Harbor yet, but I wonder why I never see any news on the A&E "Horatio Hornblower" movies on this site. These movies are far better than 99% of the junk that comes out in the theater. Instead of another Hollywood clunker, let's hire these guys to film a movie about the battle of Trafalgar -- now that would be amazing! (rant over.)

  • May 24, 2001, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Nice review Harry

    by Twig

    At least I get to see ONE review from someone who's a bit objective on Bay, Bruckheimer and PH. I can only imagine the horsehit review Peter Travers is gonna have.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:09 a.m. CST

    I've got a novel idea....

    by Lyradremlap

    ...why don't you morons actually go SEE the movie before you start trashing it? You guys are pathetic.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:10 a.m. CST

    What's with this Harry Knowles guy?

    by heywood jablomie

    This movie sucks. Anyone who characterizes himself as a film geek would say that this movie sucks--even someone who, like me, likes Bay's other movies. The bottom line is that the movie is boring, the leads don't have the charisma to sustain a three-hour movie, and the script is the same bag of cliches trotted out in every Bay-Bruckheimer movie. (The tee-heeing cutie nurses. The comic-relief stuttering guy. The puppy who gets saved from...ecch.) There's nothing particularly interesting or argument-stimulating about the movie; it's just lame. Why is Harry Knowles such a softie? Is he afraid of pissing off Disney by slamming down hard on such a big movie? Is he so entrenched that now he has to lob softballs? Maybe it's time for somebody to start the Slamdance or Slumdance-esque alternative to this site.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Ewan Bremner in TRAINSPOTTING

    by drunken-master

    As someone mentioned, the boy played Spud in Trainspotting; being the wacky adventures of a group of Edinburgh finest smack-heads. He was fantastic. I can't belive Harry didnt note this, and i gotta say im starting to doubt his nerd credentials. I've also seen Bremner act on stage, he really is top drawer. I hear he is the best thing in this flag-waving Yank-fest of a movie?

  • May 24, 2001, 9:15 a.m. CST

    FDR knew some, not all

    by swordofmorning

    While FDR and his generals knew that the Japenese were going to attack the Phillipines, Guam, Hong Kong and French Indochina, there subsequent actions make no sense if they knew Pearl harbor would be attacked. There was no preperation on the Island at all. If the Japenese had hit the fuel dumps on the island like they planned, and as any American commander would expect them to,we could have lost the war. Thats 190,000,000 barrels of fuel. The remenamnts of the fleet would have to have retreated to the west coast for lack of fuel. That would have set the pacific war back by at least a year, and hundreds of thousands of more casulties against much more hardened positions. If they knew about the attack they would have prepared, America's "brave soldiers defeating a cowardly sneak attack' is surely better propaganda then "remember the dead of pearl harbor". There would have been war even if pearl harbor had not been touched, via the attacks on the Phillipines and Guam. I just don't think that theory makes sense, and in all my research I haven't seen proof, that anything more then a foul up in inteligence occured.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Harry needs a history lesson

    by OhWelles

    Harry should someday read more about the history of the 20th century before making comments like: "In 1941-42 America was a na

  • Let's see: Cameron turned the sinking of the Titanic into the heart warming tale of Leonardo DiCaprio porking Kate Winslet, and now Michael Bay turns all of WWII into Ben Affleck's quest for Poontang. I can hardly wait for Hollywood to redo the Ten Commandments, with Freddy Prinz Jr. as a Moses, trying to get into Sarah Michelle Geller's panties on prom night...

  • May 24, 2001, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Reminder.

    by Baker'sDozen

    Again, I am here just to request one thing of all who read this. Especially the naysayers that "know" this movie will blow ass but they're going to see it anyway. DO NOT GO TO SEE PEARL HARBOR OPENING WEEKEND. Scare the shit out them. Let them know that what they are doing is NOT OKAY. Even if you're dying to see this "movie", GO MONDAY. Just wait it out five more days, til you find out you're absolutely right and everything you presumed about the film was dead-on. Please, for the love of all that is artful and joyous of movies - BOYCOTT PEARL HARBOR OPENING WEEKEND. Do not forget, do not be weak. Go see Shrek, go see Memento, go see... Angel Eyes for God's sake - just anything but Pearl Harbor! If this post seems rash to you I invite you to look through the talkbacks of days past: http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=9127 Read through this, and do what you believe to be right. It WILL make a difference. Maybe we can get this thing's gross below Godzilla. Tell all your friends and family that don't know anything about movies - tell them not to go - tell them why! Send mass e-mails. Viva Resistance!

  • May 24, 2001, 9:38 a.m. CST

    Bay & Roosevelt: dirty capitalists

    by pngrata

    Okay, I don't know the guy personally, but from his films I get the impression that Bay is either genuinely stupid and unimaginative, or just a dirty capitalist willing to make excruciatingly shallow films just for the excruciatingly monstrous profits. Thus, I think it's interesting that he and Bruckheimer made a film about Roosevelt, who was also either EXCEEDINGLY stupid (we're talking about SERIOUS mental defects here), or was willing to kill a whole bunch of people and plunge an entire nation into war to serve his own political ends. Roosevelt almost certainly knew about Pearl Harbor in advance (and this is not ultra-conservative conspiracy theory crap). An Army report on the causes of Pearl Harbor from October 1944 say this: "Now let us turn to the fateful period between November 27 and December 6, 1941. In this period numerous pieces of information came to our State, War, and Navy Departments in all of their Top ranks indicating precisely the intentions of the Japanese including the probable exact hour and date of the attack." There is MUCH more evidence than this; you can go to geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html to see for yourself. Of course, this film will make loads of money, which means that the American public are also ridiculously stupid, or they're all a bunch of dirty masochists.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:39 a.m. CST

    It's actually pretty good

    by Maximus21

    I seen this movie last night and it's not as bad as some are saying. The problem is that people are going in with expectations above Titanic when they should be going in with expectations of Top Gun. Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer and even the love story don't hurt this movie. It's the script by the boring scriptwriter Randall Wallace. You know, the guy who wrote Braveheart. Randall Wallace is becoming the Vanilla Ice of screenwriters. His script costs this movie its greatness.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:47 a.m. CST

    The only reason Cuba Gooding is in this movie...

    by BloodDonorMan

    ...is to make the African American audience happy. Like Harry said, his character is totally non essential to the plot. Just like the black character in Gladiator and about every mainstream movie released. They're either comic relief or disposable characters. If the film makers of Pearl Harbor had any balls, they would have had Cuba play one of the members of the love triangle.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:48 a.m. CST

    So much misinformation out there...

    by Dagan

    The United States was still very much in the Depression at the time of Pearl Harbor. Things had gotten better, of course, but it wasn't getting better so much on the private side as it was on the government end of things - FDR gave lots of people things to do with Government projects and construction going wild in the thirties, but that was just a temporary solution, and it wasn't helping everybody. The Depression was still on. And we WERE pretty weak in those days. In 1940, the United States ranked EIGHTEENTH(!!!!!) in the world in military strength. Even countries like Holland were ahead of us then. That's how naive and isolationist we were in that time. It's hard to imagine the US today not being a military superpower, but back then we definitely were nothing of the sort. We got our way out of the Depression BECAUSE of World War II. Going from eighteenth to one in terms of military in just a few years required a massive amount of production, of course, and all over the country mobilization and production for the war was going on at an incredible pitch. That gargantuan coordinated effort to get into the war is what moved us out of the Depression. Also, I don't hold with the theory of FDR already knowing about the attack, but it IS possible. The fleet that was hit was almost all outdated warships. Some historians have gone so far as to call the attack on Pearl Harbor "idiotic" - because of the kinds of ships that were hit. Long on courage and logistical aplomb but short on strategic importance. So losing those ships really wasn't as big a deal to our Navy as some make it out to be. It would be and was the perfect wake up call for America. Of course, I don't think that that's how it went down, but it's definitely possible. Terrible that war has to get us out of our economic troubles. But then there's another theory - maybe Rooselvelt wanted to get in for just that reason... Ah, who knows.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:50 a.m. CST

    About my last post...

    by BloodDonorMan

    Obviously, I meant Cuba should have played one of the *male* members of the love triangle... but that would be pretty balsy, huh? A gay, multi-racial love triangle set in the 1940s? Ha!

  • May 24, 2001, 9:56 a.m. CST

    boycotting aint gonna work

    by SimianSidewalk

    First off if everyone that reads this site boycotts opening weekend this films is till gonna do at least 80 to 100 million this weekend. memorial day used to be about veterans and now it's all about seeing the big summer movie.Even though this one is about verterans what kid is going to give a rat's ass about the war. I'm 25. My 13 year old cousin asks my for help on homework so i tell him various history stories the other night I told him what I know about the real peral harbor and then he told me this girl in his class said Pearl harbor wasn't important. it didn't mean anything. nobody important died. It's just something that happened. His best friend(14) feels the same way. This is the youth of america folks. They like watching Private Ryan for the battle scenes, not because they are well done but because it's funny when a guy looks around for his detached arm. it's a said state of affairs where kids know more about downloading songs from napster than what happened in history. theonly good thing about this film may be that they learn something. I'm not saying all teens are like this but the majority do. And it's these kids that are picked for test screenings. these are the people who studios look to when they think a movie isn't working. Why am I going to sit through this move A I want to see it. B. I like war films. C. the FOTR trailer in front of it. Here's spmething sad about that. Not too many teens will be caught dead at a LOTR film because (not my words here) "it's science fiction. that's for nerds." I showed the first trailer to the above mentioned cousin he said he wanted to see it but when his friend saw it he said it sucks and so my cousin quickly changed his mind. So when you see the movie watch the teens in front of you and pay attention to their conversations. This will tell you where the future of the world and film is going.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Top Gun???

    by FunnyManJake

    C'mon now! We're supposed to go into this movie with the expectation level of "Top Gun"? I could understand if it was a lighthearted action romp no-brainer like "The Rock", but this is an event in history that is to be respected, and treated appropriately. If you're gonna do a movie on Pearl Harbor, do it right, without the trademark Bay action movie bullpuckey. If we took the "Top Gun" approach to every movie with historical significance, "Schindler's List" would've had "Schloman, the wacky comic-relief concentration-camp prisoner", and Ralph Fiennes character would've slid a fucking graham cracker down Helen Heirch's panties before he raped her.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Hey, Drunken-Master

    by Halloween68

    That's SPUDS not Spud. He didn't play a potato. But you're right about the fact that Trainspotting rocked. Still not enough to get me to see PH. Maybe on DVD on a dull pointless night.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:24 a.m. CST

    HARRY KNOWLES VOTED ONE OF WORST MOVIE REVIEWERS

    by Fish Tank

    Harry Knowles was recently given "Honourable Mention" for the Top Ten list of Most Suspect movie reviewers. I _believe_ it was People magazine. Ever since his favourable review of the Mummy 2 I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry thinks of any movie. That piece of celluloid-turd couldn't be recommended by anyone except maybe a ten year old. Too long, too much CGI and too much of the public's money wasted. How could somebody who loved "Requiem For a Dream" as much as I did enjoy a movie like The Mummy 2? Off topic? Not really. Remember that there are industry people that think _any_ review Harry gives as bogus.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:26 a.m. CST

    American Tragedy as Entertainment!

    by crouchingtiger

    Is this fucked up or what for Hollywood to exploit another tragedy a la Titanic to entertain the masses? At least Titanic made people feel empathetic to the people on the ship and value for the lives lost. This movie is baddd in a propaganda fascist way. The characters have no soul and alec baldwin's character is a pompous blowhard. This whole movie is about asian hating and the script is horrendous. The only thing good about this movie is the bombing sequences. But think to yourself, "I'm getting enjoyment out of the loss of life of Americans and the Human tragedy of the Bombing!" This stuff should be taught in schools to be revered and understood not to be embellished and canonized on the widescreen with this patriotic one-sided nonsense. Ben affleck makes me sick. He's fucking playing an American Hero, This from the guy who told all the kids to go out and vote and didn't even do so himself cause he's a hollywood superstar! This movie is one of the penultimate reasons why Hollywood reflects the emptiness of creativity in America.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:27 a.m. CST

    let's bomb pearl harbor again...c'mon, whaddya say!?

    by Westrum

    A lot of people are comparing this movie to Titanic...well, I didn't think much of Titanic either. good actors, good fx, bad script. you'd think these people could afford to spend a couple bucks on a better script? I'll see pearl harbor...hell, i went to armageddon in the theater and I hate that movie.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Seriously....

    by Anarky_Abounds

    I am starting to wonder about this site. It was my impression that it is taken seriously by people in Hollywood. I suppose the reasoning for that is word of mouth is more important than press junkets and publicity machines and this is a very big (electronic) mouth. Also a source of consternation, I'm sure, are the sneak photos of things like Spidey in costume, etc. However, I think the cracks are starting to show around here. For me it began with "Blow." It was described here as a tear-jerking heart-wrenching look at one man's life as he was swept up in the cocaine-fueled 70's and 80's. Knowing that the film had Johnny Depp in it made me really look forward to seeing the film. When it was over though, I began asking myself the question I am asking myself still: "Why does anyone take this site seriously?" Just as I am homing in on a solution, I read this dreck about "Pearl Harbor." Every word I have read about this movie has panned it. Even the allegedly positive reviews have only been not *as* negative. But Harry's review of the film seems almost DETERMINED to find redeeming qualities to the movie other than the effects. Putting all the Shatner-like pauses, failed humor ("PENTHOUSE FORUM LETTERISH") and pseudo-historic pontifications ("It was a time where the youth felt that nothing could touch them...") aside, it's a bad review. But it's exactly these qualities that show why it could never be a good review. Harry bought into the idea and premise that a 3-hour movie could capture what the attack on Pearl Harbor was like. Never mind that the characters are made up (were there no real stories to tell?), Harry *wants* this picture to work. When it doesn't, he tempers his remarks with platitudes like "It makes the scene redundant and less impactful

  • May 24, 2001, 10:31 a.m. CST

    M Bay, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor

    by txobri

    I loved Armageddon. I thought (and still think) that it's one of the best action films ever. Totally entertaining on a visceral, emotional level. However, there was probably at least 30 - 45 minutes that could have been taken out of that film, and no one would have ever noticed. The dog attacking Godzilla, the dude on the bike with the dog, the dude from "hanging with Mr. Cooper," the astronomer who hates his wife, none of this had anything to do with the story. For the first 15 minutes, it's hard to tell who we are even supposed to hang on to as continuing characters. Obviously, Bay likes what he does, and likes to have fun with it. The thing he misses is the ability to edit out some of the stuff that he enjoyed doing, but doesn't belong. I will watch Pearl Harbor, and I'll probably enjoy it. But only because, as Harry said, I'm able to find the greatness for myself. I wish that this could have been the absolute classic that it should have been.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:36 a.m. CST

    FDR did not know about the attack, you morons

    by Honky Avenger

    I swear, some of you people will believe anything. Read this. It has some big words, so read slow: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html. If FDR had wanted to get into a war with Japan, getting the bulk of the Pacific fleet bombed isn't the best way to do it. Plus, even if he knew about it (and he didn't know Pearl was gonna be a target, but they knew an attack was coming somewhere), he could have achieved the same effect by putting the base on alert. America would still have been outraged, we would still have declared war on Japan, but if the base knew the attack was coming, we would have saved a LOT of American lives. You conspiracy nutjobs should really think on your own once in awhile. You might like it.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Michael Bay is a virus

    by Mortadelo

    The guy is not a real filmaker. He only does expensive and spectacular videoclips. 3 hours comercials. That

  • May 24, 2001, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Moulin Rouge and a few history factoids

    by BigJackieV

    I've a bad metaphor/two line review of MOULIN ROUGE: Like beer. You'll resist at first, but eventually you'll get drunk and love it. It's intoxicating. ----------------------------------On the FDR knows about the attack crap... to simply let the Japanese destroy a significant chunk of the fleet is just stupid, people. What about the fact that, when footage escaped from China in 1937 of Japanese attacking American ambassadors (in addition to other heinous things) FDR withheld the footage from newsreels? What about the fact that Pearl Harbor commanders, afraid of Japanese sabotuers (Hawaii has a very large Japanese population) bunched up all aircraft in the middle of airfields (away from the fences). Well, that had a negative effect when the bombers came in. What about the subsequent naval battles which were all NARROW victories? Not once did the US simply overpower the Japanese, it was always a matter of them making the first or biggest mistake. At Midway, Coral Sea, the Philippines, they had very big chances of taking us out. Believe it or not, revisionists, it WOULD HAVE been helpful to have the USS Arizona protecting our carriers. Or perhaps I was reading one of those books written to hide the evil conspiracies of the world.

  • May 24, 2001, 10:55 a.m. CST

    I'll see this movie for one reason

    by Piddle

    A friend and I are going to see this next weekend. We plan on sitting in the last row, and yell "MONEY SHOT !!!" repeatedly at the appropriate scenes. You all know which type I'm talking about. They're the ones that are shot not for moving the plot forward, but because they look "really cool" or "has high emotional value because it's in slow-motion". This is the worst type of cinema.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:03 a.m. CST

    The more I see of Ben Affleck, the more I wish he'd go away.

    by Fatal Discharge

    To think this guy made breakthroughs in Chasing Amy and WON AN OSCAR for writing Good Will Hunting. He should stick to comedies I think. I hate to think what he'll do to Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan character - wretch! As for Michael B-b-b-b-bay the opening of Bad Boys was the absolute worst start of a film I've ever seen. The Rock was my favorite of his in spite of the idiotic plot. Armageddon was fun in parts but the often-criticized fast cutting was a major turn-off for me. What pisses me off about Pearl Harbor is using a horrific real-life event where people were slaughtered by others as wiz-bang PG entertainment.

  • When Japan is was exercising their imperialism in China we had mercenaries fighting for General Chennaut under the "Flying Tigers" using Curtis P-40's. They were a good test against the Japanese planes to see what they're flying capabilities were like. The U.S. embargoed oil and steel(Pig iron.) from Japan when they wouldn't let up on their campaign, so that pissed them off. When the Japanese ambassadors broke off relations with the U.S. and left in a hurry, Roosevelt knew the war was ready to start. He needed to get us into it because we had just come out of a depression and we needed to kick start the economy. There was an American sub out on patrol that spotted the fleet and they either couldn't get through or the message was taken for granted. Also, the squadron of Zero's on their way in to Honolulu was mistaken for a squadron of B-17's coming in from Manila to Hickham Field. Nobody believed they would attack a U.S. base. Granted, Roosevelt should have put the base on alert and we would have had less casualties and still gotten into the war, but he didn't because he knew that this would infuriate the public, which it did. The Japanese believe in undeclared war and under their flag, they can attack anytime or anyone they want, believing its okay to do so. Look at the Japanese-Russo war of 1904 and destruction of Port Arthur. Could the raid on Pearl Harbor have been prevented? No, but it could have a more even fight had they been ready.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:06 a.m. CST

    HARRY, WHERE ARE THOU ?

    by astrodog

    the only thing alive in this project, is the insane, monstruous, rampant amount of money Disney want to make. the buzz around the movie will take care of that. the movie itself doesn't matter anymore. it could have been shot by Schumacher, whatever. telling people PH is going to be great, with flashy Man the guns and kate-liv look-alike, is enough. and they'll be thousands rushing to the booth on opening night, an apocalyptic sight, truely. come on harry, just don't defend these corporate motherfuckers. don't hope for a PH super duper poster in your room or more screenings on your carnet de rendez-vous.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:09 a.m. CST

    While I'm here... TITANIC RULES!

    by BigJackieV

    Since it's getting mentioned here and there I'd just like to add that Titanic's success was NOT because of 12 year-old Leo fanatics (what happened to THE BEACH? You gonna blame the R-rating?) but because: 1) Hollywood hadn't made a straight-forward, non-cynical, sweeping epic love story for a long time. 2) It was well written. Yes, that's right, I just said Titanic was well written. Sure, it had some really HORRID dialogue, but dialogue does not a movie make. It's as solidly constructed a film screenplay-wise as you can get. Also, James Camera's camera will linger on a shot for more than five seconds. And he doesn't suck like Michael Bay does. Alec Baldwin on Letterman last night showed a clip of him as Dolittle rallying some pilots... damn did it suck.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:12 a.m. CST

    While I'm here... TITANIC RULES!

    by BigJackieV

    Since it's getting mentioned here and there I'd just like to add that Titanic's success was NOT because of 12 year-old Leo fanatics (what happened to THE BEACH? You gonna blame the R-rating?) but because: 1) Hollywood hadn't made a straight-forward, non-cynical, sweeping epic love story for a long time. 2) It was well written. Yes, that's right, I just said Titanic was well written. Sure, it had some really HORRID dialogue, but dialogue does not a movie make. It's as solidly constructed a film screenplay-wise as you can get. Of course, if that film got released this year it wouldn't work as well. It just came out at the right time. Also, James Camera's camera will linger on a shot for more than five seconds. And he doesn't suck like Michael Bay does. Alec Baldwin on Letterman last night showed a clip of him as Dolittle rallying some pilots... Seriously, what's wrong with putting the camera on a tripod and just SHOOTING? There might as well be placards or light-up signs like at game shows: APPLAUSE. TEARS. GASPS. GIVE MONEY.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Damn straight on Aykroyd.

    by Sgt. Bilko

    The guy's a fantastic actor, but for some reason he just can't pick scripts. Looks like he's taking smaller roles now, i.e. Pearl Harbor, Evolution, and Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Hopefully these parts will help to redeem him a bit for those who thinks he's sucked since Belushi died. I couldn't disagree more, but he's made some really crappy films to be sure. Dr. Detroit, anyone?

  • May 24, 2001, 11:18 a.m. CST

    the movie is awful

    by HotNewFilm

    everyone can basically sit here and scream until they are blue in the face about how good the special effects were and, you know, they are right. as much as i found the film to be utterly wortheless and completely mechanical, one hour of the film is worth watching as a fireworks display. bay's direction is puerely puerile and more than offensive. a friend at a marxist website sent me the following review and it basically hit the nail on the head: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/archive/pearlharbor.html

  • May 24, 2001, 11:18 a.m. CST

    $$

    by kittycat

    It

  • May 24, 2001, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Sorry, Uncapie, you're just wrong

    by Honky Avenger

    It's not patriotism, it's simple logic. (Did you read that page on straightdope.com? It responds to a lot of your points.) FDR did NOT NOT NOT have to allow the Pacific fleet to be destroyed, both according to logic and history. The American public was ALREADY in favor of war with Japan. I do appreciate your healthy cynicism, but it's misplaced in this one instance.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:21 a.m. CST

    From Here to Eternity

    by Duke Ray

    I've been wondering for quite a while why nobody has compared PH to the incredible, classic FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, directed by the great Fred Zinneman. I mean, that's a great movie with love stories that climaxes with the attack on Pearl Harbor. From day one w/ PH, I've thought "what's the point? How are they going to top Zinneman's movie?" So, if anybody wants to see a non-jingoistic take on the people around that event this Memorial Day weekend, go rent FROM HERE TO ETERNITY and ditch Bay's phony-ass 3 hour commercial. duke ray out.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:24 a.m. CST

    C'mon, give me a break

    by Nitz

    I didn't want to waste everyone's valuable time by trashing Pearl Harbor, cause I haven't seen it yet. But, I look very much forward to seeing it. I mean, the majority of you guys are dissing Michael Bay, because it's hip too. I mean, I liked Armageddon, the editing kicked ass. Bad Boys was good. Instead of bitching about it, and wasting my time, why don't you just boycott it and not see it, instead of bitching about "I'm not going to see it...Bay Sucks...blah blah blah." Then, fuck you, don't go see it, but don't waste my time, while I'm trying to get a decent opinion of the pic and have to wade through about 300 posts of just bullshit about how bad it sucks. C'mon, it's a summer spectacle to make jack, that's all. Of course it's not going to be an accurate portrait of Pearl Harbor, if you want that, stay home Friday and watch the Fucking History Channel, For Chrissakes.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Harry, You're a disgrace.

    by Drexel Spivey

    First off you're not the fucking editor of the film so please don't give us your notes on what should be cut from the film. Nobody cares what your hopes for the film were. How about commenting on what appears on the screen instead of what your silly little masturbatory dreans of what might have been. Second, please tell me how it is that you can rant and rave about WB destroying Scooby Doo, a fucking cartoon (and not a very good one at that) and then let Bay go with destroying perhaps the most important moment in US history since the cival war by saying "I liked it". Scooby Doo, even if it were great, even if Scorsesse directed, is irrelevant and will be forgotten six months after its release. I have to live with Bay's pea brained romantic vision of Pearl Harbor for the next 20 years until somebody else gets the balls to retell the story and hopefully tell it right. Where are your priorities. I generally cringe when I read one of your articles (if you can call them that) but I've never felt the need to write. Now that I have I onely want to say one more thing. You disgust me.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:40 a.m. CST

    forget this, then

    by abcdefz

    Only one of Bay's movies -- The Rock -- had elements enough to interest me: Sean and Nic. Basically, I see ads for his movies and think, "That looks like crap." The trailers for Pearl Harbor looked really, really good, and I was hoping that maybe he'd made the sort of artistic leap people like John Mellencamp or the Beastie Boys did, when suddenly one day you turn around and they've become artists instead of idiots. But from the stream of negative reviews (check Rotten Tomatoes, etc.), I'm definitely not plunking down my cash for this. It'd be cool to see the forty-minute money sequence, but life's too short and integrity's too spare...

  • May 24, 2001, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Jesus Christ.

    by FunnyManJake

    Look, I know it may be fashionable and/or cool to rag on Harry, but dude, what the hell's the point?? I'm not trying to kiss Harry's ass here, but can't you guys ragging on him realize that it's HIS opinion? If he likes the movie, good for him, if you don't like it, fine, but just because you think it sucks, doesn't mean that the entire world's gonna take your view. Okay, so his reviews may be a bit choppy and drivel-ish, but he was okay with the movie, and no amount of you taking out your geekish rage on him is gonna change his opinion. So, hate the movie if you like, but don't jump on people because they don't think like you.

  • May 24, 2001, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Where's Orson Welles when you need him?

    by Fame Whore

    I've read nothing but negative reviews on Pearl Harbor. Jerry "Fleshdance" Bruckheimer and Michael "Blow Everything Up" Bay have done it again. These guys aren't filmmakers they're moneymakers, let's face it. This is what's happening to film today. I'm not a huge fan of the emotionally vacant Robert Redford, but I agree with his comments about what's happening to the film industry today. Studios in the 70's & 80's noticed that indie films like "Easy Riders" were hugely popular. So they jumped on the bandwagon of indie films and art films. Suddenly the filmmaker was the star (Scorsese, Coppolla, DePalma, etc). Nowadays, studios are owned by corporations and corporate execs are not interested in art they are interested in profit. Corporate execs want to please their shareholders. Studio execs now have to kick Disney's ass and put something, anything that is not risky, edgy, abstract (i.e. Memento). Something generic that cater to the masses. That means any piece of crap that will make money is pimped like crazy to the general public. Art films have pushed aside in favor of pieces of lard like Mummy 2 and Pearl Harbor. As one reviewer suggested, let's do something truly heroic and patrotic and not support a film that cashes in on a major tragedy! P.S. If you want an epic movie with wonderful dialogue, amazing camera work, and wel-drawn characters, rent Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai". Nuff said.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:05 p.m. CST

    To Funny Man

    by Drexel Spivey

    That's right, jackass, it is his opinion and the negative comments are our opinions. That is the point of "Talkback". If Harry can rant and insult other reviewers, filmmakers and studio suits then why shouldn't we voice our opinion. What, we might hurt his feelings? Sorry but I think his fat overblown ego can handle it.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:06 p.m. CST

    by STRIDER355

    We need to rally together and make sure that the gross income for this movie is about $5 million. That will teach the likes of Bay to keep the glossy, unreal, popcorn flicks in genres that they work in: which does not include World War II. --strider out.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:07 p.m. CST

    FUCK BAY

    by STRIDER355

    We need to rally together and make sure that the gross income for this movie is about $5 million. That will teach the likes of Bay to keep the glossy, unreal, popcorn flicks in genres that they work in: which does not include World War II. --strider out.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Hmmmm....

    by FunnyManJake

    Spiv-meister...I see your point. In the spirit of voicing our own opinions then.....you're a shit-eating clown.

  • My best friend's dad was on the U.S.S. Utah at Pearl Harbor when they were bombed and my dad was a flight engineer on B-17's for the 8th U.S.A.A.F.(Where Heathrow airport is now.) I'd say they had first hands on experience of what was going on since you or I weren't even born yet. And if you call either of them liars, you're full of shit.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Michael Bay

    by HypnoToad

  • May 24, 2001, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Michael Bay

    by HypnoToad

    Haven't liked a single one of his films. Yawn. When are people going to tire of explosions for the sake of explosions? If I gave Bay a script that has one line in it and asked him to film it - that line being "some redneck sucks off a house cat" - he'd find some moronic way to add explosions, badly written dialogue, and a sappy, overblown conclusion. As I said, yawn, and no thank you. I'll spend my money elsewhere. AND if there's any truth to the rumor of Bay directing the next Hannibal Lecter movie, that's a franchise I'll have to stop seeing.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:54 p.m. CST

    raceism in war movies

    by KyleKrane

    Will this movie make me hate japanese people like Disney's "ALAMO" movie made me hate mexicans? Maybe its time to go watch "Lone Star" again.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:56 p.m. CST

    One Of 4 Men Who Could Be Pa Maverik Was A Pilot In The Big One

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...though it is not publicly known, was the only flyer in any country's Air Corps to have successfully shot down a foo fighter and I'm not talking about Dave Grohl's band. They weren't from outer space and they weren't vehicles. They were actually extra-dimensional windows controlled by beings attracted to our sphere of reality by atomic tests and the Philadelphia Experiment, which Pa also participated in. Pa was a military prisoner who earned his freedom from the stockade when a tough Colonel arranged for the release of a a quartet of cons to carry out a suicide mission. You've heard of 'em. THE FILTHY FOUR. Pa was the lone survivor.

  • May 24, 2001, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Harry's DVD comments: Remember when a movie was a movie on it ow

    by Charles Grady

    Remember the good old days when a movie spoke for itself, when you'd see it on the big screen, then video, then HBO, then you'd see it over and over again, and it was still the same great movie? Don't get me wrong, I love my DVD player, but I think a movie should be complete on its own, that we shouldn't need "DIRECTOR'S COMMENTARY" and "DELETED SCENES" and "STORYBOARDS" to COMPLETE the experience. I don't mean that stuff shouldn't be on the DVD....indeed, it can be interesting WHEN it's a film you want to know as much about as possible. But I've noticed, as with Harry's comments, a lot of reviewers and even filmmakers the last few years saying, "If you love the movie, just wait for the DVD" or "maybe this will be fleshed out on the DVD." Am I the only one who thinks they oughta get it right the first time, that the movie on the silver screen should be the true document of the film, that DVD extras should be supplemental rather than integral to appreciating a movie?

  • May 24, 2001, 1:18 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry, but who the @#$% cares about special effects in a mov

    by superninja

    These are the kinds of movies that require a personal touch on all parts and a director that can create a moment in time for the audience. Bay has never made a personal movie, EVER!!! If you look at the cinematography for this film (based on the trailer), it's so glossy that it doesn't even look like history. Please. Michael Bay & Bruckheimer have suceeded again at making the American audience look like mindless assholes...

  • May 24, 2001, 1:56 p.m. CST

    trouble

    by LGehrig

    This is the second movie in a week which I have seen that is all style and no substance (the other being Mummy Returns). Absolutely no substance whatsoever. Images washing over my eyes and vanishing into oblivion. Pointless dialogue buzzing in my ear like a gnat. All of the shameless American flag stuff is actually embarassing I think. This film, as with the Mummy Returns, is a complete and utter waste of $8. I want to now try and erase it from my memory banks.

  • May 24, 2001, 2:09 p.m. CST

    If You Too Would Like To Stop Feeling Guilty, Ask Yourself,"What

    by Buzz Maverik

    The answer is, Go out and get a tattoo of a bumblebee with a cigar chomped between his teeth. The bee will be holding a banner that says, "Suffer ye no guilt." Have the tattoo placed on a part of your body that you look at often, like your stinger. That way, whenever you think of a country that has the nerve to not be America, especially France, you'll snarl, "Nuke 'em." It also helps to be a sociopath.

  • May 24, 2001, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Uncapie, you're so silly it's amusing.

    by Y Pac

    So your "best friend's Grandpa" knew all about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor just because he was on the Utah? Gee, I suppose every passenger on the Titanic knew it was gonna hit an iceberg. =P You know, most of us have a grandfather, or a friend that had a grandfather, that served in WW II. It doesn't mean that your silly conspiracy theories are correct. Thusly, the only person "full of shit" here is quite apparent to all of us.

  • May 24, 2001, 2:17 p.m. CST

    The Birth Of Liberal Guilt - - A College Dorm Room - - 1965 - -

    by Buzz Maverik

    "Gee, I sure don't want to go to Vietnam and get my nuts shot off. I'd rather stay here in the states and get high and get laid." "Speaking of getting laid, I was talking politics with this chick the other night, like your supposed to do since it's the 60s, and I said war is bad, yada yada, but what're you going to do when you're attacked, like we were in World War II? Not only would she not put out, she called me as fascist and threw me out of her room!" "You guys realize what we're going to have to don't you? Since we're all getting our PHDs and are going to be college professors, we're going to have to condemn every action the U.S. has ever taken or ever will take for the rest of our lives. We'll have to pass this sentiment on to hundreds of thousands of students." "That's a great idea. That way, we won't have to get shot and we can keep having sex with hippie chicks!" Repeat this scene in every college in the U.S. As for other countries who echo these guys sentiments, they've been listening to France too much.

  • Jim, Stop screwing around in space and give us a reason to watch films in the summer again.

  • May 24, 2001, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Racism Is Spelled R-A-C-I-S-M. You Drop The "E".

    by Buzz Maverik

    I'll never win a spelling bee myself, but Jeezus!

  • May 24, 2001, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Uncapie, you're too funny

    by Honky Avenger

    You're best friend's dad was at Pearl Harbor, and he knew it was going to be bombed. Right. Woulda been nice of him to have told the rest of the base, too, so maybe they wouldn't have gotten their asses blown off. (Or did his good buddy FDR ask him not to spill the beans?) HA! He found out the same time the rest of the base found out, early Sunday morning. And no, I'm not saying he's a liar -- I'm saying you're wrong.

  • May 24, 2001, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Seance Time. Everybody Join Hands. Buzz "Boo" Maverik Attempts T

    by Buzz Maverik

    I am not going to say that we are going to contact the spirit of Don Simpson because Simpson had no soul. He has, however, left behind a bio-electric stain on the multiverse that we can reach. "Don? It's Buzz Maverik? Gettin' any?" "Dead hookers mostly, Buzz. I did score with Jean Seberg and Jayne Mansfield, though! Owww! Watch it with that pitchfork, asshole!" "Wow! Sounds like Heaven's a little rougher than I'd imagined there, Don." "You have no idea." "So, what do you think of Jerry's movie PEARL HARBOR." "I haven't seen it yet, Buzz. About all we get here are the POLICE ACADEMY movies." "Sweet! Sharon Stone was in one." "Yeah. I put the moves on her once when I was alive, but she maced me." "Can you blame her, Don." "Of course not." "So, what's the dish on Jerry?" "People bad mouth Jerry, but if I had to be stranded with any of the Survivors it'd be her. Have you checked on the body on her, I mean--" "Not Jerrie Manthley, Don, although I agree with you. I'm talking about Jerry Bruckheimer, your ex-partner." "What people don't know is that I carried Jerry all those years. These are the kinds of movies he always wanted to make. In retrospect, makes TOP GUN, BEVERLY HILLS COP and FLASHDANCE look pretty good, doesn't it?" "I'll say. What do you make of all this anti-Bay sentiment here on AICN?" "What's Bay ever really done to those guys? He made some movies. So the talkbackers don't like 'em. I got no problem with talkbackers who say 'I don't like Bay's movies and here's why' but I don't understand all these guys who say Mike should die and he's the anti-Christ." "Did somebody say Bay is the anti-christ?" "No, but they've thought it." "Can you read their thoughts?" "No, but this demon I'm seeing here put the thoughts in their heads." "Ah. Well, I'll let you go--" "If you see Heidi, tell her fuck her for cuttin' me off." "Gotta go, Don!"

  • May 24, 2001, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Ewan Bremner

    by ttocsin

    Harry, you must have forgotten two of Ewan Bremner's best roles-Spud in TRAINSPOTTING and Julien in JULIEN DONKEY-BOY.

  • nt

  • May 24, 2001, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Honkey Avenger, learn to read.

    by Uncapie

    Don't put your revisionist world in my talkback. They have a thing called a newspaper. People, businessmen can speculate what's going to happen. I never said that the specific target was Pearl Harbor, but logistics had the bulk of the fleet there, so it only stands to reason. Japanese spies knew this and sent the information back with detailed plans to plan for the attack. The U.S. figured if they were going to start anything, it would have been the Philippines, New Guinea and the Solomon Islands working their way up to take control of Micronesia where they would have had control of the South Pacific. There is a large quantity of rubber trees there(Gaskets, tires, boots, etc.) that would have aided their war effort. The U.S. army and navy figured no one country could be that bold to take on an entire American base with most of the fleet there. They did take the South Pacific for a while, but in reverse. Anyway, you should have learned to pay attention in history class after you took the short bus to school. You don't sound very bright.

  • May 24, 2001, 3:33 p.m. CST

    sos

    by chiknfriedelfsac

    I haven't read aicn, or much of any movie forum, for months, having dedicated my spare time obsessing over other worthless pursuits. Now I'm just getting back into the swing of movies, and I come back to see the big movie event is: Pearl Harbor. :sigh: Having seen one preview for this film at a recent movie, I can say that the trailer left me as flat as a convention of Brownie scouts. Michael Bay is the epitome of the problem that plagues not only motion pictures these days, but also much of society at large: style over substance. I realize this is hardly a new development in films (or society for that matter); perhaps as i get older I merely become more acutely aware of this lack of depth in everything. I am not adverse to "popcorn" movies, i enjoy them and they have their place, especially in the summer. But when a movie is just blatantly idiotic, or tries to come across as having a serious message or tone when fails to present anything of the kind: well, that really pisses me off, frankly. Armaggedon (did I spell that right? I'm losing it), evaluated on a box office versus quality basis, is possibly the worst movie of all time. Even worse than ID4, which i liked at least somewhat the first time in the theater, if not much in subsequent viewings. When Billy Bob, the man who made Sling Blade, said the line, "I'd like to shake the hand of the daughter of the bravest man in the world," I literally burst into tears laughing, as did my girlfriend at the time. Of course, others in the theatere were in tears too, from the ::cough:: genuine emotion of the moment. Hum, guess I just don't get it. I can only imagine the poetic beauty and hearfelt emtions Bay could rend from a subject matter as sensitive as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The horror. Perhaps I will see the Mummy Returns after all.

  • May 24, 2001, 3:39 p.m. CST

    the definitive quote on why michael bay is the devil

    by hisroyalhigh

    ALBERT BROOKS IN BROADCAST NEWS: "What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail... He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... He will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance...Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen..."

  • May 24, 2001, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Looks to me like...

    by Bandito

    ...like Harry spent the whole film bent over, pants at his ankles having dollar bills poked into his arse by Michael Bay.

  • May 24, 2001, 3:40 p.m. CST

    to the people who said bay films are "fun" (repost)

    by hisroyalhigh

    ahem -- this is a compelling argument especially since i have not looked at my watch as many times throughout the previous duration of my life as i did during armageddon and nearly two rows of people walked out of the rock when i saw it in theaters (not me). i think his films are quite the opposite---boring and lifeless and cold and obvious. he usually fails at the the very things he is attempting to anchor his movies to --- effects, pyrotechnics, explosions, etc. etc. i think he's possibly the worst director working today---he is given these megabudgets and still fails nearly across the board except perhaps his trailers, which incidentally seem to be replacing word-of-mouth as a box office determinant. but maybe that's just me. and if you really, seriously think his films are somehow fun (in their intended sense), why do you still pardon mr. bay for not injecting an ounce of content that rises above profoundly retarded? if bay's films themselves are "about" anything at all, they are inadvertent (i assume) studies in bar-lowering it's not about eliteness or snobbery, it's about demanding products that do not underestimate and insult the american public at large so regularly, that we start believing we are as unintelligent as these directors are assuming (or telling us) we are. so i've had it with this guy and i'm not seeing any more of his films, ever. and my word is good: i haven't seen a george lucas-dir. film made past 1977 and have no desire to.

  • May 24, 2001, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Harry's reviews are getting so fucking lame...

    by JMYoda

    Harry is so fucking lame anymore, he refuses to say he didn't like Pear Harbor cuz he doesn't want to piss of the Disney folks since they give him free lunches. What a crock. I'm gonna wait for this one to come out on video, borrow it from a friend, tape the pear harbor bomb sequence (which I will watch after "Torra Torra Torra" and before 30 Seconds over Tokyo"). Michael Bay isn't just immature. He's a no talent hack. Even if he "grew up" he'd still be a no talent hack. Armagedon was the biggest festering pile of dog shit I ever sat through. The only Bay film I kinda liked was "The Rock" and that was because Sean Connery carried the film with his "what may have become of the orginal Bond" role. Bay doesn't make movies, he makes cut scenes for videogames. Lots of cool explosions but not much else. A film dealing with such an important historical event should have been giving the same kind of treatment Speilberg gave his brilliant masterpiece "Saving Private Ryan". Instead we get a typical manu factored hollywood action flick that wants to be a WWII answer to "Titanic". Bay should be forced to dive bomb into the Atlantic with a Mitsubishi Zero for making this crap. The great heroes who fought WWII and gave us all the freedom we enjoy today deserved so much more.

  • May 24, 2001, 3:50 p.m. CST

    ...And another thing.

    by JMYoda

    Why does the film have to have a couple young pretty boys in the lead? Why couldn't the main characters been more mature ala Hanks in SPR. It makes the love story nothing but puppy love and who wants to see a 3 hour movie about puppy love? Not to mention Ben Affylk is one of the worst actors of this Generation. When will people learn he has no talent and he's just riding the coat tails of his buddy (and possibly more???) Matt Damon? When I see a WWII film I want a Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Humphry Bogart, John Wayne, Sean Connery or Tom Hanks. Not some kids who looks like they'd be more at home at the GAP.

  • May 24, 2001, 4:16 p.m. CST

    A lot of these TB'ers are making Harry's review look like the m

    by AntoniusBloc

    A lot of you are being too hard on Harry, and my guess is, since i haven't seen the film yet, too hard on Bay and PH. The impression i get from Harry's reviews is a guy who just loves movies. He seems passionate about film, so when he criticizes, he does so seeing the potential of where the film went wrong. I think criticism of Bay is a little too harsh. Bay does a certain type of film, kind of like Spielberg, that appeals to the masses, and he's good at it. He never claimed to be this artsy genius director, so don't compare his films to the Memento's or the Requiem for a Dream type films. Bay directed commercials, so what?he dealt with creating images that look good on the screen, and movies are mostly about images, like it or not. I'm not saying i'm a huge fan of Bayheimer. they do tend to insert corny , unnecessary one liners and scenes, but the thing is, they do it intentionally. that is their style. they admit to it, i heard it on the audio track of the Rock dvd. I was excited when i heard Randall Wallace(Braveheart) wrote the screenplay, and i thought this would be a good opportunity to see what Bay could do with a serious epic. a chance for him to go to the next level, like Cameron with Titanic(good movie, couldn't get past my hatred for DiCaprio as an actor.Mis-casting can kill a movie). then i heard that wallace walked in the middle upset with changes, and that's not a good sign. so, if Bay and Bruck resorted to their old ways,(for ex, testing audience reaction to every scene), on a film like this, they deserve to be criticized. I have no problem with it being long, epics are supposed to be(remember Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur). I do have a problem with all these knee jerk cries of racism.I hope that the remarks about racism are simply paranoid reactions and are exaggerated, as i suspect they are. My race is asian, but i am an american firs and proud of it. If Bay evokes american patriotism with his images, more power to him, especially for a World War II movie. Anyway, i'm gonna see this movie regardless because the new Lord of the Rings trailer will be playing! Take that you God forsaken, intellectual elite communists! (A marxist website to get a movie review? thanks, but no thanks)

  • May 24, 2001, 4:18 p.m. CST

    oh yeah, and speaking of the lead

    by chiknfriedelfsac

    What the hell is up with Ben Affleck? Why does anyone want to see this guy? There are three types of movie stars. There are guys who disappear into their roles (actors): well, these types of people usually don't become stars, DeNiro perhaps a good example here of one who actually became a star. There are people who really aren't incredible actors, but have great presence and charisma onscreen: hum, Sean Connery is one of these people. Then there are people who have both great acting ability and great onscreen charisma, i.e. Jack Nicholson. Oh wait, there's a fourth category, persons who have neither acting ability nor onscreen presence: humm...like Ben Affleck!! The only times I can ever stand him are in Kevin Smith movies, or perhaps Good Will Hunting, but even then I was hardly blown away. His buddy Matt Damon, despite looking somewhat like a bulldog from certain angles, is by far the better actor, not that that's saying much. I suppose he's good-looking, but I can't even see why girls would want to see him in movies. He has absolutely no personal magnetism onscreen, he's bland as a vanilla wafer dipped in tap water. His acting sounds like he's reading lines off of a teleprompter, and trying really hard to do them right, but just not cutting it. He seems like a nice guy, and I wish him well, but I don't like wasting my time watching his feeble attempts to act. Perhaps a talk show host spot will become available? ::scratches::

  • May 24, 2001, 6:29 p.m. CST

    We all talk shit, but we're still gonna see it.

    by Xphile69

    We all talk shit, but we're still gonna see "Pearl Harbor". I know I'm gonna see it, even though I really don't want to. So, talk away, and then cough up your $8.50 for something you hate.

  • May 24, 2001, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Michael Bay makes the best...

    by fskritz

    ...trailers & music videos. He's got a visual flair that you cannot deny. Frankly, it can be captivating. And that makes him the perfect music video director. When you only have 2 minutes, visual cliches (such as boy scouts hiking or flags waving) set up a scene well. When you've got 3 HOURS the audience needs a little more (like real characters and compelling story). And, BTW, using swooping crane shots every 5 minutes DIMISHES their punch when you want them. Lovely technique, no cinematic sensiblities...

  • May 24, 2001, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Ben affleck

    by ProFromDover

    Ben Affleck is a better actor when he is fatter. Compare him in chasing Amy and Dazed and Confused where he gave good performances to armageddon where he was horrible, along with the rest of the movie except for the Tull reference.

  • May 24, 2001, 9:38 p.m. CST

    I'm Glad You Brought Up The National Guard, Angel 66....

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...because I'd like to talk about the California MK-Ultra National Guard and how it's being used here in California. See, the MK Ultra Guard has a proud history. Back in the hippy days, you could be listening to the Strawberry Alarm Clock or Vanilla Fudge or my personal favorite The Seeds ("Yer pushin' too hard, yer pushin' too hard, yer pushin' too hard...on me!") studyin' for your Sosh final, then you get a call from your controller and blam! You're in the Nam, killing a Russian advisor. Everybody thinks you just did some brown acid and took off for the Haight or perhaps Death Valley with those Manson jokers. You come back and you should have flunked, but you got a good grade. Now, our current situation is different. Our governor, Gray Davis, wants to use the MK Ultra guard to lean on power company officials under the laws of eminem domain. The reason I call this into question is that his name is GRAY Davis. As in gray alien with the big eyes and the slit nose and mouth and the inverted tear drop head and the butt probing and the cattle mutilating. I think you see what I mean. Oh, and by and large, the anti-war movement was self-interest, baby. Except for the dedicated few that made true sacrafices, your rank and file voted for Reagan and are now claiming that they were Airbourne Green Beret Special Operations Recon Lurp Marine Seals.

  • May 25, 2001, 12:25 a.m. CST

    BAY NOT DIRECTING RED DRAGON, SHITHEADS

    by Mulengro

    In an interview with Garth of DarkHorizons fame, Michael Bay said he is not directing Red Dragon. This site officially sucks.

  • May 25, 2001, 2:13 a.m. CST

    What a bullshit review.

    by carterburke

    It was good but it was bad? Are you waiting for the check to clear before you announce it was crap? The reviews are in, Pearl Harbor is a bad movie to everyone but shills. Bad director, 'Hollywood' fool producer and lot's of hype... Does it need to be spelled out?

  • May 25, 2001, 2:26 a.m. CST

    Alternatives to "Pearl Harbor" -- "The Road Home"

    by Art House

    Fortunately, three other movies are opening this weekend and one movie has a great story for people of all ages. If you live in Los Angeles or New York City, you can go see a film called "The Road Home" starring Zhang Ziyi (Jen in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"). "The Road Home" has a MPAA rating of "G" so the whole family can enjoy the movie. If you are lucky enough to have a local theater showing "The Road Home," I recommend you go see this beautifully filmed love story and skip the "Pearl Harbor" hype. Here's hoping Sony will release "The Road Home" nationwide.

  • May 25, 2001, 3:18 a.m. CST

    there are two reasons why cubas in this!!!

    by Rox

    Cuba Gooding Juniors in this abomination because he is black and the eager to please absolutely everybody element of Hollowood this that most of us will be appeased by his inclusion....A bit like George Lucas casting Sam Jackson .....hmmm?...now what was his characters name again???......"Tokeeen Blark?

  • May 25, 2001, 3:49 a.m. CST

    From Here to Shiternity

    by DrX

    Sorry I couldnt resist the pun! I do think that Fred Zinnemanns film is the obvious measure to set against Pearl Harbour. It is a love story and a charcter driven story rather then a straight war film. Tora Tora Tora from what I remember was more skewed towards historical documentry like The Longest Day etc. FHTI although softened from the book did at least confront issues of corruption, power and individual honour and had at its heart a great cast with a brilliant performance from Montgomery Clift. It might look dated now but it will be interesting to compare it with the new multi-million dollar big bang film. (I wonder how much the actual attack actually cost compared to the films special effects laden budget?) Im not even going to mention how that money could have been better used. The American market is more amenable to watching large chunks of effects with small easy bits of sugary 'relationships'. A bit like the hamburgers eh? From Here to eternity got eight oscars. Pearl Harbour has a lot to live up to although I guess a better comparison will be titanic and Armangeddon. I will go and see it when it arrives in the UK but i am expecting candyfloss and the usual short hand button pushing emotions to be expected from Bay/Bruckheimer rather then anything with any grit or thought. Judging from past efforts, my guess is if they speeded up all the slow mow bits they could probably knock an hour off the running time!

  • May 25, 2001, 4:56 a.m. CST

    Thank you, Harry, this was a good read!

    by Drath

    I guess it's not the best review in technical terms, but I love what you have to say here. I agreed with everything you're saying about Bay, film, etc. He can't seem to grow up on film, and even Spielberg when he was a kid director he wasn't quite this . . . well you said it, he wasn't this immature. Of course, you are more forgiving of him than I. I haven't seen the movie, but from all I've seen and heard, this review rings very true. I can get behind everything you've said, and since you know I'd criticize otherwise I think you deserve the praise when you've earned it. Good thoughts, Harry, thanks. It sounds like Pearl Harbor is this year's Patriot, with Josh Hartnett catching everyone's eye the same way Heath Ledger did last year. Too bad their characters were denied the lead of the film. But Harry, the Fellowship of the Ring trailer is going on Pearl Harbor!! What do I do now? Dear god, I want to see that on a big screen and now I'll have to sneak in or something. SHIT! I wonder if the theater will stick it on Shrek instead.

  • May 25, 2001, 7:20 a.m. CST

    To: Xphile69

    by Fish Tank

    I can guarantee you 100% that I won't be one of those guys forking out my $8.50 ($11.00 Cdn). It's an interesting situation - I can't shoot down a movie I haven't seen, but if it's as bad as all the reviewers (seasoned and professional reviewers) say it is, then I've helped by giving my monetary seal of approval. I can't do that. Based on The Rock, Con Air and Armageddon I refuse to be duped again.

  • May 25, 2001, 7:58 a.m. CST

    HOW TO WATCH PEARL HARBOR

    by MOVIE WRITER

    These movies are best watched from your couch on Pay-per-view. I watched the Patriot the other day from the couch. It went like this: First 20 minutes - OK, I get the idea, some cool action. Second hour - I fall asleep. Third hour - wake up and see some fighting but not enough to keep me awake. Then I wake up again and catch another part on the pay-per-view repeat, but I never end up seeing the end because it's a bunch of crap and a waste of 3.99.

  • May 25, 2001, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Sorry, Angel66, All I Know About The Anti-War Movement Is What M

    by Buzz Maverik

    He's a cool guy. First he was an "advisor" in Nam in the early 60s, then he was really active in the Movement back in the hippy days, helping hippies get to Canada. Then the war ended, the draft ended, the hippies got amnesty and the anti-war movement vanished. He realized those hippies weren't anti-war. They were anti-getting their nuts shot off. Then Reagan got elected. Now, the boomers are a big voting block and since less than 10 percent of draft age men served during the Vietnam war (mostly inner-city black kids and rural white kids) and a lot of those who came back were hardly what you could call Republicans, it was your campus commandos who had a big part in voting Raygun in, because who gives a shit where their younger brothers get sent, right? The hippy got the best of both worlds. They get to be self righteous and they were perfectly safe, getting high, getting laid, listening to Big Brother and the Holding Company. Why, Angel66, do I get the feeling that you're an undergrad, somewhere below age 23 believing everything the Prof (best of both worlds) tells you? Also, why do I get the feeling that you have no sense of irony?

  • May 25, 2001, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Besides, President Bush Made An Even More Important Contribution

    by Buzz Maverik

    Tell me something, did you average hippy have to lie in a coffin and take an oath before he got to go to Altamont? Did he have a sacred skull that got him admittance to the Whiskey A Go Go? Huh, did he, college girl? Somebody had to put those skeletons back together and it wasn't your average head shoppe customer. (See, the Prez was no ordinary every day head shoppe customer. He'd send one of the servants down to the head shoppe. "Gilroy, I need more rolling papers. And my grinder is wearing out. Be a good lad and replace these for me. And set yourself up while you're down there."). Let's talk real 60s politics, Buzz Maverik style! I'd inhale with Clinton, then we'd go over to Hardees for some corn dogs and picks up on the townies while we were there. Then, me and Dubya would score some coke and Dad's Chivas Regal and drive around the back roads of Texas, shooting mailboxes and eating the Sawyer Brother's BBQ! Immediate membership in my fan club, USA Maveriks, for the first talkbacker to tell me who the Sawyer Brothers would be if they actually existed.

  • May 25, 2001, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Anyway, Regular Talkbackers Know I Was In The Nam Myself....

    by Buzz Maverik

    "But, Buzz, how could you have been in the Vietnam War?" you are saying. "It's well known that you are two years younger than Jodie Foster, one year younger than Tatum O'Neal, and one year older than Brooke Shields." You see, during the mid-to-late 60s, Pa Maverik was sort of married to his career (roadie for the Doors; I miss Unca Jim) and Ma Maverik faced a dilemma that many mothers face, keeping her older sons out of prison (by staging elaborate, bloody jailbreaks every time one of my brothers got caught) so I needed someone to care for me. The agencies refused to send over any more nannys since the last two disappeared, so I was sent to spend summers in Vietnam with my oldest brother Cav Maverik, the inspiration for the Colonel Kilgroe character (originally called Col. Kahrnage) in APOCALYPSE NOW. As the commander of his own Air Calvary Unit, Cav was responsible for meeting a weekly death quota of wimmen'n'children, as Angel69 puts it, because they were the only ones killed in Vietnam, hence the facts that when Saigon fell, or was liberated depending on your ideological beliefs, there were no women and children left alive in the country. Cav was depressed because he wasn't meeting his kill ratio and his superiors were really reaming him. About that time, Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, screwing Charlie. I suggested to Cav that he and I head over there since he was a big fan of BARBARELLA. I figured Jane might have her young niece Bridget with her, who is exactly my age and a fan of some of the same comic books I turned out to like in the 80s (remember Epic's MOONSHADOW mini-series; also I saw a picture in Premiere Magazine once of Peter Fonda with his kids in the 70s and the boy had a copy of AMAZING ADVENTURES STARRING THE BEAST; I knew I wanted to party with those Fonda kids...well, Bridget anyway). I figured while Cav scored with Hanoi Jane, I could play doctor with Bridget. Cav reminded me though that the last time I'd played doctor, I'd actually started taking the little girl's appendix out (I was doing such a good job and apparently looked so cute, her parents and the real MDs decided to let me finish). Cav was always the Maverik who was the most negative thinker. And he didn't really say, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." What he said was, "I love the smell of burning flesh in the morning." But he didn't mean what you're thinking he meant. Unlike the character in the movie, Cav was not a surfer (he shared H.P. Lovecraft's fear of the ocean). No, Cav was a tanner and he meant he loved the smell of his own skin tanning. He always used Coppetone. Incidentally, that was Jodie Foster who modeled for the little girl whose drawers were being pulled down by her puppy on the beach.

  • May 25, 2001, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Titanic 2, Armageddon 2. Not going 2 see it.

    by rubinator

    Harry didn't love the film or hate it. Under this mid rage, do you recommend it or not. The way Roger Ebert works is that 3 stars is thumbs up, 4 stars is a masterpiece. But 3 stars is not only thumbs up, it means that he can recommend the film. I think if a film is midway it is has not reached the 3 star point. If a film is O.K. then it isn't good enough for recommendation. There are so many things that Harry did not like about it that he needs to make up his mind whether to tell others that they should give this film a chance or not.

  • May 25, 2001, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Also, Angel66, I Resent You Saying That I Compared California Go

    by Buzz Maverik

    Those buttprobers aren't from outer space. They are Sexually Perverted Transdimensional Beings From The Order Of LAM, LAM being an entity that Aleistir Crowley contacted while trying some of John Dee's workings. Crowley drew their attention to our Universe (much like there were no modern sightings of the Loch Ness Monster until he botched the Abramalen the Mage Working at Boleskine House on the banks of the Loch and brought the Wyrm back into this reality). Jack Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard left out the banishing sequences when they attempted to summon a Moonchild in their Babalon Working in California's Mojave Desert in 1947 (the year Crowley died, the year of "Roswell" which really happened in Corona, Mexico). Funny how there were no reported UFO sightings before that, then a few months later Kenneth Arnold sees that formation of discs. Kenneth Grant, Crowley's successor at the good ol' Ordo Templi Orientis believed that they opened a window and something flew in. Which makes sense when you consider current thought in quantum physics and super-string theory (you move some of the string binding the universe aside and there's space to travel). That's when the contacts started. Just five years later, 1952, the 3 Men In Black (no relation to Tommy Lee Jones and Wil Smith) appeared on the scene...the year Parsons blew himself up. Coincidence? Don't be naive!

  • May 25, 2001, 12:18 p.m. CST

    RE: VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR

    by Andrew

    You do know that ARMAGEDDON is the thirteenth highest grossing movie of all time, right? I guess the vote is in. All hail President Bay! P.S. When the box office for this weekend comes in I think you'll find President Bay victorious in his race for a second term. FOUR MORE YEARS! Andrew

  • May 25, 2001, 12:50 p.m. CST

    That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

    by Mr. Wednesday

    ALmost nothing mentioned of Hitler? Well, lesse. During this time period America was still trying to stay out of the war. Second, Japan and Germany we're allies, but it wasn't like Hitler was controlling the Japanese military. The Alliance between Japan and Germany was purely for benefit on both sides. Hitler needed Japan to control the pacific, Japan needed the Germans to hold off Europe, and mainly Russia. Germany and Japan, while military allies, didn't really have much else to do with each other. So basically what I'm saying is that Hitler didn't tell anybody to attack Pearl Harbor, the Japanese did that completely independetly, because they were an independednt military force with their own agenda. They jsut saw that an Alliance with Germany would be beneficial to them in the long run. Hitler doesn't factor into the attack on Pearl Harbor, and since that's the focus of the movie, he doesn't need much more than a mention.

  • May 25, 2001, 1:04 p.m. CST

    No more "America was innocent" comments...

    by matt4film

    Folks: As you watch Pearl Harbor, please remember that in 1941, the War in Asia had been going on four 10 years, the War in Europe had been going for 2 years, America was just beginning to recover from from the effects of the Depression, the shadow of the WWI experience still haunted American (and whose Veterans were only in their 40's) and that their fair share of sex, drugs, "wild music", and so on... Some think of America as "Innocent" in 1941, but if anything, it was weary and tired and wanted nothing to do with a war that, in the famous words of one Senator, had the potential to "plow under every fourth American boy". Let's face it, by comparison WE'RE the ones who are innocent. I will see Pearl Harbor, but from the sounds of it, it has been made without any sense of larger context - a criticism which doesn't apply to Saving Private Ryan, which, after all, wasn't named "D-Day", but instead focused tightly on a small time frame with a small unit with a small objective.

  • May 25, 2001, 1:12 p.m. CST

    pikey

    by u.k. star

    er it is a real dialect, accent. sorry and pitt's was not bad at all..

  • May 25, 2001, 1:30 p.m. CST

    After what most critics are saying about PEARL HARBOUR, I wouldn

    by Kyle.Reese

    Unless he's screwing some hot young blonde wannabe movie starlet, which he most probably is.

  • May 25, 2001, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Harry, you're dead on. Not bad at all. Enjoyable time at the m

    by Lenny Nero

    Best FX I've ever seen. And the love triangle wasn't that bad. Besides, the aerial combat was amazing!

  • May 25, 2001, 3:23 p.m. CST

    They should have gottne James Cameron to direct it!!!

    by JarJar25

    Oh man! Did they fuck this one up. To those fucks out there who said they Bay should have directed Phantom Menace I say go screw yourselves. His career is over and I am glad for it. Here's to Final Fantasy and Episode II. The true films of 2001 and 2002!!!!

  • May 25, 2001, 4:29 p.m. CST

    i am sooo pumped this finally came out this weekend...

    by jeff bailey

    ...Startup.com! I cant wait to see it. Also, Hannibal finally came to the dollar and I havent gotten to see it yet. And before Night Falls came out on video. I'm gonna watch all that. Plus watch some Sergio Leone again. Around August I'm gonna check this Pearl Harbor out. I love Mr. Summer Movie Micheal Bay but this looks like a lesser effort. Anyway, I think people just cant wait to whup on it. Hello? It's Pearl Harbor. It ain't Saving Private Ryan. Who thought it would be? Whatever...But look at this Buzz filled Talkback! And Angel...did honestly think you could engage Buzz on a serious level? That guy doesn't even live in the same world as the rest of us. It's just a joke! I think...isn't it? Bombs away!

  • Skimming over a lot of the posts here, I'm reading a lot of bitching and whining with people repeating the same s&$^ over and over. Post a damn review of it folks; deepen the discussion guys beyond just "Michael Bay is shit, and so is his movie!" I'll do it. Here's my opinion. To put it in perspective w/ Bay's other films, I liked "Bad Boys" (B+), enjoyed "The Rock" thoroughly (A), and thought "Armageddon" was pretentious, formulaic horse crap (D-). Now onto "Pearl Harbor" (grade- B): The question I've been asking all year is- will Michael Bay muck up this depiction of the sneak attack that lead to the US's involvement in WWII the way he did the dizzyingly crummy "Armageddon?" Thankfully, the answer- for me- is no, but that doesn't mean Bay can be let off the hook. What he and producer Jerry Bruckheimer (also guilty on the charge of bringing "Armageddon" to the screen) have essentially done is created a modern-day "From Here To Eternity" with the scope- and hopeful appeal- of "Titanic," setting a love triangle between Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett (as fighter pilots), and Kate Beckinsale (as a nurse where they're stationed) around the events leading up to and after the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. Praise the Lord that Bay doesn't subject us to a scene as deplorably sickening as that wretched animal crackers nonsense between Affleck and Liv Tyler in "Armageddon"; the scenes between Affleck and Beckinsale and Hartnett and Beckinsale (whom fall in love after Affleck is believed dead over in Europe) have more of the young-love appeal of "Titanic" while not even remotely hitting the swooning, melodramatic heights of "From Here To Eternity." There's still a lot of homespun Americana corn in this epic (the beginning- showing Affleck and Hartnett as kids fantasizing about being fighter pilots- in particular; the patriotic "symbolism" less so), but the love story is what Bay wants us to focus on when he isn't blowing things up or laying on the American cheese. Unfortunately, I found myself utterly UN-engaged in the hokey love triangle. I won't fault the actors- Affleck, Hartnett, and Beckinsale all fit snuggly into their roles; here's where I'll blame screenwriter Randall Wallace, best know for the underappreciated "Braveheart." The story progresses so predictibly even a moment that one might consider surprising in this sort of film- which is to say it doesn't follow the tradition "epic love" formula- was easily predictible an hour before the movie made it official (I will give the film credit though; it did throw me off at the end where "Armageddon" was painfully obvious). But that lone "surprise" matters not when the remainder of the three hours makes you feel very little emotionally for the characters, barely characterized other than a few simple facts. When audiences cared for Leo and Kate in "Titanic," they felt they knew those characters; here, I felt that Affleck and Hartnett's characters were interchangable, while Beckinsale's- whom does the voiceover at the end for no real reason (the story isn't told from her POV like it was in "Titanic")- is barely a cardboard cutout of "the girl" in other films. Too bad, 'cause all of these actors have the ability to make me want to care. But then again, what did I expect from the team who made "Bad Boys," "The Rock," and "Armageddon." The characters on the perimeters don't do much better. Jamie King is a scene-stealer as nurse Betty (whom falls for a stuttering soldier (Ewen Bremner, also fine)), but she is gone for most of the movie. Cuba Gooding Jr. scores in what amounts to a cameo as real-life Dorie Miller (the first African-American awarded the Navy Cross for his bravery at Pearl Harbor), but he's also shortchanged, not to mention very vital to the main storyline. In other true-to-life roles, Jon Voight is solid as FDR (appropriately stirring during the famous declaration of war), and Alec Baldwin fills the rah-rah role of Jimmy Doolittle, whom leads the counterattack on Japan after the devestation at Pearl Harbor. This brings me to the action scenes and the "day which will live in infamy." On this level, director Bay achieves his biggest success of the film and the greenlit budget of $135 million (the largest ever approved by a single studio at the outset) shows its stuff. Bay stages the carnage and edits the 40-minute sequence (15 minutes longer than the paralyzing D-Day scene in "Saving Private Ryan") with his typical flair (kudos to cinematographer John Schwartzman ("The Rock") for some spectacular arial work, especially the "bomb's eye" POV shot featured in the trailers for the film), with some great suspense leading up to the sneak attack and terrific special effects and sound work. Unfortunately, it's all for naught given Bay's deficiency as a dramatic filmmaker and storyteller and blatent ripping off of films like "Top Gun," "Titanic," and "Ryan" for some of the most dramatic scenes in the sequence (Bay would call them "homages"- which he neatly defines near the beginning as a sly in-joke). Plus, the combat scenes are crosscut with scenes of Beckinsale and co. treating the wounded at the hospital. Most of these scenes are shot with a deep blur in the camera, for no apparent reason other than to resist relying entirely on "cliched" slo-mo for drama (it's also a bit odd for the film to occasionally disolve in and out of black-and-white, as well as to conviently have a newsreelman there for some shaky "docu" footage). The above comments re: Bay and his ripping off are also true of the final firefight in the sky between Americans and Japanese, which has too much of a feel of "Top Gun" to it to be truly appreciated. Though to a red-blooded action film fan will probably find these entertaining, they don't hold a candle to the blood-curdling dramatic battle scenes in Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." Finally, we have the music in "Pearl Harbor," composed by Hans Zimmer. While not Zimmer's finest hour (and certainly a letdown after his brilliant orchestral work on "Hannibal" earlier this year), he does show some chops with a lovely, sweeping romantic epic score (the first he's done), even if it sounds equally inspired by his own "The Thin Red Line," "Gladiator" (during the dogfight scenes), "Beyond Rangoon" (the scenes depicting Japan's strategy-making), as well as James Horner a la "Braveheart," "Titanic," and John Williams a la "Saving Private Ryan," and last year's "The Patriot." As for the theme song performed by Faith Hill- "There You'll Be"- it's "My Heart Will Go On"-esque Oscar sap all the way. So will "Pearl Harbor" win Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer "Titanic"-esque box-office and Oscar glory? Yes to the former, and "Lord help us" to the latter, though I'm sure they'd like to think so. Like "The Patriot," this is an ultra-sap machine from beginning to end and is too shallow dramatically (if only they'd spent some time developing the characters more a la "Ryan"); Bay and co. will just have to live with some technical awards for the way they put the combat on the screen. If you're looking for a "Ryan"-esque "recreation" of a historic event with a strong story and message, this ain't it. If you're looking for pure popcorn fodder, you should enjoy it. If only it went more towards the former...

  • May 25, 2001, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Whoring for Dollars with The Mouse

    by meljohadov

    First off, I'd like to say I don't think I fit the normal demographics of AICN's readership. I'm a 35-year-old woman, and I'm the daughter of two World War II veterans. I just buried my mother two months ago. She was a W.A.S.P. (Women Airforce Service Pilot) during the war. She was my hero. Her brother was a naval aviator who vanished in the Pacific Theater late in 1943. I know my mother would be saddened greatly not just by the trivialization of Pearl Harbor as the setting for a "two guys doin' one chick" movie (which was much more tastefully done, as so many have already said, in From Here to Eternity) but, more importantly, by Disney's desire to get more buckage from overseas markets by sanitizing the film for Japanese and German (!?!) audiences. This sickens me to no end. You'd have one hell of a time telling me that the Japanese would consider sanitizing their version of WWII history for a U.S. audience. It's absolutely nauseating and utterly disrespectful to the dead and the survivors of Pearl Harbor, and to the countless others, including my uncle, who gave their lives to fight Japanese aggression. Disgusting, Disney. Absolutely, soullessly disgusting. I will not see this film. I would probably be fascinated by the battle sequences, but I can watch the real thing on the History Channel or Discovery Wings. Don't put money in the pockets of creeps who value another buck in their multi-billion dollar empire over human sacrifice. Rent a good movie. Learn something or teach something about how things really happened. This memorial day weekend, consider visiting a veteran's cemetary or sending a card to a forgotten veteran in a V.A. hospital rather than seeing a crappy movie. It would be time better spent and would send a message to the Disney money-grubbers, if even a small one. I'm sending a letter to Disney, expressing my disgust.

  • May 25, 2001, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Alright, Bari, you marvelous monkey, here I am.

    by user id indeed!

    I was gonna avoid this TalkBack, because, in the words of my once good TalkBacker buddy Zeno Citum, "This thing's reaching 'Brothers Karamazov' length." He was kinduva scholar. I miss that guy. Don't you miss him, Bari? Yeah, me too. Well, chillens, Bari wants me to write a song about this movie to the tune of "Speed Racer"'s theme, and I don't wanna neglect a fan and buddy. Here are his blueprints: "Here it comes! Here comes Pearl Harbor! It's a really big movie! Dah-dah-dah-dahdah! It's a movie and it really really makes you feel grooovy!! Dah-dah-dah-dahdah-dahdah-dahdah! Go Pearl Harbor! Go Pearl Harbor! Go Pearl Harbor GO!! Ho-ho-ho!!" Sounds good to me! Now, here's my take on the sitchyashun: "Now playing, it's that 'Pearl Harbor'/ movie e-ve-ry-where (Duh duh dunnunna dunnunna duh!) It's a movie that's been cramming itself down esophageses (dunnunna dunnunna duh, duh duh dunna) It's fulla filler so I think I'll stay away (dunna!) It's fulla filler so I think I'll say 'NO WAY!' (duh NA!) And if Mike Bay himself tells me to see it, AAAAT gunpoint (duh duh dunnunna dunnunna duh!), I'll tell him 'FUCK THE BOZOS!!!', and then I'll roll a joint (DUH duh dunnunna dunnunna DUH!) GO, 'Pearl Harbor' (duh!), GO, 'Pearl Harbor', (duh!), GO THE FUCK AWAY-HAAAAAAYYY!!!(DUH! DUH DUH DUNNUNNA DUNNUNNA DUH!) Ho ho ho!!" There. The part about lighting a J with a gun pointed to one's head doesn't make much sense, but it's just a rough draft. And I'm not sure how "Ho ho ho!!" fits in, but Bari put it in, and it sounds good, so it's in, dammit. There! Now release my dog, Umenema, you fiend!! Just joshin'. This has been a Moment with User ID Indeed! I don't have many Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, but ask me about Courtney Love and Dave Grohl's ongoing underground battle to the death, or how Yakov Smirnoff is on the witness protection program, and I'll gum your ear off. Or should I say your Yakov??? Ha ha ha! Hee heeee! Whew!

  • May 25, 2001, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Psychotic.... Like A Fox....

    by Buzz Maverik

    Many of you have written me and asked what political party I belong to because my politics are not easy to pin down. I would describe myself as a zen fascist. Religous afflilation? Temple of Dagon, Starry Wisdom and my own cult the Branch Maverikians. Oh, and boxers, of course.

  • May 25, 2001, 8:50 p.m. CST

    I Guess Bay Can Expect This Kind Of Heat On His Next Movie BEATN

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...especially since he's got most of the same cast working on it. You got Affleck as Jack Kerouac, Harnett as Neal Cassidy, Kate Beckinsdale as Caroline Cassidy, with Jon Voight as William S. Burroughs. The biggest stretch will be if Tom Sizemore can pull off Allen Ginsberg.

  • First, it was my best friend's FATHER(Learn to read.). Second, everything that I said is documented. I don't give a shit if you belive me or not. If you think, I'm full of shit, you're entitled to that opinion, but you're also probably blind and stupid. You can have that award and share it with Honkey Avenger.

  • May 25, 2001, 10:38 p.m. CST

    That's bogus

    by StopBruckheimerJ

    Am I confused, or are there two million talk backers saying the same exact thing on this movie?... "I probably won't like it, but I'll pay to see it so I can review it." WHAT THE HELL KIND OF CRAP IS THAT!!! At seven bucks a ticket, that's $14 million that the movie will make off of you guys. Have you ever considered going to a movie because you want to see it?

  • May 25, 2001, 11:35 p.m. CST

    For the love of God! You people have to get less cynical!

    by Haystack Calhoun

    You're worse than actual movie critics. When I read the review for Pearl Harbor in the Dallas Morning News today I expected a sappy piece of shit with 45 minutes of decent film. I was also going on what I believed to be reputable reviews from this site. I went and saw Pearl Harbor and was astounded,this was nothing like what you people have made it out to be. I will go so far to say that this movie was fantastic. You(or at least I)really felt an emotional attachment to the characters,i'm not saying every camera angle was great,but if thats a high priority on your list of what makes a good film then God help you. You know there was a time when people weren't constantly seeking out glitches or a bad camera angle to call a film bad. Maybe it was because I saw a lot of old men wearing their military metals and hats outside and inside the theater. Maybe it was because the theater was full of old men and women crying and cheering and clapping throughout the movie. I don't know if it was seeing all of these people that were around when World War 2 was going on and that were fighting for the American way of life that made me see the film in a different light than the rest of you,but I did. We'll never have what they had guys. And what they had was a reason to feel patriotic,and to have pride fr their country. Chances are we'll never know that feeling in this day and age. But through movies like Pearl Harbor we can experience a little bit of it. I know that as soon as I post this you guys are going to tear me apart,but please give the movie a second chance. Leave your hatred for the director at the door and try to experience the pride of being an American for a little while. It's one of the few chances you'll get.

  • May 26, 2001, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Bay and Airplane Hangars

    by death_stick

    This is is 4th film, and the 4th time we see a dramatic shot from inside an airplane hangar. I think this may have been mentioned above, but I'm really starting to wonder if this is going to be a constant thing for Bay. As far as his directing abilities go, yes, he like to "blow things up real good." And yes, he is a bit immature as a filmmaker. However, there is nothing offensive about this film. No crime has been committed in telling this story. It is, more or less, a good natured, wholesome film, one that I would recommend taking a twelve year old to see. I saw a comment up above about a 14 year old kid saying his friends told him that this event was not an important part of American History. It was the point of the talkbacker to say that kids these days have become desensitized to violence, which could be a valid point. Granted, a film like Saving Private Ryan should be seen by young people, as it has been portrayed as an accurate depiction of what war is really like. However, Private Ryan, is not chalked full of heroic portrayals, and is especially effective in showing human frailty and weakness. This is not a bad thing, as the film is for a more mature audience, one which can recognize such emotions. Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, is of a different breed. It's characters, though generic, are portrayed as heroes. We see the Affleck and Harnett characters dodge the Japanese bombers from the ground, then they rush to planes to fight off the Japanese fleet, then they go back to ground where they try to rescue men from a sinking ship, and finally to lead a suicide mission over Tokyo where they're shot down and fight off the Japanese on the ground. No, Pearl Harbor is not historically detailed, nor does it do a good job of portraying the many viewpoints of the Japanese, Roosevelt, etc... It works much like wartime propoganda, portraying our boys as heroes, and the Japanese as an emotionless evil. The film is restrained, it does not show bloody carnage, and hospital scenes are filtered to hide a great deal of the blood and gore. I believe that this is a good move, because in the end, this is a film about honor and patriotism. I do believe that young people are a bit desensitized to violence, and I would show this film to any thirteen year old before I showed them Saving Private Ryan. Kids need heroes, they need role models. They need GI Joe and Indiana Jones. In essence, Pearl Harbor is about "innocence," as children do someday lose theirs and become contemptuous, cynical adults. On Friday afternoon, I sat next to one Veteran of the Pearl Harbor affair, with his grandson sitting at his side. As the film ended, and the lights went up, that boy looked at his grandfather in a whole new light. And for that, I think the film is justified.

  • May 26, 2001, 6:28 a.m. CST

    Pearl Harbour and the American Psyche.

    by zeek_doggy_dog

    Since having seen the B & B film Pearl Harbour is not a pre requisite for posting opinions on talkback, I feel more than qualified to add my two-cents worth in to the debate. What is it with you guys and the events of December 7, 1941? How come you have to make 8 films about or related to those events? That equates to one film every 7 years (average). The Brits only made one film about the battle of britain, 2 about dunkirk and one about the dambusters. Indeed the Battle of Britain is crafted as a documentary cum character driven piece akin to "From here to Eternity" without the sappy sepo bullshit you Americans insist on injecting in to every historical event! Get over it ! I think 8 films are enough to get the point across don't you? Do you have to keep re-hashing the events on celluloid so that it doesn't seem so bad? Does every re-telling of the story bring a bit a better result for the good old US of A? How about giving us a victory tale instead? How about Truk Lagoon? or Coral sea? Or Iwo Jima? Great moments in American WWII history sadly overlooked by 90% American historians in favour of minute dissections of a military disaster. I'm sorry to say folks, but there was no conspiracy, there was no grand plan to get The USA in to the war: you were caught with your pants down good and proper by a well organized, well equipped and superior military force. FDR didn't know about Pearl Harbour, Churchill thought Singapore would hold and Goering was going to sweep the RAF out of the skies. All were men. All were wrong. All of them were responsible for the deaths of millions, righteously or not.No amount of justification on film will change that. To the veterans of the campaign: I salute you. Your courage and sacrifice deserves better than the shabby treatment that Hollywood has dealt you over the years. If half the profits of these celluloid monsters we call entertainment were diverted to meaningful memorials and assistance programs for you, the lot of the average veteran from all military spheres would be immeasurably better. Please let the ghosts of Pearl Harbour rest. We are all a bit tired of seeing it all over again.

  • May 26, 2001, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Pearl Harbor Opening Night

    by Vogue

    I work in a movie theater and I usually like to stand by the doors of the auditorium and listen to or talk to people who have just seen the movie. The general consensus on "Pearl Harbor" was that people loved it. So all of you mindless idiots who posted things like "This movie sucks" without having seen it, or "Boycott this movie", can go to hell. Pearl Harbor is going to have a fairly long life at the box office, especially when word of mouth gets around. Check the Cinemascore grades: the lowest was a B, and there were two A+. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't see a movie before commenting on it, or considers themself a movie fan, but then doesn't go and see all the new movies when they come out--well, your comments aren't worth shit. Here's a bit of advice--SEE the movie you seem to know so much about before stating your opinion. It'll make you seem a lot more intelligent then you really are.

  • May 26, 2001, 7:26 a.m. CST

    whatever

    by Michael_Bay

    First of all there is no such thing as a "meaningful" summer movie so i don't know why you would expect Pearl Harbor to change that. Secondly this movie did subscribe to all of the big summer movie rules. Big cheesy romance, big explosions, a tragic ending. what more did you expect. For those of you who felt that the battle sequence wasn't emotional and that it was distant. You are the ones that don't have emotion. How can you compare that sequence to a video game? I agree with Harry I wish this movie was great. But I am happy with what it is. If people weren't so brainwashed with the "spielberg is god" mentality they would see that Saving Private Ryan is even more contrived and manipulative than Pearl Harbor. At least PH doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.

  • May 26, 2001, 8:15 a.m. CST

    I've decided.

    by Darth Brooks

    I'm not going to see Pearl Harbor this weekend, and probably not any other weekend. This is just another slippery step for Michael Bay to make "McVeigh!", the epic 'homage' to the Oklahoma City bombing. It'll star Ben Affleck as the tortured lovesick Timothy, who has a plan to blow up a government office and escape the clutches of Attorney General Janet Reno (Liv Tyler). Oh, but you think it's in poor taste to slap a stupid story around a horrific national tragedy? Fine - then don't spend money on PEARL either.

  • May 26, 2001, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Argh!

    by MisterE

    Dammit, my girlfriend insists on seeing this on the big screen. I should ask her if I can rape her anally, because that is what will happen to me as I plop down $17 for tickets to this.

  • May 26, 2001, 9:28 a.m. CST

    "McVeigh"

    by Michael_Bay

    Actually you could have a good story about some people that fall in love, in fact let's make it an ensemble piece and put in a family story and maybe another couple of people. We have all of them at different points in their lives but the tragic bombing of the Government building interupts their lives in such tragic ways that they are all changed forever. The problem with your story, Darth, is that you tried to make the story about McVeigh instead of about the people that he affected. Bay didn't make Pearl Harbor about the "evil" Japanese, instead he, and any other filmmaker that makes a movie about a real-life tragedy makes the movie about the people that are affected and how they are affected by the tragedy.

  • May 26, 2001, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Friday box office

    by Uga

    The Friday gross for "Pearl Harbor" was $18.3 million, for a $5,703 per theater average. I know that's a lot for any other movie, but doesn't it seem a little lower than expectations?

  • May 26, 2001, 1 p.m. CST

    by Karma Police

    Here's the thing: Bay has an incredible talent for visuals; the shots that track after the zeros as they swoop through exploding ships prove that much. But what make his visuals great--overwhelmingly flashy, big, and constantly in slow motion--doesn't translate well at all to the scenes of dialogue or actual narrative. Everything in the scenes that're supposed to be emotionally involving feels exactly the same way--like Bay's giggling in the editing room, wanting all of us to be amazed at the extreme close ups of Affleck and Beckinsale, or to pay attention to dialogue when the camera is swerving around like an epileptic breakdancer. As a result, the emotions come off to big, which doesn't help the ludicrous plot, and we're left watching a two hour parody of a soap opera interspersed with brilliant aviation footage. But I mean, Christ--the studio that can somehow get a half-assed decent, less show off-y director to make a film with Bay as cinematographer is going to hit a goldmine both financially (which Bay already has acheived, as he's constantly noting in interviews) and critically (unattainable, but which Bay has wet dreams about after he falls asleep cursing James Cameron). But instead, we're left with ... this. And "this" is fine when dealing with, say, Martin Lawrence acting like a dumbass and singing "Bad Boys," but it's unacceptably trivializing when dealing with an event as tragic and important as this.

  • I saw Pearl Harbor on tuesday, wrote my review, and quickly forgot about it. It tries to manipulate in every imaginable way, but is so transparent it fails. It wants the audience to cry so they'll think it is important. But, according to a friend who likes "popcorn" movies, it is long and pointless. In response to the person who asked about the score, it is saccharine to the core. Hans Zimmer used every sappy interval he could muster. In response to the "just a popcorn movie" comments, I'd like to point out that this film has already been predicted to win the Best Picture Oscar. Why else would it be epic length? Not because the story needs it. B&B want people to think that it's brilliant and important, so it should live up to what it claims. Also, popcorn movies have to be entertaining and shouldn't receive an automatic reccomendation via the popcorn pass. If a film is cliche ridden, twice as long as it needs to be, and contains no thought, viewpoint, or grace, you can eat all the popcorn in the world and it will still be the same movie.

  • May 26, 2001, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Why title it Pearl Harbor?

    by beeferoni

    For me, Pearl Harbor is a moment in American history, a moment of realizing just how mortal we are as a nation, and just how much we take for granted the freedom and security we have. For me, Pearl Harbor is an awakening for the US, for its military, and for its leadership to pay attention to the world, to understand that we are not isolated and cannot remain so. So for me, when I was seeing these previews all winter long, I was really looking forward to this film for what it would say about America, what it would say about our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world. The previews were all showing the innocence...two boys peeing on the side of a hill, a kid pitching a baseball, a woman bringing the laundry in off the clothesline, and then this ominous threat of Japanese planes. I thought this movie would deal with that, and we'd get to know people who were in it. But then we get into this movie, and the Navy, the heart of Pearl Harbor, isn't even included. We don't get to know any Navy men, except for Cuba briefly, and I thought that was a terrible weakness of the film. We're always hearing about how our WWII vets are dying off rapidly and how we need to pay homage to this generation while we still can. And I'm fine with that. I just wish that this movie had pay any amount of homage to our veterans. For me, to release this movie on Memorial Day, is a travesty and a slap in the face to the Pearl Harbor veterans. They deserve much much better than this.

  • May 26, 2001, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Well on the upside

    by kxmode

    At least the LotR: FotR teaser trailer rocked! :)

  • May 26, 2001, 2:45 p.m. CST

    $18 million opening day

    by Darth Melkor

    That is pretty darn low. Mummy Returns opened with like $25 mil and Episode 1 with about $27 mil I believe. Wouldn't it be funny if The Animal knocked Pearl Harbor out of the top spot next weekend. Would make me laugh.

  • May 26, 2001, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Something to notice about Bay and Bruckheimer's approach to movi

    by axelfoley

    I saw this movie last night with a group of friends and let me tell you something right now: This movie is going to become the next Godzilla. What does that mean? Ok, remember in early '98 with all those fucking Super Bowl spots with Godzilla's foot and this fisherman being chased off a dock? Look where the movie ended up in the memory and regard of even the most minimal movie goer. But it made big bucks anyway. So did Wild Wild West. What's my point? You could tell Pearl Harbor was a mindless special effects fest just due to Bruckheimer's and Bay's names being attached. Bay's whole quick dramatic closeup of practically everything he shoots is really starting to annoy me. Why does Bay always do that? His directing style, while not awful is the most ripe for parodying and no one parodies it. Do you people know what I mean? A perfect example of what I'm talking about it Armageddon. For example this is how Bay would shoot something. Someone would say let's go to the store. Then A BIG FUCKING CLOSEUP OF A CONVENIENCE STORE COMES INTO VIEW ACCOMPANIED BY SINISTER-SOUNDING MUSIC WITH A LIGHTENING QUICK CUT INSIDE THE STORE WITH PEOPLE ALREADY HAVING A CONVERSATION INSIDE OF IT. That's basically how he would approach something. It's annoying. All apologies for those caps by the way.

  • May 26, 2001, 4:49 p.m. CST

    I agree with Axel Foley

    by Darth Melkor

    I thought it was a great movie, but 45 minutes could've been cut. I also remember first seeing the trailer for it and being blown away then see Bay and Bruckheimer's names come up and have my expectations drop immediately. They make good movies, good popcorn action movies. Pearl Harbor should've been something more special than it was. It had that same Rock-Armageddon-Con Air formula in it. And those kinds of shots and storylines just dont belong in this kind of movie.

  • May 26, 2001, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Bunch of losers

    by Holden_C

    Allright, i just finshished reading all the posts. And out of all of them, only like four people actually liked this movie. Now, strange isn't it, that when i saw it yesterday in theatres, they gave a standing oviation. I saw old couples holding eachother. Just becuase all of you liek Seven samurai, Memento, and Citizen kane doesnt make you experts. I happen to love all three of those films, and i also happen to love armageddon, Bad boys, the rock, and now i love pearl harbor. I don;t see what's so bad about Michael Bay. Every director has his own style. What was so special about Kubrick, Kurosawa, Scorese... What, did their films seem artsier or something. I ahppen to love and respect all film-makers, for it is a hard job to do, and i belive doing all the stuff that Bay did on the set must have been quite hard. And for that alone i give the man respect, For making me cheer when Ben and Affleck were being heroes, i give him even more respect, and for making me cry i say the man is damn good at what he does. So for all you wanna-be film-makers out there who think that to sound cool amongst other indie lovers you must bash movies like Pearl Harbor, i ask you to attend a viewing of Pearl Haror, and notice the reaction on peoples faces that walk out. Im outta here

  • May 26, 2001, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Silly kids

    by VooBass

    I agree with Holdon_C, Peral Harbour was far better than I expected and most of the people in the audience I saw it with loved it. Many cried, many laughed, and I bet everyone was in awe of the spectacle presented during the attack. Sure it could have been better, and it doesn't deserve to mentioned in the same breath a s Titanic, but, for most people, it works. I'm happy to disappoint most of you, Pearl Harbour is going to be another huge B&B hit.

  • May 26, 2001, 7:31 p.m. CST

    Actors like Ben Affleck piss me off.

    by RetartedNun

    I'm sick of actors. They're fucking overated. There are a ton of motherfuckers out there who can act. But only few who can write good screenplays. If your lucky enough to be Ben Affleck you could actually spend sometime trying to raise the standards in Hollywood. But no. He sucks Satan's cock instead. If it wasn't for Kevin Smith Ben would burn in hell with Kevin Costner.

  • May 26, 2001, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Bloated Egos

    by Mount_Olympus71

    ok, who cares what any of you think? The only thing more bloated and boring than pearl harbor is the bloated opinions of ego maniacs who post their reviews

  • May 26, 2001, 8:54 p.m. CST

    life outside of hollywood

    by Mount_Olympus71

    why do all of you bitch n moan about bad Hollywood movies? Try your local art theater for foreign movies sometime...A person who frequents his local new-release-duplex- for -the- hollywood- of the week release is not qualified to review anything, except maybe the McDonald's food you ate at after your movie going experience, your attempts at character bore me...and if this pisses you then I just touched a sensitive bone didn't I?

  • May 26, 2001, 9:37 p.m. CST

    My Butt Hurts

    by RetartedNun

    Whatever. It's a piece of shit. And a waste of money. Popcorn movies are alright. Just not popcorn movies that try to make me feel moved. Hey why not Hitler: A love story. Starring two wacky kids in a concentration camp.

  • May 26, 2001, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Well there goes three worthless hours of my life.....

    by J Dog Jenkins

    First off let me say I thought the movie sucked. It was the usual piece of Michael Bay cliched crap. I myself think Jerry Bruckheimer should be beaten senseless with the reel of Coyote Ugly containing the scene where Piper Perabo suddenly decides to change her crappy acoustic piece "Can't fight the moonlight" into a crappy hip-hop/pop infused piece of shit. Bruckheimer hasn't produced a film I have enjoyed since '97's Con Air and that was simply because Simon West, the man helming Tomb Raider, did a much more mature and less showy directorial job than Michael Bay has ever done. Pearl Harbor was full of things that were just wrong wrong wrong. The trailer had more power than the film did as a whole. We were forced to get to know these idiots so that when the bombing commenced who really gave a fuck. In the trailer we didn't know anyone so we just saw a sad portrait of innocents dying. The part of Harry's review that really made me laugh, and don't worry there was plenty to laugh at in this meandering essay (not as much as in his wet dream of a review for Charlie's Angels but still a lot) Was when he brought up Ewan Bremner. His role in this was of course the stereotypical comic relief Red, who we're supposed to feel immediate pity for because of his poor poor stuttering problem (I bet the last part of that sentence would have looked funny in the script) Although Ewan Bremner gave one of the few performances that, despite his cliched personality quirks, I actually enjoyed, I find it funny at just how little attention Harry has paid to this talented young actor. First off in Snatch he did not play a Pikey rather he was Bullettooth Tony's go to for info on Boris the Blade. And if the 2 films Harry was talking about were this and Snatch then I have lost all respect for him. If this professional reviewer does not recognize him as Spud from Danny Boyle's incredible Trainspotting, then he has about as much reason for being a reviewer as DiCaprio has for trying to be in the next Godfather movie (which brings up a shitload of other "Why?"'s) Another problem I had with this film was the constant waxing-poetic of the leads. The letters to one another, bullshit. First the guy can't spell but then he can write the most beautiful words from the front since hemingway? And Danny? Oh my go! When Tom Sizemore asks him whats going on and he says "I think it's the start of World War II" I swear I almost exploded into laughter, but no one else did so i shutup (I guess Ashe's test was accurate) The term "world War" wasn't even penned until after WWII, the first was "The Great War" not "World War" is Danny so inspired that he would come up with such a term? Well I realize I may have done nothing more than imitated Harry in my constant switching topics from the movie so my argument may be less than solid but Like I give a shit. I said what I was thinking. Bottom Line: Pearl Harbor sucked even harder than Gone in 60 seconds, at least that was less than 2hrs. Not stretched to 3hrs + like this bloated sack of shit. If you want a slightly more enjoyable waste of 3hrs go see A Knight's Tale and play arcade games for 45 minutes. (Yeah I liked a Knight's Tale more dammit. Sue me.) Thanks to the release of this film Bay and Bruckheimer have now bombmed more people than the Japanese ever did. Thanks guys for giving us these annual views of the various levels of hell.

  • May 26, 2001, 11:02 p.m. CST

    morons

    by banshee

    That's what you geeks are who are ragging about how "this movie will blow" without having seen it. I caught the 4:45 show Friday at the El Capitan in Hollywood. It was sold out and recieved an enthusiastic round of applause at the end. I didn't hear anyone complaining about it sucking. And that's on the "left coast," in Hollywood no less! Those of you who complain about not liking Bay's films because they are too "patriotic"...wtf? Do you live in the US? Oh, wait. You're probably the same type of person that just LOVES movies about vietnam because most of those show the US as crazed war-mongers and killers. Am I right? If you hate your country that much then get the hell out. I'm sure the socialists in europe will greet you with open arms. And for those that hate Bay because his movies please a majority of the population and actually...gasp...make money. I'll tell you this, if I were making films right now and I had a choice, I'd choose to be Bay over someone like Woody Allen. At least Bay's movies are good enough that people actually pay to see them.

  • May 26, 2001, 11:19 p.m. CST

    J-Dog's thoughts

    by J Dog Jenkins

    Let me explain one more thing. After rereading my review I'd like to add that I didn'texactly outright hate the movie. If there was nothing else to see then go for it. (I'd see it before Charlie's Angels any day) Just for all of you out there who may give a shit about anything I say (and I'm assuming that is very few) I am not an indie freak. I am a film freak. I have a soft spot for movies such as Pearl Harbor, popcorn movies that is, (hell I mentioned A Knight's tale didn't I ?) So please don't compare me to the condescending little pricks who feel that the only good film is an indie film (like those assholes who make the hollywood bashing commercials on IFC. YOU ARE ALL PRETENTIOUS WHORES!) So There is J-Dog. I like movies of all kinds anything else and trust me YOU ARE NOT A FILM LOVER!

  • May 26, 2001, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Pearl Harbor Sucked!

    by ember7samurai

    I went to see Pearl Harbor tonight, but ended up paying $8.50 to see the Lord of the Rings trailer and three hours of mind-numbing drivel. I know it was made by Americans and all, but come on, the war is over let's have the true story and not anti-Japanese propaganda. The truth is, the U.S. forced the attack from Japan with harsh embargoes that were destroying that country. The truth is that the U.S. knew about the attack before hand and let it happen in order to gain public support for the war. The film spent a lot of time showing the suffering people went through after the attack, but neglected to mention that after the war was OVER, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on two NON-MILITARY targets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in retaliation for a military attack that was forced, known about beforehand, and ignored. Aside from the history stuff, the story in the movie moved very slowly. The special effects were pretty lame too. Is it supposed to be horrifying to watch obvious computer-animated people falling off a sinking ship, or being blown up? The scene where the U.S.S. Arizona is sunk is straight out of Titanic, which, by the way, was another block of drivel.

  • May 26, 2001, 11:39 p.m. CST

    One of the worst movies ever.

    by krackato

    So amazingly boring and so amazingly bad. Go see it. I dare you. God I want my money back. Shame on you Harry.

  • May 27, 2001, 2:43 a.m. CST

    Who let John Wayne in here?

    by LesterB

    Banshee, your unfettered, blind patriotism is simultaneously frightening and inspiring. I have no doubt you would die for your country, but I wonder if you'd have just as much courage when it came to saying things against America when we're wrong. And we're wrong a lot. As for "pearl Harbor", count me among the people who thought it sucked. The attack sequence was among the most brilliant things I've ever seen put to film, but this movie was like a beautiful woman you pick up in a bar. You take her home, the sex is phenomenal, but then you try to talk to her after and there is NOTHING in that bubblebrain of hers. NOTHING. The love story was uninteresting, I hated the way they portrayed Roosevelt (God in a wheelchair), I hated the way they portrayed the Japanese, I hated the corny cheeseball dialogue, and I hated, hated, HATED Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck. Which is rare, since I actually think Affleck is okay most of the time. If it weren't for Kate Beckinsale, who was great, I probably would have slept through most of the love story. And what the hell were Cuba Gooding Jr. and Dan Ackroyd doing in this film? They probably had fifteen minutes of screen time combined. In a better-made film that wouldn't have bothered me, but I never saw their characters, I only saw THEM on that screen. Whether that's faulty acting, directing, or writing I'm not sure. Anyway, Michael Bay needs to stick to action movies and stop trying to tug our heartstrings. Leave that to Woody Allen (right, Banshee?), who's much better at it.

  • May 27, 2001, 7:37 a.m. CST

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? (AND a note to EMBER7)

    by timmer33

    Man, I paid 12 bucks to see this movie. What was I expecting? Love story, action, explosions. Did I get it? Damn straight I did. So what the fuck is wrong with all you losers???? What were you expecting?? COME ON PEOPLE. Armageddon sucked ass! This was FAR BETTER than that SPOL. Sure, PH took elements of Titanic and Armageddon, but they worked. You idiots don't think they did? Well, it made almost 20 million on Friday night alone. That's a 60 million dollar weekend. That's a success. Maybe you don't like the love story. Maybe you don't like the elements taken from other movies. Want a kleenex to cry a bit??? SO WHAT. It all comes back to what we were expecting. What was promised us? LOVE STORY + EXPLOSIONS + WAR + ACTION. Did it deliver. YES IT DID. I'll tell you why: I also paid 12 dollars to see Angel Eyes. In which film did I get more for my dollar? Doesn't take a wizard: Pearl Harbor. BTW ember7, the ARIZONA was the ship that got its bow blown apart from the bomb; OKLAHOMA was the one that capsized (like Titanic, as you say). Every time we see a movie where a ship sinks people are gonna be saying that. You know what? Cameron's sinking was so damn realistic everyone's going to be comparing sinking ships to his movie. You think people don't hang off railings as the ship lists? It's real, man. And if you whiny talkbackers call that derivitive then who gives a fuck, cuz Bay is sitting back watching this become a HUGE movie. Man, the dogfights in this film were incredible. Sure, I would have trimmed a little here and there, brought it down to 2 hours 45 minutes (from its present 3 hours 10 minutes) but I got my money's worth, and that's what counts. HARRY KNOWLES says he'd cut the whole CUBA GOODING thing ... why, for god's sakes? It's only 3 damn minutes long!!! Cuba was a good addition to the movie. In my dreams, this movie would have ended with MIDWAY rather than the Doolittle raid. Ah, but then we're talking 2 feature films, and I realize it ain't gonna happen. So looking at the finished product, I got what I wanted, and so did millions of other people. Why don't you guys go complain about some REAL pieces of shit out there, like Mummy Returns. For years we had to endure shitty Vietnam films. Now we're getting some great WW2. You guys don't like it, tough shit. WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING??? It is Michael Bay for fuck's sake. If he makes RED DRAGON I bet you'll end up whining about the finished product. I can see it know: "It was too visual"; "The cuts were too quick"; "The story was secondary to the action". It's BAY for god's sake. Who were you expecting??

  • May 27, 2001, 7:43 a.m. CST

    "Dark Blue World"and "Pearl Harbor"

    by Garmon

    Here's a story from yesterday's "Telegraph" that may interest some - >A week ago President Vaclav Havel attended the world premiere of an Czech

  • May 27, 2001, 9:40 a.m. CST

    angel66 & lesterB...

    by banshee

    angel, in reponse to my Bay vs Allen comment, let's see, would I rather make movies that please millions of people around the world, (check the boxoffice, Bay's films have made about a billion dollars just in the US,) or would I rather make films that please a couple thousand elitist film geeks and critics and barely break even, if that? I like Bay because he's good at his job. He makes entertaining films that make money. Or have you forgotten it's called show BUSINESS. LesterB, I can't argue with your review of the film because at least you took the time to actually SEE THE MOVIE before ripping it apart. If you didn't like it then fine. At least you gave it a shot. I did like it. I'm going to see it again today. And to both of you, as far as my blind patriotism, I never said the US was perfect. No country or govt. or person is perfect. But I do think the US is still the greatest country on God's green earth despite it's flaws and problems. And I hate it when a movie comes out that's not afraid to show that, but then gets ripped apart by a bunch of pointy headed intellectuals or leftists simply because it dares to say "America is great." I had the same reaction when people ripped into "The Patriot." Which, for all those ragging on it because it didn't make over 200 mil, it did break 100 mil and made nearly as much as Braveheart. Which is a movie I think we all agree was great and worthy of best picture. That's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Alot of people said the Patriot was just Braveheart set during the American Revolution instead of the scottish revolution. But Braveheart is praised and Patriot is dissed. hmmmmm.

  • May 27, 2001, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Honky Avenger doesn't know jack

    by pulpculture

    If he spent more time researching rather than simply parroting the factually incorrect Straightdope piece, he might know something. A majority of Americans did *not* want war with Japan -- or anyone else, for that matter -- pre-Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, FDR never risked the entire Pacific fleet or even the bulk of it. Strange, after all, that all of the aircraft carriers were ordered away from Pearl in the days before the attack, eh? Someone obviously suspected something.

  • May 27, 2001, 11:53 a.m. CST

    What if we saved Private Rayn from the Titanic?

    by Rollo Tomassi

    There is a popular film school concept called

  • May 27, 2001, 12:30 p.m. CST

    183 minutes of disco glory

    by indianrenegade

    Let me preface this Pearl Harbor review with this: I see myself as a cynical movie critic. Everytime a bomb like Freddy Gets Fingered comes out, I cringe. But I simply do not understand why a majority of TalkBack posts are filled with idiots who have never even seen the movie, but blast it nevertheless. See the movie, then critique it. I watched Pearl Harbor last night with some friends. This film is very good folks. The acting in this movie was very good. Ben Affleck always seems to play the same character in each movie, but in this, he stood out, and did a great job, justifying his leading role stature. The romance scene that dominates the first hour did seem fake and forced, but got better as the film moved on, and served its purpose. Voight, Ackroyd, Baldwin, and Gooding were fine in their roles, never overacting, but simply playing their roles to perfection. And then you have the actual attack scene. Folks, even if you hated everything else about this movie, there can be no debate on this. The battle scene in Pearl Harbor was one of the greatest scenes in cinema history. Worth the price of admission alone. Looking back, I wish they had cut a little more from the movie, and I wish they had explained the actual justification of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor (depleting oil reserves?) among other small complaints. And you don't have the same emotional investment in the characters, as you did in Titanic for example. Fault this with the screenplay. But in the big picture, Pearl Harbor is definitely a movie that is worth the price of admission. Michael Bay had a dream of what he wanted to accomplish visually with this film and he succeeded in my humble opinion. Buy some popcorn and enjoy.

  • May 27, 2001, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Thank Heavens for Buzz Boo Maverik...

    by DropKickMurphy

    ...Because I was reading this talk back for a while and at one poin,t I was all catatonic repeating things I've read like "Bay eats ass. Affleck has huge gums. Cuba yells in every movie." This wasn't even amusing, I normally chuckle a bit at the wit of you cynical geniuses provide. Then Buzz kicked in on FULL MAVERIK MODE so this wasn't a waste of time. Even UNBANNABLE's post didn't even have that BATTLEPOSTER cameo I often laugh at. Although that guy picking a fight with Buzz was sort of funny..."okay here's someone who's funny, let me get on my soapbox and yell at him." Anyway these movies cause me physical pain. I will stay away. Memento did however, rock the casbah. That is all. "Let's go let's sit, lets talk, politics go so good with beer"- The Pixies

  • May 27, 2001, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Battleposter is a fun robot.

    by DropKickMurphy

    And I missed his cameo the first time, please strike the BATTLEPOSTER bit from my original rant. And that is all. "I hope you're having fun...lalalalal band on the run band on the run..."

  • May 27, 2001, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Can somebody please KILL Michael Bay?

    by su12345

    When will Bruckheimer realize he's a no-talent hack?

  • May 27, 2001, 1:27 p.m. CST

    pearl harbor

    by skiopps

    I think pearl harbor was a awful war movie. But a good popcorn movie.It's Top Gun in 1941.I half keep expecting ``Danger Zone'' to play on the soundtrack.My main problem with the movie is that it takes a crappy action/love story and trys to make it important by setting it in a turning point for the world.This movie is dangerous in that it relishes in our boyhood fantasys about war.But never shows us the devestation it causes.In an era where we haven't been in a major war in 3 decades thats reckless.It turned the mass murder of 3,000 people into a teenage love story.

  • May 27, 2001, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Read my comment

    by drevill8899

    I'm going to reveal the ending: Rafe and Danny participate in the bombing of Tokyo, and crash land in China. Rafe lives, but Danny is shot and killed. So since you know the ending, save you money and don't see this piece of shit.

  • May 27, 2001, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Oscar winner

    by Skeetix

    Ouch. Now that was three hours I could have spent washing my cats or picking my fingernails. In fact, if I could rip my brain out of my skull and pull the parts containing that movie out, I would. This movie was that bad. I went into this movie expecting the usual amount of lengthy but picturesque, mindless but semi-entertaining drivel that generally comprises a summer blockbuster. Even with these lowered expectations, this film failed to amuse me in any way. I wriggled in my seat through the whole movie, debating ways to kill myself in my chair. The dialogue sounds like it was created by a Markov chainer, which has been only fed holiday blockbuster Hollywood scripts for consumption. The plot is not a whole lot better, and you are right, there are too many pointless subplots for a three hour movie. Not only that, but it should have ended. I swear I saw 10 final scenes before the credits rolled. This movie was bad enough to make me hurt, I'm sure it will win an Oscar.

  • May 27, 2001, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Film Snobs on this site

    by Justoneoftheguys

    I am an independent filmmaker mostly influenced by the filmmakers of the seventies/eighties. I saw the film last night and was pleasently surprised. The crowd cheered as the film ended. The talk backers on this site that will never ever make a good film sit here and trash this movie for not being one of the best films of all time. The film glosses over some of the scenes and the story and dialoue aren't shakespeare but this is a damn good trip to the movies. I paid ten dollars to see this film and I would have paid more. Some of the best effects and incredible visuals ever brought to the silver screen. Sure, I have my issues and disagreements with the way certain things were handled but the undeniable fact is that people at the theaters are digging this movie. As a filmmaker one of the things I set out to do is make a movie that the masses will enjoy. Sure, most of them have never heard of Akira Kurasawa or Orson Welles but they are the cell phone toting audience that purchase the tickets. I went to film school for a while and most of the people at school share your opinions on movies like this. They hate it before they step foot into the theater. Film snobs are the worst kinds of movie fans(see high fidelity for a musical equivalent explanation) All I know is that I would love to be that man(Michael Bay) on the hull of the carrier shooting 35mm film of Japanese zeros buzzing past as explosions detonate and Hollywood actors run for cover. My movie of Pearl Harbor wouldn't be the same, but I don't hate Michael Bay for bringing his vision to the screen, in explosive fashion. See it and for gods sake have an open mind, and take the remote control out of your ass!

  • May 27, 2001, 2:39 p.m. CST

    SHUT THE F*** UP ALREADY

    by Holden_C

    Holy Christ. Will you Bay bashers ever stop. I can say the same damn thing about your precious films. Memento was gimicky, and had no real character. Citizen kane was boring. But i don't care, i take these films for what they are, not what i hoped they would be, or what i had anticipated from the trailers. Memento was the kind of movie you watch in silence with smart people, or smart friends and the talk about it in a coffeshop once it's over, Citizen kane ( greatest film of all time ) is a technical marvel, Which intoroduced many new camera tricks, it was a showoff director trying to prove he was good...I see pearl Harbor as a film which teenagers can like, it has cool, brave male heroes, heroic nurses, amazing dog fights all us teens which we could be in. For older people it has the Government segments, and the battle. For girls it shows the strength of female nurses, it shows the way two gorgous guys woud fight and die for you. I too am a film geek, but by that token it doesnt mean i consider myself more intelligent than " stupid teens that think Bay is god" I happen to like his movies, Me and my buddies love all his stuff, but at the same time i can watch Shinlers list and all quiet on the western front... For all those who don't want love and more stragedy, just watch Tora Tora Tora... I didn't want that, and neither did Bay, he wanted a cool action/war/romance movie that everyone can enjoy. I think he accomplished that. And serioulsy, can all of you guys stop bashing this movie, you sound worse than bad critics.

  • May 27, 2001, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Why?

    by J Dog Jenkins

    Oh sweet Jesus! I tried to do this without being too cynical but some of these half-assed positive reviews are pissing me off. Now honestly I can see why it could be good to certain people. It is the epitome of goofy effects driven pieces Bruckheimer, as well as Emmerich and Devlin, is well known for. His last few films have been nothing short of the equivalent of Chinese Water torture in a sea of stupidity. (look I'm being poetic! Just like Rafe when he was in Europe!)The problem is that this movie should be taken MUCH MUCH more seriously. It is a testament to great men who gave their lives during one of the most important times in the history of the world. I just had a problem with how it tried to be cool and saccharin-type poetic all at once. FUCK! Ok let me give my rundown of how I would have done this movie. First off. GONE are the 3 fucking losers in the lead. Gone is the tacked on retaliation of the Tokyo attack. What remains is the centerpiece. Pearl Harbor would have focusedon those who were attacked. Not the little bitchy flyboys who were going through an episode of Days of Our Lives. I would have gone the way of U-571 and focused on the comraderie of the Navy men. I would have started months before following these men, with Dorie Miller as a possible lead. Watch the relationships of these men grow and culminate with the Pearl harbor bombing and end the movie with the funeral and a somber message of this being the start of America's entrance into the war. This is why Titanic ,a movie I liked despite the backlash it received because of it's cocky duo of Cameron and DiCaprio, worked. It focused on the relationship between those who were directly affected or "targeted" you could say, rather than say a couple of boiler room workers on the Carpathia (the boat that recovered those adrift on lifeboats)who convinced the captain to go help out the survivors. I think if this movie were handled from the actual military viewpoint rather than the viewpoint of two guys who just jumped in it would have been much more believable, emotional, and powerful. This is the pearl Hrabor that I think should have been made. Also take away all those classic 40's american pride touches. American pride is one of the greatest things anyone in this country can have yet when it is done in such a way as to suggest Divine Mandate thats when I get pissed. The one other thing I would like to address before I finish is the line said in the trailer. "It was the end of America's innocence." BULLSHIT. This country was STOLEN. WHEN WERE WE INNOCENT? To quote a presently forgotten man, "This country was never innocent, we lost our cherry on the boat ride over and never looked back." Pearl Harbor was not this country's innocence lost. It was when we changed from Rebellious Child to Honorable Adult.

  • May 27, 2001, 3:12 p.m. CST

    No, Banshee, we don't all admire Braveheart

    by Garmon

    At least I don't - in fact I think it is disgusting racist crap, worthy of Josef Goebells. Randall Wallace - who it seems took such care to treat the Japanese with respect in PH - didn't allow a single English character a single flicker of decent human feeling. BTW, I am not English.

  • May 27, 2001, 4:58 p.m. CST

    You know what? I liked the film.

    by Uncapie

    Thirty to forty-five minutes could have easily been cut from it. But, you know, some of the best performances came from the secondary actors like "Red", "Goose", the Group Captain in England, the band nurses that were friends on and off the base, Mako, Cary Takegawa, Dan Akroyd and Tom Siezmore. To me, those actors made the leads look good. No doubt, the attack on Pearl Harbor is incredible as well as the Doolittle raid over Tokyo. The scene with the trapped sailor's hands trying to get out of the ship beginning to drown as the rescue team frantically tries to jackhammer an opening was intense for me as is was for the audience. The dead Zero pilot in his plane angled in the water. The nurse who tells the wounded soldier that he's going to make it, then marks his head with an "F" telling the orderly to give him plenty of morphine because he's not going to make it. Mako's face when he makes the comment, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant." says it all. You don't have to like this film. That's okay. Take a walk through any V.A. graveyard and read the markers and tombstones. Think about what the men and women did for their country and what many of them gave up so that you could enjoy the freedoms that you have today. Respect them with honor.

  • May 27, 2001, 6:50 p.m. CST

    A Canadian Perspective

    by Asmus Teis

    Read a Canadian perspective: http://www.vancouversun.com/newsite/entertainment/5059296.html

  • May 27, 2001, 6:53 p.m. CST

    by hockphooey

    I'm not sure how many talkbackers have used the "popcorn movie" excuse in defense of Pearl Harbor, but this crap has got to stop. So any movie that costs a buttload to make, especially one that comes out in the summer, well, it can't be opened to critical evaluation because it's a "popcorn film"? It's a movie that we're supposed to watch with total suspension of disbelief. We're not allowed to complain because there isn't at the very least an engaging, semi-intelligent story. We're not allowed to complain about anything because, hey, we are getting explosions and action and gut-wrenching emotion (never mind that the emotion is trite, manipulative and banal). I don't want to critique my fellow filmlovers out there, but I think those of you that keep shouting this popcorn flick garbage have got to give it a rest. Everything is open to criticism, everything. Sometimes it isn't pretty, but hey that's the breaks. Besides, I'd like point out that there isn't any way in hell that Michael Bay would consider his film a popcorn flick. It's quite obvious the guy had good intentions to make a serious film that would honor the America he believes in. He tried to make a movie a la Cecil B. Demille. He wanted the adoration of critics, fans, vets; he wanted the film to cash in and break the bank. He wanted it all. Bottom line, Bay did not set out to make a popcorn flick. He set out to knock us all out with the movie of all movies. I think that's quite obvious. Overall, he had good intentions, he really did. I defintely think the man wants to make a dime, but I'll grant him that there's no way that's all he is about, but still, he failed. He tried and he failed and he definitely should be open to the harsh criticism he is getting. All artists should, and any of you people out there trying to defend him by protecting his film with the "popcorn film" defense aren't doing him or his films any good. And by the way, for those of you out there claiming this movie isn't great as a popcorn movie but great as far as any kind of movie goes, well, geez, I shouldn't say it, but you've got to be missing something, because come on, this movie just plain sucked balls.

  • May 27, 2001, 7:06 p.m. CST

    the great popcorn debate

    by hockphooey

    I'm not sure how many talkbackers have used the "popcorn movie" excuse in defense of Pearl Harbor, but this crap has got to stop. So any movie that costs a buttload to make, especially one that comes out in the summer, well, it can't be opened to critical evaluation because it's a "popcorn film"? It's a movie that we're supposed to watch with total suspension of disbelief. We're not allowed to complain because there isn't at the very least an engaging, semi-intelligent story. We're not allowed to complain about anything because, hey, we are getting explosions and action and gut-wrenching emotion (never mind that the emotion is trite, manipulative and banal). I don't want to critique my fellow filmlovers out there, but I think those of you that keep shouting this popcorn flick garbage have got to give it a rest. Everything is open to criticism, everything. Sometimes it isn't pretty, but hey that's the breaks. Besides, I'd like point out that there isn't any way in hell that Michael Bay would consider his film a popcorn flick. It's quite obvious the guy had good intentions to make a serious film that would honor the America he believes in. He tried to make a movie a la Cecil B. Demille. He wanted the adoration of critics, fans, vets; he wanted the film to cash in and break the bank. He wanted it all. Bottom line, Bay did not set out to make a popcorn flick. He set out to knock us all out with the movie of all movies. I think that's quite obvious. Overall, he had good intentions, he really did. I defintely think the man wants to make a dime, but I'll grant him that there's no way that's all he is about, but still, he failed. He tried and he failed and he definitely should be open to the harsh criticism he is getting. All artists should, and any of you people out there trying to defend him by protecting his film with the "popcorn film" defense aren't doing him or his films any good. And by the way, for those of you out there claiming this movie isn't great as a popcorn movie but great as far as any kind of movie goes, well, geez, I shouldn't say it, but you've got to be missing something, because come on, this movie just plain sucked balls.

  • May 27, 2001, 7:07 p.m. CST

    lysdexic

    by gnostic

    how the hell does a guy who can barely read the ete chart in the beginning of the movie, (cuz those durn letter thingies give him trouble) write the type of letters that Kate ends up reading on the beach? Anyone know?

  • May 27, 2001, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Justoneoftheguys

    by JMYoda

    "I am an independent filmmaker mostly influenced by the filmmakers of the seventies/eighties" Traslation: "I'm a 35 year old virgin who lives in my parents basement and makes homages to the Rambo trilogy with my camcorder and my nifty collection of GI Joe figures."

  • May 27, 2001, 7:39 p.m. CST

    JMYODA

    by DropKickMurphy

    Now THAT was fucking funny. And I bet freakishly close to the truth. Either that or the guy is Kevin Smith, just sticking up for Affleck.

  • May 27, 2001, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Ha...this movie has failed its primary mission to make 100 milli

    by Gustavo Cerati

    Good..bad...who gives a fuck...Disney has failed at what it intended to do and that

  • May 27, 2001, 8:14 p.m. CST

    "dangerous piece of pop culture"

    by teapot

    this review, from a link posted by HotNewFilm, deserves to be read. i cried in the car on the way back from this movie - not because one of the protagonists died, but because of the intense disrespect this film demonstrated for my boyfriend's deceased father, who was shot off of three ships in the pacific, permanently injured by shrapnel, and yet never forgot that the Japanese loved their children as much as he loved his. this is indeed a very "dangerous piece of pop culture", and if you think it isn't, then it has already hurt you. ==================================================================== The opening sequence of Pearl Harbor displays director Michael Bay's obsession with wheat fields and boyhood idealism as two young boys, the younger versions of the film's protagonists, mock-shoot at an airplane while playing inside of a barn. It's as middling and restful a moment as we are going to find in the entire production and, even then, it is barely sufferable, trivialized by Bay's inability to fully comprehend the link between childhood experience and adult actualization. And, if Bay's na

  • May 27, 2001, 8:17 p.m. CST

    zeek doggy dog, don't kid yourself

    by kojiro

    The Brits would have been happy to make more movies extolling their bravery in WWII (after all, they're as egotistic as the rest of us), but unfortunately for them, their film industry sort of collapsed like a fucking neutron star.

  • May 27, 2001, 8:55 p.m. CST

    The Best Reason To See PEARL HARBOR: The P.C.ers Don't Want You

    by Buzz Maverik

    That's a good reason to see any movie, read any book, watch any T.V. show, play any video game. Be free! Do or don't do what you want to do because you do or don't want to do it! See PEARL HARBOR, stop off at Hooters on the way home and have one of those giant hamburgers, and light up a Cuban cigar if you can get one.

  • May 27, 2001, 9:17 p.m. CST

    You know what? This movie was very flawed. Fuck you.

    by axelfoley

    What amazes me is the ignorance of moviegoers today. Why does The Wedding Planner and Bring it On make money? Why are they deemed brilliant? Brilliance in film is overused to a ridiculous extreme. While Pearl Harbor had it's good points, and let me reiterate them for you, the special effects and that overtime computer work was the saving grace- ADMIT IT ALL FUCKING READY. Goodness gracious people, don't you know half the stuff in the movie was Hollywoodize in a most bastardation of ways. For example, there was no one in real life who said "I have this feeling Pearl Harbor's going to get bombed by the Japanese". All of Dan Ackroyd's character was thrown in there. We all know that the attack was a total surprise, there wasn't some guy who said "I told you so, you should have listened to me". Get the fuck out of here. Look, Ackroyd was wasted, and the way moviegoers think in today's society, they're now prone to the realization that we weren't prepared for the Japanese attack on that December 7th because no one listened to Dan Ackroyd. Not only was he wasted, but so was Cuba Gooding Jr. Why oh why did Gooding play such a miniscule role? Couldn't have had more involvement? His character was never developed and Alec Baldwin's speeches and dialogue as a whole was attrocious. I blame the writers more then him, but as good an actor as Baldwin can be at some times I suppose, I realize that he has a flair from comedy. What I'm saying here is that I've seen him hosting SNL years ago portraying military figures in comedic fashion, and his facial expressions and mannerisms in this film while reciting cliched, paint by the numbers dialect, were very reminiscent of the ones he had in his SNL Cabin Boy sketch when he had the hots for Adam Sandler. The action was good, the effects, but alot of the events in the movie were too Hollywoodized. Don't do that to history. Especially as important as a movie as this. I've read that people are shooting down people who criticize this movie. Keep in mind folks, we're people with opinions just like yous, but keep in mind this movie is getting a good majority of negativity, and while it wasn't an awful movie, Pearl Harbor was not something I wanted to be made by the same hip guy who brought us Bad Boys. I loved Bad Boys, I see it now and I'm like, 'Ok, Michael Bay can mix comedy with action, alright.' So can Martin Brest and Robert Rodriguez-- they ain't doing epic films. My point is this, they could have had someone else. Mind you I'm not Roger Ebert nor intend to be in the future, I'm just a 20 year old guy who didn't approve what he saw Friday night because people I know a lot of shit in that film was made up and that took away the integrity of the film. I don't hate Michael Bay, I don't. Let's hear from that fucking EddieDane, who's been so bold and try to create wars with me in the past. I'd like to hear his "brilliance" on this whole matter. That is if he can get a 20 minute break from his job at Wal-Mart that is.

  • May 27, 2001, 9:26 p.m. CST

    You know what? I didn't see you name on the screen, asshole.

    by Uncapie

    If you think you can do better, go make your own fucking movie. Pissant.

  • May 27, 2001, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Uncapie, don't start you douchebag.........

    by axelfoley

    I never said I could make a better movie. I leave that up to the professionals, you fucking instigator. And you know what? Hollywood picked the wrong professionals to put this piece of history into cinematic tuition. Paint by the numbers story with wasted characters. There were good points, but there were even more bad ones. Michael Bay is not Steven Spielberg. Is style is too MTVish, and they shouldn't have had Bruckheimer produce either. He makes mindless action movies, much like as a lot of talkbackers had done with their posts.

  • May 27, 2001, 10 p.m. CST

    Good god

    by TheSchnoo

    Please murder mr. bay.. please.. someone.. do it for the good of the children. I mean, christ, what is this movie? I think it was literally the worst movie i've seen since battlefield:earth.. and i might hate it more because i expected it to not waste it's potential. Did anyone else who saw this wish that all the characters would suffer and die by the end of the movie because it got so long and drawn out and annoying? Also, what was it with this movie and wanting to insult every other country's role in the war... Oh the british can't beat the luftwaffe, send the americans! oh the japanese bombed pearl harbor, send the americans... OH EVERYONE NEEDS US TO HELP THEM... the end narration even claims that we basically won the entire war, it's so goddamned horribly offensive... i mean... they portray the japanese as savages whom would kill all of us cause we cut off their oil supply.. they portray the british as weak and the russians as needy and the chinese as big pussys. The things i learned from pearl harbor: all women back then were sluts (look at every scene with the nurses, all they talk about is fucking someone). It's okay to twist the facts of history and offend everyone as long as it's for entertainment. And you must put a black character in with a sidestory that is incredibly pointless so that it doesn't look like it was just white guys in airplanes that won the entire war. Oh and what the fuck was this bullshit in the film where the two guys get in their 2 planes during the bombing and the apparent 6 trillion japanese fighter pilots can't shoot 2 planes down.... i'm surprised we didn't rip the japanese up right at pearl harbor since all they could do really was pick off stationary targets and obviously can't dogfight worth shit... so fucking ridiculous.

  • May 27, 2001, 10:18 p.m. CST

    Actually, Uncapie I apologize.

    by axelfoley

    I shouldn't have insulted you jumped down your throat. I take back what I said. I read your post and agreed with it. All I looked at was your subject title and got all pissy. I apologize. No hard feelings.

  • May 27, 2001, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Good article on why Pearl Harbor is crap

    by Asmus Teis

    Fantasies of war To counter the bad taste left by the Vietnam war, Hollywood is cranking out epics like Pearl Harbor Michael Fellman Vancouver Sun Ever since Steven Spielberg's silly Second World War epic, Saving Private Ryan, The Last Good War (hereafter TLGW) has been filling American screens and spilling over on to ours. Of course, Hollywood is known for copycat productions, working a popular genre until it is saturated. But there is more to the glut than that. These films are finding their way to us just now because they have "content," however thin, and because behind the stories there is a semi-conscious ideological sensibility, if not explicit ideology. Pearl Harbor is probably the most banal of these war-lite flicks, yet in its own way it is important. Set in the context of some of the other TLGW productions, it instructs us about the social values of the current era, the reign in the U.S. of George Bush II. What is the true driving force behind a TLGW film? It helps to know that with Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg said he was seeking to honour his father's generation that did so much to save American democracy. His star, Tom Hanks, has been spearheading a publicity drive to build a Second World War monument in Washington, D.C., something more victorious than the long plain black wall commemorating Vietnam. I don't know about Hanks, but Spielberg, a liberal, opposed the Vietnam War. He certainly seems to be making amends for youthful ideological deviation. And there we have our theme: The Good War is back to help erase the memory of the Bad War in Vietnam, the one in which the Americans disgraced themselves and then lost. Vietnam was a ruinous conflict where American martial honour was concerned, and it split the home front bitterly. Hence TLGW dramatics, in which absolute (American) good triumphs over absolute (German and Japanese) evil, where nostalgia displaces terrible memories. Veracity, even verisimilitude, has never been the point. Thus in 2000's U571, the Americans are depicted as having captured the German encrypting machine off a disabled German sub, thus gaining an immense intelligence victory over the enemy. As it happens, it was the British who captured U571 seven months before the Americans even entered the war. This construction evades the awkward question about what in fact the Americans were doing sitting out the war for so long, while the British, Canadians and the Russians were doing the dying. American isolationism -- craven appeasement in retrospect -- is rarely mentioned in TLGW films. Obviously it helps if the enemy is utterly dastardly and the Americans pure as snow, just like in the old Westerns. The Nazis were utterly dastardly, which helps a lot. Still, while it is clear that Hitler could not have been combatted except with war, Americans never united on this view until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, when the war was already two years old. This attack delivered Franklin Roosevelt, who wanted to enter the war, from his huge political problem -- a nation half isolationist and half interventionist. Although actual combat is always morally compromising, with soldiers on both sides committing atrocities, in Hollywood, American policy is always high-minded, and the American soldiers are always nice young guys who would never imagine nasty stuff like shooting captured Nazis. The Nazis would do anything, of course, including burning a French village church with all the villagers locked inside in retaliation for a Resistance attack. In The Patriot, this scene was transposed to the British in the American Revolution, who never did such a deed, although both sides warred against the civilian population, many of whom were neutral, with considerable ferocity. Actually, we can include The Patriot in the TLGW roster even if it is thinly disguised as a far earlier conflict. Establishing the United States in 1776 becomes the same as preserving it in 1941, through the magic flattening of Hollywood time. Oddly, the Civil War is generally left out of TLGW reconstruction, mainly, of course, to avoid offending southern white sensibilities. Not only do millions of them attend movies, the power base of the Republican Party rests among these pious and patriotic folks. One gets the sense that most TLGW flicks would also like to ignore race, the great American divider, but can't afford to, which has led to much stetching of the historical truth. Until 1948, the American armed forces were as strictly segregated as the rest of American society, with blacks given only menial jobs. Somehow blacks need to be made part of the great American family to make a satisfyingly feel good modern TLGW movie, and this takes some doing. Some of my favourite bits of fantasy history of race relations come in The Patriot, where Mel Gibson's black compatriots are free blacks working corn and hog and tobacco farms on the Santee River near Charleston. In actual fact, there were almost no free blacks in South Carolina, and the Santee River basin was the most intensely slave-holding region of the American colonies, a place where hundreds of slaves cultivated rice on huge plantations. In The Patriot, the British are depicted as kidnapping happy and loyal free black folks at gunpoint. In fact, thousands of slaves fled to the British, who offered them and their families freedom in exchange for enlistment. In The Patriot, one mythic black man fights alongside the whites, gaining the admiration of even the racist redneck who fights beside him in several scenes. This cracker tells the black hero that the emerging American democracy will be for him too; in fact, the constitutional fathers soon built black slavery into their national compact, a deed that would be ended only by the Civil War, 80 years later. This heroic, lone black soldier reappears in most TLGW movies, including Pearl Harbor where Cuba Gooding Jr., a cook and boxer, wins a medal for improvised heroism during the war. Previously forbidden to train for combat on racial grounds, he rushes to the deck of his ship, grabs a vacant anti-aircraft weapon, and shoots down a Zero. This character also mourns like a faithful retainer for his beloved Captain, killed by the Japanese. The tokenism of this constructed black and his eagerness to integrate into white society ought to make viewers squirm, despite his actual role as a device intended to have us feeling that TLGW was a war for racial democracy. In real life, after the war ended, hundreds of thousands of black veterans -- embittered by their treatment during a war where they were ostensibly sent to fight racial oppression abroad -- came home ready to band together against systemic discrimination. That story is definitely not part of the TLGW master narrative. Nor is the Russian role in destroying most of the German army at enormous sacrifice -- as many as 20,000,000 deaths at Nazi hands, according to reliable historians. In partial exception to this rule is Enemy at the Gate, a recent film set in the brutal German siege of Stalingrad, where the hero is a lovely and idealistic young Russian sharpshooter sniping it out with a nasty, aging Nazi. Although this story replicates much of the TLGW story in Russian uniform, it bombed at the box office. Americans are not prepared to see Russian heroes. Only one recent American film broke with the kindergarten morality of TLGW. The Thin Red Line, faithfully made from the fine novel by James Jones, dealt with the American assault on a Japanese position in the Pacific as a complex power game between American officers. Here the Greek-American company commander, concerned to save the lives of his men, is outmanoeuvred and destroyed by his WASP and West Point-trained colonel, a man hell-bent for personal glory and rewards, whatever the sacrifice of men. Moreover, as did Jones, the filmmakers present this conflict within the American army as a complicated issue. Furthermore, the Japanese are portrayed as tough but malnourished and desperate -- they finally break under the pressure. Riveting and complex, this is an anti-TLGW film; not surprisingly it did poorly with audiences, who seemed to think it dull and overly long. In fact, it is Pearl Harbor that deserves that designation. Talk about bloated: The film's three hours contain more platitudes than the collected speeches of Jean Chretien. The love story leaves no cliche unturned, and neither does the vainglory-of-the-war stuff. And the music swells and swells, underlining each climax for even the dimmest of American youth. (This film was consciously designed to be the perfect date movie for 17-year-olds -- if they still date: really gigantic explosions for him, gooey romance for her.) At its core we find, of course, the Americans as victims of the determined and ruthless Japanese attackers, whose perfidy aroused the peaceful but heroic Yankees to fight back. The film ends not with massive defeat but with Colonel James Doolittle's quixotic raid on Tokyo in April 1942 -- a handful of Good Men striking the first blow that will avenge Japanese treachery.

  • May 27, 2001, 10:40 p.m. CST

    A cliche that will live in INFAMY!

    by Syd Mead

    How many times do we see in this movie a Japanese bomb fall and land at someone's feet for them to stare at in horror. Then it goes BOOOM seconds later?!?! Didn't any bombs dropped just blow the fuck up??? About as many times as we see ol' glory flappin' in the breeze in slow motion. Was it all shit...NO. Other than 3 hours worth of bad acting, I got my $5 matinee's worth thanks to ILM. It would have been better with MORE Akyroyd and Cuba and less Ben Ass-lick. Too bad you couldn't have Bay do that action scenes and have anybody else direct the rest. This is not shaping up to be a steller summer...so ya take what ya get. --Syd

  • May 27, 2001, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Uncapie

    by AICN fanboy dork

    If axelfoley is in no position to be critical because he "didn't actually make the movie," then he's in no position to praise it either, and neither are you.

  • May 28, 2001, 1:14 a.m. CST

    Epic Story + Senseless Love Triangle + 100,000,000 x Spit Drooli

    by forward_deploy

    Let me first say that if not for Alec Baldwin (who, on Late Night with Conan O'Brien advocated the murder of US Representative Henry Hyde and his family as well as other members of congress. Btw, the audience, a large number being from New York City, gleefully clapped and cheered apparently enthralled with the notion of murdering inocent men, women and children.) being in PH I would have watched it. Another reason I am absolutely content not to watch this substandard and predictable pap is because of the banal formula forced onto what could have been a tremendous and uplifting story of bravery, heroism, courage, and comradery--those things which account for the legend of PH. I also do not want to revisit the same feelings of shock and utter dismay that left me despondent and forlorn after seeing Titanic. GAAASSSSPP. Did anyone also notice that this abominable movie, like Titanic, was nothing more than a supped up soap opera. A name like "The Young and the Capsized" would have been more appropriate or perhaps "The Life and Times of Guests of Rosie O'Donnell". One last thought: they could have saved millions if they would have just replaced Leo DeCrapio with Ben Aflake and replaced the sinking of the Titanic with the sinking of the Arizona. Even the audience's makeup is the same: 98 parts salivating, why-won't-mom-pick-me-up-from-the-soccer-game-and-take-me-in-the-SUV-to-go-see-Ben-Aflake-for-the-45th-time, adulating, indomitable teenage girls; 1 part Springer loving, Bon Bon stuffing, vibrator shoving, "adult" women; 1 part demoralized husbands screaming: "why in God's dear name did I forget my pocket knife and gouge out my eyes instead of letting this mind-numbed walking Mary Kay diorama talk me into going to see this movie?!?!?!?! WHY, OH WHY!?!?!"

  • May 28, 2001, 1:35 a.m. CST

    Hey, ForwardDeploy...

    by LesterB

    I don't want to start a political debate, but I think you need to back off of Alec Baldwin. Yeah, he's a liberal, and maybe he said something out of line. But he ain't the only one. Rush Limbaugh implied that the nation would be better off if Bill Clinton were dead, and Jesse Helms out-and-out said the same thing - followed by an offer to have his constituency carry out the deed. Look it up, it's a fact. So maybe you ought to look into what some of your own folks are saying before you start lambasting others.

  • May 28, 2001, 1:58 a.m. CST

    Well, LesterB, neither did I but here we go...

    by forward_deploy

    A few points: firstly, since when did we consider the public and unabashed promotion of the murder of high ranking government officials "a little out line". Then I guess Hitler's slaughter of 6 million Jews was "going a little to far". Secondly, I have as yet to hear one syllable uttered from Rush Limbaugh's mouth approaching anything as what you accuse him of. The same goes with Jesse Helms. The burden of proof lies upon your shoulders, my friend. If you have any source material that bolsters your claims, then by all means share them with me. By the way, was it not Creg Keelborn (friend of Alec Baldwin) that was recently investigated by the CIA for posting the phrase "SNIPER WANTED" in the foreground of a televised speech given by then candidate George Bush? (PH still sucks).

  • May 28, 2001, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Correction

    by forward_deploy

    It was not the CIA (to my knowledge) that investigated Creg Keelborn but the Secret Service. Sorry about that.

  • May 28, 2001, 2:21 a.m. CST

    If it's proof you want, then it's proof you shall have...

    by LesterB

    From Michael Moore's excellent book "Downsize This!": Rush Limbaugh: "The second violent American Revolution is just about - I got my fingers about a quarter inch apart - is about that far away ... because these people are sick and tired of a bunch of bureaucrats. It's time we all stepped up and got rid of this bunch of bleeding hearts. We're better off without them." Not exactly a call to arms, but pretty close to a threat. If that'd been Alec Baldwin talking about good ol' Dubya, you'd be looking for an arrest warrant right now. Senator Jesse Helms: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here [to North Carolina]. He'd better bring a bodyguard. I know I and a lot of my constituency are pretty furious with him." Once again, a veiled threat, but a threat nonetheless. Incidentally, following this last statement from Helms, the Secret Service made a recommendation to the U.S. Attorney's office to prosecute Senator Helms for violating 118 USC Section 871, the federal law that bans "delivering any threat to take the life or inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States". Helms was interviewed by the Secret Service, and he's still on file over there. My point (and I do have one) is that however patently ridiculous you find Senator Helms being investigated for what was clearly just partisan vitriole that is pretty typical of the Republican party, I find it just as ridiculous, if not more so, that you're indicting a Hollywood personality for playing to the crowd on a late-night talk show.

  • May 28, 2001, 2:32 a.m. CST

    And yes...

    by LesterB

    PH does suck. Page up a bit and you'll see my review.

  • May 28, 2001, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Oh lord....

    by WalterSobchak

    Man... how 'bout you guys freak out over Pearl Harbor. You guys should start up some sort of anti-'suspension of disbelief' club. You guys hate Michael Bay so you walk into this movie looking for things to rip apart... if this film looked exactly the same and was directed by someone you respected and it looked the same it would be lauded... or at least not trashed so heavily. If you didn't have someone to pick on you would actually have to deal with reality... wouldn't that suck?

  • May 28, 2001, 1:46 p.m. CST

    One of the worst war films ever

    by Brendan3

    Chist... this was one of the worst films I ever saw. Who best qualifies to fly bombers off of carrier decks? Why fighter pilots of course because of their spunk. Why was the admiral in the harbor floating in a small boat in his dress whites spouting inane dialogue right after the attack? Did he have nothing better to do? Why, early in the film, did President Roosevelt complain that Stalin and Churchill were pressing the US to join the war? Stalin? Stalin was still allied with Hitler until later that year when Hitler broke the pact and invaded. Oh these are just a few of the hundreds of disregards to history and natural law that this film abuses. My favorite is FDR rising out of his wheelchair (It

  • May 28, 2001, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Pearl Harbor, not just a popcorn movie...

    by nerkman

    The mention of the two words Pearl Harbor conjures up so many different emotions. One in particular, is sorrow. Another is anger, and with hindsight, regret. When I think of Pearl Harbor, I view it as the day that the U.S. lost its innocence and its reluctance into entering WWII wilfully. Even critics of the U.S. Military policy would be hard-pressed to see this day of infamy as anything but. Over 3000 people died, most of them, even before they even had a chance to know what hit them. To them, a motion picture that would document and help us to remember the spirit of these brave men and women would go a long way for the rest of us to remember them by and to never forget what sacrifice for love of country really is. That being said, this movie doesn't even come close to render justice to those who lost their lives. In fact, this movie trivializes and may down the road; even contribute to the falsification of its memory. That is even beside the fact that it's an awful movie. ****** THERE ARE SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS PORTION OF THE REVIEW. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE, DO NOT READ ON (OR READ ON AT YOUR OWN PERIL) ****** What is the point of showing lots of stuff being blown up and planes whizzing around doing acrobatic tricks in a historical context? This is confusing for me because for a film that wants to 'accurately' depict what it was like to be there, it sure likes to gloss over the human component. Why are explosions, crashes, bullets, fire, ships sinking and pilots rah-rahing are given absolute cinematographic clarity and visceral impact, yet the hospital wards filled with the burned, the wounded, the dying and the dead - the result of such a blatant act of war - blurred almost to the point where they're nothing more than figures pawing their way through the ether? I certainly abhor pain and suffering, but in this case, blurring and softening the human plight of this attack doesn't offer a counter-point to the pyrotechnics we're seeing. It removes the consequences of using instruments of mass destruction, and it certainly doesn't help us re-sensitise ourselves to the fact that regardless of what this war was about or who started it, it was messy, dangerous and tragic. I think we're past the point where we can make overly-glorified movies that forget their sense of history and perspective. Back in the late 40s and early 50s, they could justify their glorifications due to the Hayes code, and the massive debt of sensitivity owed to the men and women of the Armed forces, who still had these events fresh in their minds. You would think 60 years would be enough to give a more sound perspective. Apparently, for some movie directors and producers, it's not enough time, nor a compelling enough reason. Had the premise of this movie were to be a video-game or a popcorn movie, then my chief criticisms would be the lackadaisical acting, the boring love triangle, and the simply awful dialogue in places. `Just get me into a plane' says our square-jawed hero. Sounds like a 12-year old wanting to get into those virtual video-game rides down at the arcade centre. But this movie can cause more damage than simply be a vessel of bad acting, bad dialogue or story. It has the potential to re-write history like it was an arcade game, and worse, make us forget what really transpired on December 7th, 1941. If this movie makes mountains of cash, it will be a testimony on how we consumers effectively turn historical moments into trivia, and our ability to draw understanding from tragedy reduced to terms of bankability.

  • May 28, 2001, 5:31 p.m. CST

    JMYoda

    by Justoneoftheguys

    For the record JMYoda, self sufficient resident of Manhattan and 23 years old, By the time I'm 35 you'll still be sitting here bitching about movies except it wont be Pearl Harbor it will be my movie. Despite the story, direction and acting.....any cinema fan that failed to see the brilliance in the cinematography, sound design, Special FX and pyro techinics of this film is a complete moron. Worst movie ever? you need to get out more, or just turn on your tv at any moment.

  • May 28, 2001, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Once again LesterB stands corrected...

    by forward_deploy

    "Rush Limbaugh implied that the nation would be better off if Bill Clinton were dead, and Jesse Helms out-and-out said the same thing - followed by an offer to have his constituency carry out the deed." = "'It's time we all stepped up and got rid of this bunch of bleeding hearts. We're better off without them.'"??????????? Obviously you went on a fishing expedition but forgot your hooks. Gee LesterB, I can really tell that RL is trying to incite civil disobedience and encouraging the wholesale slaughter of innocent peoples. How can you and others who are so far left that you're nearly ready to fall off the edge of the earth insinuate such patently false statements and in such a blatant manner? Obviously, being more openminded, tolerant, enlightned, and less bigoted than I, you possess the capacity to transcend normal human speech and thought and read in between the lines whereby you are afforded the right to insert according to your own volition and whim what the author really meant to say. And if the Republican party is so "eeeevil" (said Ian McKellen style), then why are the big money unions, jugernaughts of the Democratic party, know as the American equivalent of the Khmer Rouge? Why do the vast majority of nonfelons released from prison vote left wing (i.e. Democrat) and why are those convicted of felonies and who vote illegally (e.g. Florida elections) cast Democratic ballots? Please, praytell, LesterB, give me some reasonable explanation (and not some typical ad hominem left wing attack)!

  • May 28, 2001, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Pros and Cons of Voyager

    by forward_deploy

    Pros: 1. Not every officer was a woman 2. Good special effects 3. Tuvok being the brightest apple of the bunch 4. Voyager did not continue for another 3 seasons Cons: 1. Only four Pros 2. Janeway's glarring and rampant hypocrisy (e.g. violation of the PD and TPD, the attempted murder of one of the Equinox crew when it suited her, beholden to the well-being and placation of hostile alien races at the cost of the lives of the members of her own crew 3. Harry Kim relegated to an expensive stage prop 4. Poor character development 5. Fervent anti-male, femenist sentiment (i.e. Janeway keeping Chakotay on a leash and relieving him of duty when he appeared "threatening" to her) 6. The sickening P.C. pap relegating the Doctor (a sophisticated calculator) to human status and affording him such rights 7. Cookie-cutter approach to most of the storylines 8. Janeway's cheese slidding off the pizza to often

  • May 28, 2001, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Oops, sorry Harry, et. al. The last message was meant to be post

    by forward_deploy

    Sorry!

  • May 28, 2001, 8:43 p.m. CST

    La Familia De Maverik Celebrates Memorial Day And Sees 90 Minute

    by Buzz Maverik

    The family rolled in yesterday. It's a tradition in our family to spend the night before a big barbeque cattle rustling. My brother Crash Maverik was able to scare us up some 4x4s and a refrigerated truck. I loaded up my brothers, Buzz Jr., my nephews, a half dozen shotguns and my chainsaw collection and we headed out for Kern County. It was a good night for cattle and generally uneventful except that my brother Cav opened fire on one of those unmarked black helicopters that keeps following him around. Today, I was out in the back, doing the cooking. Some people use charcoal, mesquite or propane. I use flamethrower. My wife brought me another keg and said there was a drunk to see me. "Dad! I didn't know the carnival was back in town," I said. He tapped the keg and helped himself to some baked peyote before answering me. "It's Memorial Day. I was in Dubya-Dubya-Eye-Eye. You're taken me to see PEARL HARBOR." So after we'd eaten, we all loaded into some mini-vans that Crash had scrounged up for us and drove down to the Multiplex 100. Ya gotta have refreshments during a movie, but fortunately most of us carry our own flasks. I don't know how my nephew Mosh got that keg in there. My brother Slam immediately warned all the people around us that they'd better not talk, then got in a screaming match with his wife Bianca. Buzz Jr. didn't start crying until after the previews. Everything was hunky dory until those Zeroes came flying in for their assault. By that time, Pa Maverik had finished his third fifth of Mescal. He pulled a Glock 9 from his underwear, shouted, "Sayanora, you sonsabitches" and started blasting the screen. For some reason, everybody not related to me freaked, which was to our advantage. Crash bolted out the emergency exit immediately. My niece, Sis Maverik, happened to have a couple of smoke bombs in her purse, which provided us some cover while Cav and Slam pointed their own guns at Pa's head and told him to drop it. He got kind of sheepish, the way old men do. We carried Pa to the exit, where Crash pulled up in a '68 Barracuda he'd gotten somewhere. He got Pa out of there. I went to complain to the manager to sort of cover things up. We got free passes to ANIMAL when it comes out for the whole family! It was the best Memorial Day ever!

  • May 28, 2001, 8:49 p.m. CST

    hacker 2095...

    by otcconan

    "no war movie has women in it..." You must have missed Stalingrad.

  • May 28, 2001, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Justoneoftheguys

    by JMYoda

    "For the record JMYoda, self sufficient resident of Manhattan and 23 years old, By the time I'm 35 you'll still be sitting here bitching about movies except it wont be Pearl Harbor it will be my movie." A) You are one of the most incredibly boorish, humorless, self-righteous individuals I have ever seen post to the TBs and yet you call us who hate this shit-fest of a movie "film snobs". B) How do you know where I'll be when your 35 or for that matter where I am now? I don't post my aspirations and claim I am what I would like to be as you do, I WILL say I'm a unpublished writer who is studying screenwriting and film but I won't be as pompous to call myself a screenwrier or filmmaker until you can either visit the multiplex or a video store to see one of my works. Along thoses lines it will most likley be you here bitching about MY movie because it doesn't have enough explosions, garishly loud sound effects and other various pyrotechnics to keep your limited attention-span fully occupied. C) I never said "Pear Harbor" was the worst film ever made. I only said it's a piece of crap. I never said it didn't have nice visuals. I feel ILM deserves an Oscar for their stunning effects. The big trouble is it looks TOO good, too glossy. It's a Disney-fied version of what happened. The whole attack sequences is nothing but a videogame. It never feels real, it never gives one the feeling of what it was like to be at Pear Harbor on that horrible day. However if the film was to be judged on visuals alone it might have some merit but a terrible screenplay and amateurish performances pretty much sink it even if you try to view it as a "popcorn movie". When and if you become a filmmaker (and until you've completed and released a film you haven't earned that right.) You may wish to emulate Michael Bay's childish, whiz-bang, all-flash and no substance style. I prefer to emulate the likes of Steven Spielberg, Akira Kurosawa and John Ford. Filmmakers who combine stunning visuals with interesting stories and believable characters.

  • May 28, 2001, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, ForwardDeployment...

    by LesterB

    I find it ironic that you accuse me of closedmindedness, when you are the one now attempting to put words in my mouth. I never said the Republican party was "eeeevil". Go back through my posts, that statement isn't there. In fact, there isn't anything even close to that. Yes, I'm a Democrat, but guess what? I voted for John McCain in the primaries this past year. Republicans don't piss me off. Intolerant, hypocritical, witch-hunting Republicans do. An example of witch-hunting is blowing a statement made by a huge celebrity way, way, way out of proportion and calling for his arrest because he was making fun of his own liberal reputation on a late-night talk show. And apparently, this failure to detect humor or exaggeration within someone's words is not a fluke, since you evidently missed the entire point of my post about Limbaugh and Helms. I was making intentionally out of hand statements about their "dangerousness" in order to help you realize how ridiculous YOU sounded. Incidentally, I noticed you didn't comment on Helms' investigation by the Secret Service. I don't blame you. I'd be embarassed by this schmuck too. Now I've got some other questions for you, the unbigoted, openminded fellow. How do you know I'm "so far to the left I'm teetering on the edge of the world"? All I said was you ought to be a little fairer with poor, stupid Alec Baldwin, whose only crime was wanting to be laughed at. And yeah, I guess I poked some fun at Rush Limbaugh and Jesse Helms, but c'mon ... can you think of two easier targets? Well, Bill Clinton is one. But obviously, I wouldn't think that since I'm such a lefty, right? Thank God we've got non-judgmental, fair people like you who hear the whole story before passing sentence on someone. And incidentally, you're the first person I've ever heard of to compare the "big-money unions" to the Khmer Rouge? Don't you think that's a little out there? Well, I guess if you can compare Alec Baldwin to Adolf Hitler, anything is possible. Why do the vast majority of felons vote Democratic? Fuck if I know. Maybe because many of them are minorities, and Republicans have been giving minorities shit ever since their leader freed the slaves (ironic, isn't it?). It's true and you know it. Who are the leaders in this century who did the most for civil rights? St. FDR's name comes up. Kennedy's. Even Johnson, who was otherwise a shitty President. Any Republicans in there? Huh. No. This is not disputable. It's fact. Nothing wrong with it necessarily. I would concede that the party has come a long way over the past forty or so years. Colin Powell is a Republican, and I admire him a great deal. Anyway, I guess I'm just saying that minorities get pissed at Republicans and that's why they vote Democratic. I doubt Democrats are inherently felonious in nature, which was certainly your implication, you tolerant, openminded paeon of liberty, you. In closing, I just want to stress again that I don't dislike Republicans. Just Republicans like ForwardDeployment.

  • May 29, 2001, 4:33 a.m. CST

    ewen bremner/james king

    by Ida

    Hello. No Ewen Bremner didn't play a potato in Trainspotting, but yes his character's name was Spud, not Spuds. He played the Ewan MacGregor role in the original stage play of Trainspotting too... and he starred with Chloe Sevigny in Harmony Korine's julien donkeyboy. James King is a model, who used to have a bit of a smack problem, and also turns up as Johnny Depp's fantasy daughter at the end of Blow. one wonders if her inappropriate boy's name will damage her chances of stardom? idle musings: Someone pointed out to me that the bit where Josh Hartnett says 'I think World War II just reached us' is bullshit, as no-one called it WW2 then. Did anyone else think it was anachronistic too for Kate Beckinsale to say "he had a very cute butt"? In 1941? must ask my granny...

  • May 29, 2001, 10:28 a.m. CST

    some inside dirt on this mess

    by Brendan3

    Found this scoop over at MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/news/539589.asp?0nm=C13O#BODY Ruly disturbing of Bruckheimer/Bay, but not surprising

  • May 29, 2001, 4:39 p.m. CST

    whoa, whoa, whoa LesterB

    by forward_deploy

    If irony was gold, LesterB, then watch out Bill Gates. You seem to be finding it everywhere nowadays. So you voted for John McCain did you? Well I have two words for you: Jim Jeffords. Just because McCain calls himself a Republican don't mean diddly squat. In fact, LesterB, John McCain is known in most Republican circles as "the Democrats' favorite Repbulican" (although the title should really belong to Jeffords). Next point. You said, and I quote, "...what was clearly just partisan vitriole that is pretty typical of the Republican party..." LesterB, what does vitriol mean? Well, Merrian-Webster online defines vitriol as "something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech." Now if that definition is not indicative of hate and mean spiritedness which are all qualities native to evil, then I don't know what is. So yes, LesterB, whether you meant to or not, your statement can only be construed in such a way so as to insinuate that the Republican party is eeevil. Next, witch-hunting Republicans, huh. Who were the ones that lodged over 400 ethics complaints against Newt Gingrich in 1995 and 1996, all of which were found to be frivilous by the House Ethics Committee except a few concerning Newt's book deal (which is nearly indistinguishable from Hillarys's book deal--except she's getting more money)? Naturally, the Democrats. Just on the side, LesterB, did'nt anybody ever tell you, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I would'nt be so quick to judge the Republican party on issues such as witch-hunting, hypocricy, intolerance, and the like until you guys clean out your own house. Point number three. With the following quote, "...when you are the one now attempting to put words in my mouth," you have just put the shoe on the other foot. And while your accusations are hitting everything but their target, you manage to incriminate yourself by doing exactly what you accuse me of. I never said I wanted Alec Baldwin arrested nor anyone else for that matter. Moreover, Mr. Baldwin already possessed a reputation for off-the-wall remarks, which although were not as frightening as what he advocated on Conan, are still a part of the same sinister tune he sings day and night. If you ask me and lot of other people, Mr. Baldwin, among others (e.g. Barbara Streisand, Julia Roberts, Robert Redford, etc...), was rather mellow and held-back compared to what he really wants to say and do. My point, LesterB, is that if this was a one-time affair, I would have to agree with you; but if one considers his track record and collectively subsumes his previous statements, one cannot help but draw the same conclusion. Now, as pertaining to Jesse Helms, his statement concerning Clinton, "...better watch out if he comes down here [to North Carolina]. He'd better have a bodyguard," is certainly inappropriate and uncalled for. And if you want to equate Baldwin's statement with Helms' then that's your perrogative. But it seems to me to be a far cry from the blatant advertisement of the slaying of not only political adversaries but also their family--including children for crying out loud. I did'nt hear Mr. Helms advocate the murder of Chelsea Clinton. On the matter of unions. George Will, I believe, was the one who coined that phrase. But besides that, LesterB, and the fact that the unions have been inextricably linked to the mob and other members of organized crime since the late 1920's, what are most of the large unions known for? Is it their charity? Nope. Is is there unwavering desire to pledge help and support for their local community? Nuh-huh. Well, it has to be that they protect the little guy from Mr. Big, Giganto, Evil Corporation, right? It used to be the case, but that ain't it either. No, LesterB, today's typical large (i.e. AFLCIO) union is all about intimidating people and take them by their legs and holding them upside down and shaking all the little change they have out of their pockets and gleefully putting that money in Democratic coffers. Why do you think they're so scared of right-to-work legislation? Oh yeah, and and one little thing I almost forgot: they kill people who are unprotected and get in their way. Well, LesterB, I have to get going but I will reply to your absurd proposition that the minorities vote mostly Democratic because the Democrats really care about them (which is a bunch of crock, and the biggest lie ever told since the heliocentric theory) in my next post. NB: Its forward_deploy not forward_deployment.

  • May 29, 2001, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Whoa, whoa, whoa LesterB

    by forward_deploy

    If irony was gold, LesterB, then watch out Bill Gates. You seem to be finding it everywhere nowadays. So you voted for John McCain did you? Well I have two words for you: Jim Jeffords. Just because McCain calls himself a Republican don't mean diddly squat. In fact, LesterB, John McCain is known in most Republican circles as "the Democrats' favorite Repbulican" (although the title should really belong to Jeffords). Next point. You said, and I quote, "...what was clearly just partisan vitriole that is pretty typical of the Republican party..." LesterB, what does vitriol mean? Well, Merrian-Webster online defines vitriol as "something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech." Now if that definition is not indicative of hate and mean spiritedness which are all qualities native to evil, then I don't know what is. So yes, LesterB, whether you meant to or not, your statement can only be construed in such a way so as to insinuate that the Republican party is eeevil. Next, witch-hunting Republicans, huh. Who were the ones that lodged over 400 ethics complaints against Newt Gingrich in 1995 and 1996, all of which were found to be frivilous by the House Ethics Committee except a few concerning Newt's book deal (which is nearly indistinguishable from Hillarys's book deal--except she's getting more money)? Naturally, the Democrats. Just on the side, LesterB, did'nt anybody ever tell you, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I would'nt be so quick to judge the Republican party on issues such as witch-hunting, hypocricy, intolerance, and the like until you guys clean out your own house. Point number three. With the following quote, "...when you are the one now attempting to put words in my mouth," you have just put the shoe on the other foot. And while your accusations are hitting everything but their target, you manage to incriminate yourself by doing exactly what you accuse me of. I never said I wanted Alec Baldwin arrested nor anyone else for that matter. Moreover, Mr. Baldwin already possessed a reputation for off-the-wall remarks, which although were not as frightening as what he advocated on Conan, are still a part of the same sinister tune he sings day and night. If you ask me and lot of other people, Mr. Baldwin, among others (e.g. Barbara Streisand, Julia Roberts, Robert Redford, etc...), was rather mellow and held-back compared to what he really wants to say and do. My point, LesterB, is that if this was a one-time affair, I would have to agree with you; but if one considers his track record and collectively subsumes his previous statements, one cannot help but draw the same conclusion. Now, as pertaining to Jesse Helms, his statement concerning Clinton, "...better watch out if he comes down here [to North Carolina]. He'd better have a bodyguard," is certainly inappropriate and uncalled for. And if you want to equate Baldwin's statement with Helms' then that's your perrogative. But it seems to me to be a far cry from the blatant advertisement of the slaying of not only political adversaries but also their family--including children for crying out loud. I did'nt hear Mr. Helms advocate the murder of Chelsea Clinton. On the matter of unions. George Will, I believe, was the one who coined that phrase. But besides that, LesterB, and the fact that the unions have been inextricably linked to the mob and other members of organized crime since the late 1920's, what are most of the large unions known for? Is it their charity? Nope. Is is there unwavering desire to pledge help and support for their local community? Nuh-huh. Well, it has to be that they protect the little guy from Mr. Big, Giganto, Evil Corporation, right? It used to be the case, but that ain't it either. No, LesterB, today's typical large (i.e. AFLCIO) union is all about intimidating people and take them by their legs and holding them upside down and shaking all the little change they have out of their pockets and gleefully putting that money in Democratic coffers. Why do you think they're so scared of right-to-work legislation? Oh yeah, and and one little thing I almost forgot: they kill people who are unprotected and get in their way. Well, I must be going, LesterB, so I will have to respond to you claim that the reason why minorities vote Democratic is because the Democrats genuinely care about them (which is a crock and the biggest lie since the geocentric theory) in my next post. NB: its forward_deploy, no forward_deployment.

  • May 29, 2001, 9:26 p.m. CST

    jmyoda

    by Justoneoftheguys

    A) You are one of the most incredibly boorish, humorless, self-righteous individuals I have ever seen post to the TBs and yet you call us who hate this shit-fest of a movie "film snobs". A. I have seen your posts on other boards and noticed that you like to stir things up. You're nothing more than a childish upstart. I questioned your negativity, not your taste in cinema. "Film Snobs" are people like you that have no talent, except for the talent to watch old movies and bitch about how everyone has sold out. If it is so bad then stop reading this, open up your MS word and bring cinema back to the glory years. I hate many lifeless Hollywood blockbuster movies, this movie has heart, it is not the Mummy Returns or some other fodder. It is not one of the classics of all time but is that the standard that you hold all movies up to. If so, you will be dissapointed for the rest of your life. B) How do you know where I'll be when your 35 or for that matter where I am now? I don't post my aspirations and claim... B. Your poor attitude reflects the kind of person you are and based on that information it is easy to see where you'll end up. Bitching wherever you are. Trust me, I know many negative people like you, shitting on other people gets you nowhere. C. .) You may wish to emulate Michael Bay's childish, whiz-bang, all-flash and no substance style. I prefer to emulate the likes of Steven Spielberg, Akira Kurosawa and John Ford. Filmmakers who combine stunning visuals with interesting stories and believable characters. C. These guys and others are the bar we all set ourselves to, just because I enjoyed the film doesn't mean I have to abandon Akira, Spielberg or Huston. d. amateurish performances D. I disagree Good Luck, ps don't return my movies late, Blockbuster makes a killing on late fees...

  • May 29, 2001, 10:30 p.m. CST

    ForwardDeploy (note the correct usage of your name)

    by LesterB

    First of all, I want to apologize for my initially hostile tone. I think it got us off on the wrong foot. I still think you're wrong, but I could have been more polite about it. Politics is something I get rather heated about in debate, so I apologize in advance if I manage to offend you again. Anyway ... I agree, I did put words into your mouth ... and no one is more embarassed about my hypocrisy than I am. I guess my thinking was that you were accusing Alec Baldwin of attempting to incite murder (am I wrong about that?) ... and to me, that's a jailable offense. I assumed you made the same leap of logic, but I guess I was wrong. So for that I apologize. Now that the apologies are out of the way, let me first respond to your point that Democrats are as bad about witch-hunting as Republicans. Recently it hasn't seemed that way, but you have a point. I don't like the witch-hunting Democrats either, but somehow there seem to be less of them. How Republicans can try to impeach Bill Clinton (certainly a snake in the grass, but no more so than any other politician) for getting some tail and lying about it (which everyone does. C'mon. Admit it), and defend Ronald Reagan for SELLING ARMS TO OUR ENEMIES (i.e. treason) at the same time is just beyond my comprehension. I guess that's what I mean by hypocrisy and witch-hunting. Now let me ask you another question: you named off a number of liberal, "sinister" individuals such as Barbra Streisand (I find her obnoxious), Julia Roberts (talented and cute, but she should shut her mouth when it comes to politics), and Robert Redford (the only name you brought up that I take issue with). I agree that sometimes they go over the line and stick their nose where it doesn't belong. But so what? This is America. What horrible, dangerous things have they said that (a. the American people are liable to take seriously, and (b. that the federal government is likely to take seriously? Celebrities are almost all idiots about politics. How many people in this country do you think don't know that? How many presidential candidates are likely to put Rosie O'Donnell in their Cabinet if they're elected? I guess I'm saying that even if you're right and they're saying "dangerous" things (I'm curious about what you consider to be dangerous), what makes you so sure people are going to listen? As for the comparison between Helms and Baldwin, you're splitting hairs there, my friend. Murder is murder. If one statement is outrageous, so is the other. It's funny how extremists like yourself (that's not an insult; it's just an observation. Please tell me if I'm wrong) feel that they have the right to use semantics whenever they want, but when the other side does it, you start screaming that the argument is weak. Now, on to unions. George Will, huh? Glad you got hold of a nice, nonpartisan source there, man. Of course, you could say the same about my quoting Michael Moore, but the difference is that Moore was stating literal facts, not his opinion. Yes, unions are corrupt. No doubt. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa. If he answers, I'll be very surprised. You got a better idea, though? I'll admit that the unions have gotten out of hand, but before them, I daresay things were worse. The poor factory workers and miners and working men around the nation had no protection from the rich, powerful white guys on top. Do you think we oughta go back to that? To no health coverage? To shit wages? To a country where you can only get a decent, well-paying job if you're college educated (while most of the country isn't making enough money to GO to college). You want to widen the gap between rich and poor even further and completely eliminate the middle class? Because that's what happens if you take away the unions. I think they need to be more carefully monitored, but eliminating them would be a mistake on a cataclysmic level. If you've got a better proposal, I'm all ears. I look forward to your response on race, the Republicans, and the inevitable "Abe Lincoln card".

  • May 30, 2001, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Pearl Harbour

    by Dawn66

    So... not having seen the film, I would like to ask your opinion of the following:- Do you think Cuba Gooding JR was casted out of sheer tokenism!, as he was the only reason I was gonna part with my cash in the first place.

  • May 30, 2001, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Bruce Willis

    by The LeeMan

    John McClaine is in friggin' Pearl Harbor. They super-imposed his image during one of the casualty scenes...shot in the shoulder, the wifebeater shirt and all. It's him.

  • May 30, 2001, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Justoneoftheguys (yeah right)

    by JMYoda

    "I have seen your posts on other boards and noticed that you like to stir things up. You're nothing more than a childish upstart." Just because I tend to go against the grain and state my opinion even if it's not the popular one I'm a childish upstart? Hmmm. What does that make you? Just because people like myself see this film for the lifeless, manipulative piece of crap it is you accuse us of being "film snobs". Then you fail to have even the remote remnants of a sense of humor. "I questioned your negativity, not your taste in cinema. "Film Snobs" are people like you that have no talent, except for the talent to watch old movies and bitch about how everyone has sold out." How would you know if I have talent or not? So not only are you a humorless, self-righteous and pretentious bore easy impressive by visuals devoid of real substance but your a psychic too? Wow I'm impressed. I've never said everyone has sold out, only the ones who have let Hollywood lower their standards. "If it is so bad then stop reading this, open up your MS word and bring cinema back to the glory years." I write daily actually... "I hate many lifeless Hollywood blockbuster movies, this movie has heart, it is not the Mummy Returns or some other fodder. It is not one of the classics of all time but is that the standard that you hold all movies up to. If so, you will be disappointed for the rest of your life." It's not the standard I hold ALL movies up to however when a movie is released at "epic length" and pretends to be a "great important film" I'm going to judge it by the standard it's set itself up to. This film wants to be an Oscar winner... It wants to be "Saving Private Ryan" and "Titanic" (which I've never been fond of but it's much better then this tripe) all rolled into one.. It also wants to be a modern-day "From Here To Eternity". B&B's comments, Disney's premiere at the Arizona memorial... It's been thrown at us as if it's this great potential Oscar winner, super-important film epic so it's by those standards I judge the film. "Your poor attitude reflects the kind of person you are and based on that information it is easy to see where you'll end up. Bitching wherever you are. Trust me, I know many negative people like you, shitting on other people gets you nowhere." Just because I disagree with you I have a poor attitude? You have the poor attitude my friend. You run down people who think differently then you, you have no sense of humor AND you claim people have no-talent who you don't even know. Whether you have talents or not I have no idea, I have not seen any of your films or read any of your screenplays (I'm guessing neither exist even though you claim to be a "filmmaker") However your assumption that I have "no-talent" is very wrong, it's the free-thinkers with high standards that tend to make something of themselves. See I hold anything I create up to the same high standards I hold others too (higher in fact) so that means anything I decide I'm happy with will be high quality. I just don't believe in "good enough". However don't disrespect me for having high standards, as for bitching, it's any American's god giving right to bitch. You didn't hesitate to bitch about people who didn't like this film so if you ask me your a hypocrite. "ps don't return my movies late, Blockbuster makes a killing on late fees..." Are those the film you've imagined you've made or the films you imagine you'll make? Just a word of advice fella. Calling yourself a filmmaker isn't going to make it happen. Having no sense of humor and being full of yourself won't help either.

  • May 30, 2001, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Grand Finale, JMYODA!

    by Justoneoftheguys

    jmyoda, You make some good points....I understand your views clearly. As for me, I have completed and SOLD 3 short films. I am currently on post production on my first feature(written/Dir.) Oddly enough all of those films are comedies!? Isn't that strange? Until I release the feature, I wont call myself a filmmaker. What should I call myself? You strike a bad chord with me for 2 reasons. 1. You thought I was 35, living with my parents, and a virgin. Which is witty, and funny i'll admit. If you knew me, it's even funnier. I had to clear my name. Although, I am a virgin(born again). 2. You remind me of so many people I have come across, (most of which in film school) that get so overblown with cynicism that they can't sit and enjoy a movie that is not meant to challenge your intellect. Maybe grouping you in with those people is unfair? Most of them made shitty films and wrote shitty scripts. **** Would this topic have been better covered by a master filmmaker? yes. This is not the film, that you had envisioned in your imagination. It's not even the same genre. My favorite war movies are Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Glory and Bridge On the River Kwai. When I buy the Pearl Harbor DVD, it will go nowhere near any of these titles, it doesn't belong there. **************** If you're in the NYC area i'll forward my premiere info to you so you can see for yourself that I am in fact a filmmaker, and a funny one at that. ***** I have one question and no more arguing left to do.... 1. Would you have liked this film when you were younger?

  • May 30, 2001, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Justoneoftheguys - finale

    by JMYoda

    "jmyoda, You make some good points....I understand your views clearly. As for me, I have completed and SOLD 3 short films. I am currently on post production on my first feature(written/Dir.) Oddly enough all of those films are comedies!? Isn't that strange? Until I release the feature, I wont call myself a filmmaker. What should I call myself?" I guess that's close enough... :) What is the name of the film? "You strike a bad chord with me for 2 reasons. 1. You thought I was 35, living with my parents, and a virgin. Which is witty, and funny i'll admit. If you knew me, it's even funnier. I had to clear my name. Although, I am a virgin(born again)." Actually I was partial to the part about the camcorder, the Rambo trilogy homage and the GI Joe Figures. *grin* although that joke (and it WAS just a joke) had a more to do with just the general fact that a lot of people misrepresent themselves online. Like my old standby when someone say their a CEO for a company is =Your the fry cook at McDonalds and you know it.= It's just in fun and not any kind of serious claim. "2. You remind me of so many people I have come across, (most of which in film school) that get so overblown with cynicism that they can't sit and enjoy a movie that is not meant to challenge your intellect. Maybe grouping you in with those people is unfair? Most of them made shitty films and wrote shitty scripts." Actually I'm not as much the film elitist I may have seemed. Don't get me wrong I tend to be very critical of films I really don't like (Armageddon, The Mummy, etc) but I actually have lots of films I love that are "guilty" pleasures since I really enjoy action films and Sci-fi films. (Most of what I write is either comedy, Sic-fi or fantasy.) Even one of Bay's films "The Rock" fits in my guilty pleasures section of movies. (So does the much maligned "Godzilla"). "Would this topic have been better covered by a master filmmaker? yes. This is not the film, that you had envisioned in your imagination. It's not even the same genre. My favorite war movies are Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Glory and Bridge On the River Kwai. When I buy the Pearl Harbor DVD, it will go nowhere near any of these titles, it doesn't belong there." Actually I love all of THOSE films. My point is a film about such an important event that was giving this kind of promotion (and is 3 hour long) should have been in the same breed as those films, I'm not saying as good but at least in the same ballpark. Even if not for those feelings I would still not like the film (like I do not like U-571) but I wouldn't be offended by it as I am. "If you're in the NYC area i'll forward my premiere info to you so you can see for yourself that I am in fact a filmmaker, and a funny one at that." Unfortunately I live in Ohio so that wouldn't be impossible but tell me the title and I will look for it. "I have one question and no more arguing left to do.... 1. Would you have liked this film when you were younger?" Well depends. I'm 25 now... I may have liked it when I was in my early teens or younger. No later then 16. Though I might have been critical even then. I was brought up with a great respect for history and a steady diet of classic war films so it's hard to say for sure.

  • May 31, 2001, 6:42 a.m. CST

    I finally got to see this movie here in the sunny UK...

    by Kyle.Reese

    and how right were the critics. One word sums up Pearl Harbour and that is BORING... Cuba is your basic token black guy, the US flag is everywhere, and I swear this film has been manipulated waaay too much. Not just on the US-is-great routine (which I'm so much used to that I'm afraid I'm actually starting to believe it), but also the lets-not-offend alterations. There are some really really cheesy moments (SPOILERS AHEAD) such as when that Japanese Admiral (?) is pondering over the attack and see's those cute little kids flying their kites.... Another thing was how it wants to be Titanic. It tries so hard that I actually feel embarressed for the film-makers. The last shots at the end of the film has the camera revealing the sunken ship under the water, this is a third-rate attempt to copy the closing shots in Titanic - where we track into the ship and are transported back to 1912 (brilliant cinematography)... What a waste of $145 million and a waste of three hours of my life.

  • May 31, 2001, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Pearl Harbor

    by Gerell

    I enjoyed parts of this movie, and am never one to complain about a long film. (After all, with prices being what they are these days...I like to feel I can get my money's worth in quantity if not quality) But I have to agree that this one was just too long. There were too many bad parts. The whole Cuba Gooding storyline could have gone...another example of history guilt being thrown up at us, with the hurtful looks and wounded pride...sheesh...I am sooo sick of movies that do that. (At least with no better character development than we have here) The love story...sigh...it seems odd that a movie that long fails to set up character motivation in any believable way after spending so much time on it. They could have cut 1/2 of that without losing anything of value. And is anyone else waiting for the the coke or visa logos to appear during some of the slow-motion shots in the beginning? However, the movie wasn't bad...for a Micheal Bay film :)

  • May 31, 2001, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Hurl Harbor

    by MrMxyzptlk

    If I hadn't read Harry's review myself I would not have believed that he could say he liked this piece of shite. Summer has only just begun so the heat should not have gone to his brain yet. I find it ironic that this shallow, boring and historically inaccurate movie is getting any attention whatsoever when just around the corner is the REAL MUST SEE war flick of the year - FF Coppolla's recut Apocalypse Now. Take a step back, Harry, and compare Hurl Harbor with that masterwork and tyr and tell me that Michael Bay is an auteur. Puh-leaze! Ever since Don Simpson ODed, every subsequent Bruckheimer flick has been devoid of character driven energy in favor of plot driven explosions. Case in point: Does Kate Beckinsale ever seem conflicted by her love for both men? NO. Does she seem at all affected by Josh Hartnett's death? No. There is absolutely no tension or conflict in the love triangle that is the core of the story and that is because the filmmakers really didn't care about that as much as the CGI. The sign of a good movie is a desire to see it again. There is no reason whatsoever to see this boring movie ever again.

  • June 1, 2001, 3:25 a.m. CST

    Were the British in the Battle of Britain?

    by captiva

    I went to the UK press premier of Pearl Harbour yesterday, but sadly the questions put to the cast were fairly tame - and the one which got through the net about historical innacurracy was quickly brushed aside. Following the Battle of Britain, Churchill said something along the lines of, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." but I didn't realise he meant that we owed the freedom of Britain to Ben Affleck. I'm admittedly British, but to imply that such an important battle turned on the minimal involvement of a few US pilots is pretty hard to take. If you're going to make a film about real events from history, surely you owe some debt of truth to those so deeply involved - even if they're not born in the USA.

  • June 1, 2001, 3:16 p.m. CST

    pearl 3 hour-bore ( at least willenium wasn't in it)

    by the yes men

    This "movie" is truly awful, the acting, the dialogue, lack of direction etc etc really show in this insult to those who died not only at pearl harbor but also those who fought in the battle of britain. The main problem with these things is the subject matter should be treated as a film and not a "movie". Its only saving grace is the recreation of the bombing of the harbor, which is sadly over cooked by ILM's insertion of model ships (for no apparent reason) amongst some excellent live footage. The film suffers greatly from poor OTT glam photography which just adds to the cheese of the script. And did anyone notice that whilst fighting the Germans our hero Ben crashed into the water in daylight, only to emerge from his crashed plane in darkness! Finally, just think what oliver stone could have done with the suject. Don't go see it, rummage for the DVD in the bargain basement in a month or too, the interesting bits will be in the extras! Hollywood hang your head in shame.

  • June 1, 2001, 9:42 p.m. CST

    The Rock

    by Bickus Dickus

    The Rock was the best of all the Die Hard rip-offs, unless you count Face/Off. Interesting how Nic Cage cancels out his good performances with such tripe as Con-Air and 8mm. He's a great actor when he tries.

  • June 2, 2001, 10 p.m. CST

    Saw Pearl Harbor Today....

    by SISKER

    I agree with Harry. The editing of this movie really could've made it a better movie. Ya know when you get a special edition DVD and you see all the deleted scenes? And you realize "why" they took the scenes out in the first place? Well, to me Pearl Harbor seemed like a movie that had "all" of "those" pointless scenes in it. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd have to give this movie a 6. Later!

  • June 3, 2001, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Pearl Harbor

    by tom_joad

    Well what can I say, first let me say that indeed I loved the attack sequence and how technically wonderful it is. When USS Arizona blew up, the whole theater reverberated with the impact of the explosion. With that said, what a waste of 143 million this movie is. I think the film makers wanted to please everyone and hope to garner enough tickets to pay for the cost of this movie. Alas it is their downfall, because this movie is not compelling at all. The love triangle is not developed well at all and very inconsistent (Kate Beckinsale told Ben Affleck, that She will give all her love to Danny but will never see another sunset without thinking of him(Affleck), when she did the whole sunset thing with Hartnett.) I love the inclusion of the Cuba Gooding character in it, it is one of the few historical facts that are accurate in this movie. No Kamikaze rituals in Pearl Harbor, they did that much later in the war. One other thing, why did the film makers included the Doolittle Raid, is it because a movie could not end in an american defeat? That whole part should have been skipped and they should have concentrated on the attack of Pearl Harbor instead. This movie is lifeless, I was hoping that this movie would have been more daring like Moulin Rouge who didnt digress from its vision and didnt care if everyone liked it or not. I also watched a french movie that same weekend, Under the Sand, I loved it better than Pearl Harbor, its an entirely different movie and its the exact opposite of Pearl Harbor, no explosions, no special effects but you feel the grief of a personal loss, ultimately a much more memorable film for me.

  • June 3, 2001, 1:58 p.m. CST

    It wasn't Terrible

    by Flix

    Hello again Harry. Like you, I didn't have high expectations about "Pearl Harbor" because of the less than favorable advance buzz. However, when I saw the movie Memorial Day weekend, I wasn't very disappointed. There are positive points about "Pearl Harbor." First thing is the most obvious. The battle sequences were very well done. That is Michael Bay's srtong point as a director in that he's very good at staging action sequences. The second positive thing were the performances by John Voight and Dan Akroyd. Despite the fact that their performaces were small, I think they both were excellent and definitely helped this movie. The problem I had with "Pearl Harbor" was basically the same problem that I had with last year's "The Perfect Storm." The dialouge for some (but not all) of the characters is not well written at all. Most of Ben Affleck's lines are recycled cliches. I don't know where to begin with Alec Baldwin's character. The dialouge does not kill "pearl Harbor," but it definitely hurts it. Finally, to end on a positive note, despite its three hour running time, I was never bored and I never looked at my watch. When it was over I said to myselkf "That was three hours? It sure didn't seem like it." Despite its negative points, "Pearl Harbor" is not that bad of a movie. I don't at all regret seeing it. It's not perfect, but it's good entertainment.

  • June 3, 2001, 8:17 p.m. CST

    pearl harbour

    by The Man With...

    I believe too many fat compute nerds have reviewed this movie. I found it quite entertaining, informative? Not really, brilliant dialog? No. But I left thinking 'Hey, that was worth it.' too many people get caught up in all the god damn details to pull there head out of their own ass and pay attention. I also believe that most people wanted this movie to fail. Some sort of vendeta against Mr. Bay? Jumping aboard the banwagon with a few bad reviews, 'why say it's good when so many have said it bad?' Or maybe, just maybe, it's some sort of American embarassment over having your asses handed to you.

  • June 4, 2001, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Cut Cuba?

    by Dr.XerxesMulcahy

    Harold! Shame.... I stopped reading this review as soon as you suggested that Cuba's character get cut. While this movie FOCUSES on three characters, the story involves many more. Of all the things that could be cut in the effort of shortening the amount if time that you have to sit on you ass, Cuba's character is not one of them. The story of the first black sailor to be awarded the Navy Cross for bravery in battle - as opposed to the galley - is one the anchors of historical accuracy that this film can boast. The more I peruse this site in my hunger for Hollywood gossip, the more I think that you should be reviewing video games or something else that is removed from the world of art.

  • June 4, 2001, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Just when you thought it was safe to go back into AICN... I'M BA

    by Metatron

    Pearl Harbor was shit... from start to finish it was Encyclopedia Patriotica Americana... following the textbook as written by the moron himself who introduced us to the 2-hour PR campaign that boosted the Navy's recruitment rate during the 1980s. Granted the battle scenes were pretty impressive... but there I also thought he was ripping off Saving Private Ryan with the exception that, in order to cater to a broader idiot audience, there weren't any graphic bloody squib shots, nobody getting blown apart, and just about everything he could possibly put in there to pander to the conservative redneck American who gets all sniffly every time someone mentions vets or flags... without really addressing the mortal fear and hell that these boys, most of them hardly 18, faced going off to war. Granted, Bruckheimer tried to show some of the gruesome reality of war... but I think he spent more time imitating everyting from Ryan to Titanic to sell tickets. And the love story crap... as someone once said "Watching Ben Affleck act is like a fart... it's funny at first, but after a few seconds, you realize how utterly rancid and disgusting it is." I mean, if it weren't for the trend in "war reality" in films like Ryan and Schindler's List and Gladiator, and so on... Bruckheimer would still be churning out propaganda BS like Top Gun which, though an entertaining film, was completely unrealistic and about as accurate a portrayal of Naval Aviators as Real Genius was of scientists. Bruckheimer should stick to admittedly shlock films, instead of trying to tackle real history. The only scene I felt that addressed the truth behind the Pearl Harbor incident, and had any real dramatic value, was when Roosevelt gave his cabinet the third degree for being selfish, overprotective pansies. However, they never addressed the fact that Roosevelt himself was also opposed to being involved... it was the WAR DEPARTMENT (now the Dept. of Defense) that conveniently forgot to inform Roosevelt that they had key information about the attack two days before it happened. They did touch on that just a bit, without going too Oliver Stone... but it's a known fact that the details of the attack were known well in advance (by a couple days), enough time to avert a disaster... but the War Dept. knew if they let something horrific happen, it would catapult us into war, satiating their appetites. Though the means by which we were thrust into WWII were somewhat clandestine... it was perhaps one of the few times in American history where we fought for something bigger than our selfishness. Granted, Voight's FDR came off like a very fitting, Bruckheimeresque political orator... but that's actually how he was! So the character worked both in the context of a Bruckheimer/Bay film, and in the historical context of portraying FDR accurately. As for Cuba Gooding... I think they felt bad when they realized, in their attempt to satiate the appetites of every Marine-wannabe redneck south of the Mason-Dixon line, they forgot to include any black guys in the film (with exception to FDR's butler). I think Cuba already played this character in Men of Honor. Granted that film had some Rocky-esque cliches but at least it devoted it's entire time to the black-guy-proves-himself-amongst-warmongering-honky-rednecks theme. Pearl Harbor for all of fifteen minutes is a cute, yet weak, attempt at being sympathetic towards polio and blacks when we know that the real heros, like any Disney or Bruckheimer film, end up being the good looking white guys...and one rather rotund yet amazingly clean-cut Alec Baldwin squeezing into a flight jacket to pretend he's the legendary war hero Jimmy Dolittle. This poorly constructed piece of shlock that doesn't work well in any genre tries too hard to intersect with history and hard reality... coming from the guy who gave us Top Gun... the most inaccurate and glorified portrayal (and effective propaganda) of Naval Aviators... which ultimately boosted Naval recruitment... much to the dismay of millions of hormone-overloaded jarheads who had to wake up and realize "Hey, this is work... hey, I might get killed someday! Hey...fraternizing with female officers will get you thrown in the brig!" I think he should stick to one shlock genre at a time, rather than trying to pull a John Singleton-a-la-"Higher Learning" attacking way too many complex issues all at once and ending up being a cliche within itself.

  • like i said in the subject above, it wasn't michael bay's fault, it was jerry bruckheimer's fault, and actually it wasn't even jerry bruckheimer's fault coz he has produced great movies like Top Gun and Bad Boys, it was the 140 million dollars fault. Jerry and Walt Disney (Touchstone) HAD to make back that 140 million dollars or else they were dead. So you are left with the most predictable, universal, boring plot ever. Put in the battle of Pearl Harbor to drag in the guys. Put in Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett and Kate Beckinsale to drag in the ladies. Put in Cuba Gooding to drag in the black american population. And what do you get? This movie. I would extrapolate more except that would spoil the movie and I hate that. And so basically to get back 140 million dollars you got to sacrifice a lot and always the first to go is the plot. But don't can Michael Bay yet. He is great. Heck, this whole new generation of fast cutting, fast editing, angled shots, Kodak moment cinematography, directors owe this to him (sorry John Woo fans). Bay will be back (obviously coz he made so much money for Jerry) but let's hope he comes back with a better script (like Bad Boys). And unfortunately Bay won't get an Oscar for this one, oh well, Bay, better luck next time. Awesome battle scene though!!! Cheers!

  • Pearl Harbor is not a good movie. In fact, it's not a movie at all -it's punishment. Director Michael Bay is the same genius responsible for Armageddon. That opus concerns a group of wacky oil drillers sent to destroy an asteroid on a crash course with earth. So horrible, it makes you root for the asteroid. Bay is the crown (clown?) prince of audience manipulation. It takes discipline and skill to create characters and scenes that honestly demand the viewer's attention. Instead of making an effort, Bay cheats . . . - Slow motion shots of pilots strutting along. Gee, Mr. Bay how original. I haven't seen anything that spectacular since your last movie. Newsflash: screen heroes are not heroic just because they're moving at more frames per second. - When in need of comic relief, bring on the guy with the speech impediment. Are you kidding, Mr. Bay? You want me to point and laugh at a man with a stuttering problem? A character with a handicap can be funny. Well, duh. However, when the chuckles are at the inflicted's expense, it's more sad than humorous. - Mr. Bay, you are shameless. Can't generate suspense? Quick, put a doggie in a life or death situation. Can't elicit an emotional response through straightforward storytelling? Give us a scene with children. Michael Bay is a hack . . . Pearl Harbor is a long film. I'm not sure about the running time - but, I think it is in the neighborhood of 9 hours. It's such a lengthy movie, the makers of Pearl Harbor lose track of plot points along the way. Early on, Ben Affleck's character has severe dyslexia. After 4 hours, this trait conveniently disappears, Why? While stationed in Europe, this flyboy becomes quite the poet. The letters he writes to Navy nurse girlfriend Kate Beckinsale are impressive, if not long winded, indeed. Oh yeah, the movie contains the Japanese attack on the titular naval base. Those moments are technically well made. Stuff goes boom. People run around and yell. The proceedings are slick and presented with ostensibly lofty production sensibilities. Still, the sneak attack is cold. It doesn't help that at times Bay shoots the action in a hazy, soft focus. Maybe he was trying to be artistic. It doesn't quite work as intended. Like I said, Bay is a hack. Furthermore, Pearl Harbor is largely a love story - filled with unappealing people, uttering romantic drivel, doing stupid things. Since there is no investment in the live's of these characters prior to the fighting, it really doesn't matter what happens to them during the fighting. One last point: Why can't hollywood have the courage to end a movie appropriately? The film is called Pearl Harbor. However, the Japanese aerial attack left thousands of Americans dead or wounded and the Pacific fleet in ruin . . . What a downer. The good guys have to win, right? Well,in this movie they do. The victory takes the form of the Lt. Col. James H. Doolittle-led retaliation strike against Tokyo. Everyone can leave the theater happy. All is well. Bad enough, right? Get this: the U.S. bombing raid took place only 131 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Pilots launched from the flight deck of the USS Hornet. Upon dropping their payloads on Japan, the twin-engine Mitchell bombers continued to mainland China - then occupied by Japan. From there, these men alluded the enemy and marched to Allied territory. In Pearl Harbor, all this is a means to wrap up the hackneyed love yarn. Who gets the girl - the intrepid Affleck or the daring Josh Hartnett? Who cares? Don't get guilted into enjoying this puerile clunker. Pearl Harbor is junk . . . Does that mean you don't revere the past? No - it simply says that you have taste. This film rates: 3 out of 10

  • June 4, 2001, 6:58 p.m. CST

    pearl harbor bombs

    by lmk

    This movie's historical inaccuricies and a lame love story makes this a great example of the kind of crap that is green-lighted by Hollywood. Ben Affleck avoiding enemy planes was a direct rip off of Star Wars. The lines were laughable and we never get any dialogue from the Japanese pilots. There strategy is never heard. That time was spent on a ridiculous love story. I was hoping that Ben Affleck's plane would have crashed so I didn't have to suffer through a bad three hour film. The scene at the hospital was laughable. People had there guts hanging out and many times nurses had to put peoples body parts in bucket's. Unlike, Shindler's List, this movie fails to have any type of emotional impact because we never get to see the type of carnage that was seen by the solders. People were so burned up they would be walking around with their skin hanging off. People were unrecognizable. It was too tame for a war film. Disney should never make another war film. If your not going to make a war film right don't make it at all.

  • June 5, 2001, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Jingle Bells, this movie smells

    by Metatron

    Ok, this movie was utterly horrible.. and I've said enough about that to comprise a small novel. But I would like to point out that the ones plagiarizing the fighter scenes in Star Wars weren't Bay and company... it was Lucasfilm themselves. Industrial Light and Magic coordinated the visual FX for those scenes, and since their best people are already working on Episode II... This movie got the el'cheapo crew that pretty much did a cut/paste job on the choreography of the dogfights. El'Cheapo ILM work is still better than anybody else's best... but if you want to blame someone for plagiarizing... blame the visual fx supervisor from ILM who authorized this hack job. Also, there's a nice FLUB in this film... In one of the shots of a carrier deck... you can clearly see catapults at the forward section of the deck... Now, what are modern jetfighter catapults doing on a WWII carrier? Just another little hole in the wall that is ths movie.

  • June 5, 2001, 7:39 p.m. CST

    making this movie better ....

    by Lou C.

    ... would be very easy. (1) don't get your hack writer buddies to rewrite an oscar-winning screenwriter; (2) take out the doolittle raid and a good chunk of the crappy love story; (3) make cuba gooding jr. a central character; (4) make the climax be dorie miller firing the gun, and rafe and danny getting into the planes and shooting down the japanese. i mean, for chrissakes, it's called PEARL HARBOR. everyone knows we won the damn war anyway, why show anything else? if they did all of this, they could make gooding's character more pertinent to the story AND chop off some running time. just a thought.

  • June 6, 2001, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Pearl Harbour meets all expectations

    by deanmachine5000

    I am getting really sick of all these people whining that pearl harbor had poor acting, formulaic writing, 2D characters and overly dramatic directing. That

  • June 7, 2001, 5:21 a.m. CST

    Bad movie, BAD! No biscuit.

    by squonk

    So why are those kids playing baseball at 7AM on a Sunday? In 1941? WTF?

  • June 7, 2001, 10:13 p.m. CST

    yes he is

    by HE's Spartacus

  • June 8, 2001, 2:24 a.m. CST

    pearl harbor

    by torquemada74

    Saw the movie, came away rather unsatisfied. Although I enjoyed large parts of it, I have to agree with Harry on many points. The Doolitle raid deserved its own movie. In fact, such a movie excists: "Thirty seconds over Tokio" was a tense, suspensefull recreation of that raid and remains the ultimate, actually the only movie on that subject. I totally didn't buy the romance. Cheesy dialogues and overly dramatic music made it look like a period soap-opera. The way it was resolved smacked of laziness. Remember "My best friend's wedding"? Also a movie that revolves around a love triangle of some sort. The way that movie ends is the way most love triangles end, one guy/girl wins the motherlode, the other comes away empty-handed. If the solution to such situations is always this simple, I'd still be with my ex-girlfriend. ( Mind you, I could also be dead...) Another thing that griped me was the reliance on movie clich

  • June 8, 2001, 3:54 a.m. CST

    My dumb brother is only partially right

    by My_evil_twin

    Hey, I saw PH with my bro, Torquemada74, last night and I hated it. I hated PH for all the reasons Torque stated in his talkback and more and yet he still likes the film. Let's get one thing straight. PH is a significant event in WWII, but the USA would have gotten involved anyway sooner or later. The strategic value for the Japanese was diminished due to the absence of the Pacific fleet carriers. Had they been present at the time, the US presence in the Pacific would have suffered a setback that could have prolonged the war another five to ten years. As it was, the ships sunk or damaged beyond repair were for the most part vintage WWI vessels. Though it impeded the American war effort it was not as fatal as it could have been. Luckily the US carriers (Hornet, Yorktown Lexington et all) were spared, thus allowing the US to project it's power over the Pacific Theatre. I am a military man myself, I serve in the Royal Dutch Navy on a submarine. During exercises with your navy, we succesfully "sunk" your carrier Eisenhower, despite an impressive anti-sub screen. The fact is that during fleet operations the flattops have to be protected at all cost. Although military operations are won and lost by the grunts on the battlefield, a military operation is doomed without adequate air support. Given the distances involved in the Pacific Theatre, the US would have been unable to retake Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the Phillipines etcetera without their carriers. They would have had to be replaced before the USA could take the initiative to Japan. The Japanese plan was sound and remains one of the great military operations of all time. Americans are always going on about the sneakiness of the attack but let's not forget that the element of surprise is a viable military tool. You do not telegraph your intentions beforehand. Imagine if Ike had telegraphed Hitler: "Dear Adolf, we're gonna invade at Normandy on the sixth of June. You bring the picnic hamper, we'll bring the guns." As for the movie, it curiously shows the attack as if the Japanese are only marginally involved, giving them a total screen time of 15 minutes. Hell, even good ol' Cuba has more to do in the movie than poor Mako. When tackling a significant event in history, you do no relegate it to a role of bystander to a tacky, melodramatic love-story, especially when you couldn't care less about any of the central trio. No offence, but Kate, Ben and Josh do not possess the gravitas necessary to believably pull this shit of. Burdened by crap dialogue and an overly dramatic score, I was just about ready to throw my popcorn at the screen and scream "GET ON WITH IT YOU FUCKS!". Also it was a shame that Rafe somehow lost his sense of humour on his detour to England. I admit I was howling with laughter during the champagne scene, but unfortunately, any laughs that followed were unintentional. Overall, a disappointing effort by a second-rate director and a strictly B-list cast.

  • June 8, 2001, 11:34 a.m. CST

    This movie sucks

    by curling

    Go see TORA-TORA-TORA (DVD version if you can). This was nothing more than ID4 with Japanese Zeros instead of flying saucers.

  • June 9, 2001, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Here's a damn idea

    by Ted Lebowski

    Cut the first hour, it's worthless anyway.

  • June 9, 2001, 5:49 p.m. CST

    In the spirit of bipartisanship and with the goal of setting a n

    by forward_deploy

    Just so this comment does not sound too off topic (sorry Harry), PH is gradually becoming more and more intolerable everytime I think about it. ABC's shameless advertisement of the movie under the auspices of a documentary is astonishing (ABC's parent company is Disney). Expectedly, ABC's policy apparently precludes honesty and celebrates the capitalization and marketing of those who lost their life in this infamous blitzkreig. Now, LesterB, I have'nt forgotten about you. On unions: I'm glad you see my point; furthermore, I agree with your statement that unions were a necessary agent of change during the nascent industrial age. Unions have, heretofore, been relatively effective in organizing opposition to corporate policies which encourage a state of human and environmental neglect, poor safety conditions, and low wages. It was this circling the wagons approach which made unions largely popular but also potentially dangerous. I daresay that in today's post-industrial age the big unions serve only to encumber our economy by protecting workers who are incompitent or who actively defraud and commit criminal acts. The unions also maintain the power they have left by implementing systems of seniority that work to guarantee benefits and position regardeless of that persons productivity, compitentcy, and skill--analogous to tenure whithin a university. That is why, in this post-industrial age--the information age--union membership is on the decline. Worker salaries and position within the company are no longer primarily dictated by seniority but by educations and experience. Besides, there are enough government established agencies and regulations that are designed to protect and ensure workers from corporate maltreatment and undue wage-reduction. If my statements above consitute the ramblings of an extremist, then I'm guilty as charged. By the way, if you really want to understand the definition of the word extremist, you may want to pay attention the next time the Senate or House Democrats hold press conferences in Washington. After all, according to the Democrats, the fact that the draconian Republicans want to starve children, throw old people out into the gutters and force them to eat canned Alpo, pollute the environment (don't forget, the same evironment they must live in), trod on the poor, neglect the needy, and uttlerly destroy the earth with war seems to me to be something I simply would'nt pass off as political rhetoric. After all, isn't it the allegations that matter the most and not the facts to substantiate them. That seems to be rule #1 in the Democrat's handbook on "1001 Ways to Demonize Your Opponent." Now onto Reagan versus Clinton. Reagan-bad: 1) Iran-contra--Reagan was fed up with support garnered within the Democratically controlled House for the Communist Sandinistas (gee, who would of thought, Democratic congressmen with known socialist leanings supporting a communist regime and their brutal oppression of freedom-loving peoples, imagine that) who subsequently refused Reagan's plea for more arms to contra-rebels (i.e. the good guys), so he circumvented the Socialists in congress (if you think I'm indescriminately throwing around the word Socialist, look into the profile of some of Democratic House members and see for yourself). 2) If you're a tolerant leftwinger unlike me, then Reagan surviving the assassin's bullet should be listed in the bad category (Oh please, I've seen prerecorded news footage of anchors of national networks whose facial expressions look like they won the powerbowl lottery when Reagan was shot). Reagan-good: 1) defeated the "evil empire" (i.e. USSR) and saved us from utter anihilation by supporting a strong military, 2)renewed economic growth with massive tax cuts whereby new jobs were created and inflation was reigned in (much to the dismay of leftwing revisionists), 3)contained the spread of Communism and outspent them by such a large margin (e.g. SDI missile defense) that they subsequently collapsed one year after Reagan left office (Berlin wall), 4) Established strong socio-ecenomic ties with strategic allies such as the NATO countries, Isreal, China, Egypt, etc. 5) offered hope and optimism (not fear and despair) to countless millions of Americans by inspiring them to open themselves up to the potential that lay within them and that as members of the greatest country in the world, they can do anything. And you know what LesterB, as a member of this great and wonderful nation, I am one of those people, achieving my dream precisely because this is America and not any other country. Other countries may hate us, they may scorn us, they may burn our flags and protest against us, but you know what, THEY RESPECT US. We did not earn this respect by dismantling our military, turning over our national nuclear treasures to our enemies, disgracing the office of the Presidency, and turning our backs to our allies. So, I'm an patriotic, jingoist extremist, huh (and if you were a feminist you would probably through some gratuitous platitude at me like "you're also a mysoginistic, WASP with too much testosterone" or something like that)? Well, if that's what you call people who believe in the Constitution and the turmoils of our founding fathers and whose ideas of freedom from intrusive government, and tyranical oppression have remained firm and steadfast for all these years while the rest of you have migrated to the far left (and call that mainstream), then I am an extremist. Now it's Clintons turn. Clinton-bad: 1) severely cuts military, 2)campaigns on middle-income tax cut in 92 and and proceeds to support the largest tax increase in American history in 93, 3)campaigns on the promise that Haitian emigrants will not be hindered when fleeing to this country then pulls a 180 and has the US Coast Guard turn back all emigrants, 4)Whitewatergate, 5)Hillary Health Caregate, 6)Rose Law Firmgate, 7)Hillary Chicago Cattle Futuresgate, 8)Vince Fostergate, 9)White House pornogate, 10)Commerce Secretary Ron Browngate, 11)filegate, 12)Paula Jonesgate, 13)Juanita Brodwickgate (sp?), 14)Lincoln bedroomgate, 15)Chinagate, 16)John Huanggate, 17)Lippogate, 18)Quid Pro coalgate, 19)Susan and James McDougalgate, 20)Juan Jorge Cabreragate, 21)Grigor Loutchanskygate, 22)Gen. Chi Haotiangate, 23)Wang Jun, Eric Wynn and Arthur Coiagate, 24)Christmas card listgate, 25)96 DNC China contributiongate, 26)Nuclear weapons sold to chinagate, 27)Lauralgate, 28)Americorpgate, 29)Teapot Domegate, 30)travelgate, 31)Wacogate, 32)Ruby Ridgegate, I think you get the point, LesterB. Notice that I have not even touched on Monica Lewinsky, or the scores or resignations in the Clinton cabinet due to other scandals. By the way if you don't think that there are any socialist in congress, go to http://users.aol.com/patriot888/soclists.txt and you will see the actual names of members of congress whose agendas, ideologies, and voting records are sufficiently leftist enought to qualify them as socialist by the Democratic Socialists of America. Well, it's been nice chatting with you LesterB, but I'm in the process of moving so I don't have a lot of time. Next week--Democrats and the race card: a winning hand everytime.

  • June 9, 2001, 5:51 p.m. CST

    In the spirit of bipartisanship and with the goal of setting a n

    by forward_deploy

    Just so this comment does not sound too off topic (sorry Harry), PH is gradually becoming more and more intolerable everytime I think about it. ABC's shameless advertisement of the movie under the auspices of a documentary is astonishing (ABC's parent company is Disney). Expectedly, ABC's policy apparently precludes honesty and celebrates the capitalization and marketing of those who lost their life in this infamous blitzkreig. Now, LesterB, I have'nt forgotten about you. On unions: I'm glad you see my point; furthermore, I agree with your statement that unions were a necessary agent of change during the nascent industrial age. Unions have, heretofore, been relatively effective in organizing opposition to corporate policies which encourage a state of human and environmental neglect, poor safety conditions, and low wages. It was this circling the wagons approach which made unions largely popular but also potentially dangerous. I daresay that in today's post-industrial age the big unions serve only to encumber our economy by protecting workers who are incompitent or who actively defraud and commit criminal acts. The unions also maintain the power they have left by implementing systems of seniority that work to guarantee benefits and position regardeless of that persons productivity, compitentcy, and skill--analogous to tenure whithin a university. That is why, in this post-industrial age--the information age--union membership is on the decline. Worker salaries and position within the company are no longer primarily dictated by seniority but by educations and experience. Besides, there are enough government established agencies and regulations that are designed to protect and ensure workers from corporate maltreatment and undue wage-reduction. If my statements above consitute the ramblings of an extremist, then I'm guilty as charged. By the way, if you really want to understand the definition of the word extremist, you may want to pay attention the next time the Senate or House Democrats hold press conferences in Washington. After all, according to the Democrats, the fact that the draconian Republicans want to starve children, throw old people out into the gutters and force them to eat canned Alpo, pollute the environment (don't forget, the same evironment they must live in), trod on the poor, neglect the needy, and uttlerly destroy the earth with war seems to me to be something I simply would'nt pass off as political rhetoric. After all, isn't it the allegations that matter the most and not the facts to substantiate them. That seems to be rule #1 in the Democrat's handbook on "1001 Ways to Demonize Your Opponent." Now onto Reagan versus Clinton. Reagan-bad: 1) Iran-contra--Reagan was fed up with support garnered within the Democratically controlled House for the Communist Sandinistas (gee, who would of thought, Democratic congressmen with known socialist leanings supporting a communist regime and their brutal oppression of freedom-loving peoples, imagine that) who subsequently refused Reagan's plea for more arms to contra-rebels (i.e. the good guys), so he circumvented the Socialists in congress (if you think I'm indescriminately throwing around the word Socialist, look into the profile of some of Democratic House members and see for yourself). 2) If you're a tolerant leftwinger unlike me, then Reagan surviving the assassin's bullet should be listed in the bad category (Oh please, I've seen prerecorded news footage of anchors of national networks whose facial expressions look like they won the powerbowl lottery when Reagan was shot). Reagan-good: 1) defeated the "evil empire" (i.e. USSR) and saved us from utter anihilation by supporting a strong military, 2)renewed economic growth with massive tax cuts whereby new jobs were created and inflation was reigned in (much to the dismay of leftwing revisionists), 3)contained the spread of Communism and outspent them by such a large margin (e.g. SDI missile defense) that they subsequently collapsed one year after Reagan left office (Berlin wall), 4) Established strong socio-ecenomic ties with strategic allies such as the NATO countries, Isreal, China, Egypt, etc. 5) offered hope and optimism (not fear and despair) to countless millions of Americans by inspiring them to open themselves up to the potential that lay within them and that as members of the greatest country in the world, they can do anything. And you know what LesterB, as a member of this great and wonderful nation, I am one of those people, achieving my dream precisely because this is America and not any other country. Other countries may hate us, they may scorn us, they may burn our flags and protest against us, but you know what, THEY RESPECT US. We did not earn this respect by dismantling our military, turning over our national nuclear treasures to our enemies, disgracing the office of the Presidency, and turning our backs to our allies. So, I'm an patriotic, jingoist extremist, huh (and if you were a feminist you would probably through some gratuitous platitude at me like "you're also a mysoginistic, WASP with too much testosterone" or something like that)? Well, if that's what you call people who believe in the Constitution and the turmoils of our founding fathers and whose ideas of freedom from intrusive government, and tyranical oppression have remained firm and steadfast for all these years while the rest of you have migrated to the far left (and call that mainstream), then I am an extremist. Now it's Clintons turn. Clinton-bad: 1) severely cuts military, 2)campaigns on middle-income tax cut in 92 and and proceeds to support the largest tax increase in American history in 93, 3)campaigns on the promise that Haitian emigrants will not be hindered when fleeing to this country then pulls a 180 and has the US Coast Guard turn back all emigrants, 4)Whitewatergate, 5)Hillary Health Caregate, 6)Rose Law Firmgate, 7)Hillary Chicago Cattle Futuresgate, 8)Vince Fostergate, 9)White House pornogate, 10)Commerce Secretary Ron Browngate, 11)filegate, 12)Paula Jonesgate, 13)Juanita Brodwickgate (sp?), 14)Lincoln bedroomgate, 15)Chinagate, 16)John Huanggate, 17)Lippogate, 18)Quid Pro coalgate, 19)Susan and James McDougalgate, 20)Juan Jorge Cabreragate, 21)Grigor Loutchanskygate, 22)Gen. Chi Haotiangate, 23)Wang Jun, Eric Wynn and Arthur Coiagate, 24)Christmas card listgate, 25)96 DNC China contributiongate, 26)Nuclear weapons sold to chinagate, 27)Lauralgate, 28)Americorpgate, 29)Teapot Domegate, 30)travelgate, 31)Wacogate, 32)Ruby Ridgegate, I think you get the point, LesterB. Notice that I have not even touched on Monica Lewinsky, or the scores or resignations in the Clinton cabinet due to other scandals. By the way if you don't think that there are any socialist in congress, go to http://users.aol.com/patriot888/soclists.txt and you will see the actual names of members of congress whose agendas, ideologies, and voting records are sufficiently leftist enought to qualify them as socialist by the Democratic Socialists of America. Well, it's been nice chatting with you LesterB, but I'm in the process of moving so I don't have a lot of time. Next week--Democrats and the race card: a winning hand everytime.

  • June 10, 2001, 11:01 p.m. CST

    Sink the Titanic!?

    by Oliver L.

    Last Week I have seen

  • June 12, 2001, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Titanic won't be beaten for many years to come

    by Kyle.Reese

    It just won't happen. No matter how much money you throw at a film, no matter how big the stars are, no matter how much CGI you have. James Cameron himself won't even top Titanic, no one will. And I'd put money on that... Hell even a new Star Wars film (after a twenty year wait) didn't make as much money. What chance does did Bruckheimer and Bay have. Sorry guys looks like you failed at the first goal (defeat Titanic) and you failed even more miserably on what you CLAIMED the film was about (respecting Pearl Harbour).

  • June 12, 2001, 10:52 a.m. CST

    pearls of wisdom

    by sullblues

    You like Mako? Then rent a real war film. Go back and rent Sand Pebbles. Bay's butt-numbing piece o' shit was simply a bad remake of "1941"! Maybe funnier though. The love story, when not hilarious, was downright painful! Though I will give kudos to the Arizona kaboom scene!

  • June 12, 2001, 7:01 p.m. CST

    15M More People Know the B/B Combo = Shit

    by StopBruckheimerJ

    Bruckheimer/Bay that is. HALE-FUCKING-LUYAH!!! Pearl Harbor probably won't cover its costs. Hey Jerry! We were all gypped by Armaggedon, so give us our money back. YOU CAN'T GYP US AGAIN! Now 15 million more people know. Question: Did one fucking person who saw Pearl Harbor say to himself: "Gee, that was great, I want to see another movie by the Bruckheimer/Bay combo."? Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

  • June 13, 2001, 8:31 a.m. CST

    WWII vets deserve better than this.

    by Bottacelli

    When I went to see Saving Private Ryan, someone behind me kept yelling "Kill the German!" I was gonna turn around and tell them to be quiet, but I saw that the noisy person was a 75- or 80-year-old man gripping the seat in front of him with white knuckles. The subject of PH is still relevant to a lot of people in the US, to say nothing of the world. A lot of people remember it, and not in a schmaltzy, romantic way. Not as many people are old enough to remember the sinking of the Titanic, so it was okay (maybe even necessary) to cook up a *sigh* tragic romance to engage the audience's emotions. That wasn't needed here; as I've said, people already have plenty of emotions in regards to the Pearl Harbor attack and WWII in general. In the name of God, why the hell couldn't they find a better writer to improve the dialogue and make it more realistic, so as not to insult the viewers (especially those that were there)? Then maybe the romance would have been a little more grown-up. And (god forbid!) they could have pared down the special effects to have some sort of relevance to the story and make the point without clubbing you over the head with it--just a thought. I'd hate to have served in a global conflict and see a "tribute" film 60 years later that turns the event into a hokey sensory-overloading action flick.

  • June 19, 2001, 5:48 a.m. CST

    A disgrace and and insult

    by Superpaddy

    A few days ago I saw Pearl Harbor. I thought it was a disgraceful film, which seeks to disguise itself as being more than mere spectacle. In recent years some big Hollywood films have been turned into interactive theme park rides. Well this one won't need adapting, because thats all it is to begin with. What really gets me about this detestable effort, apart from the complete absence of drama, plot, characterization and acting, is the portrayal of the Japanese in such an understanding 'we're all friends now' light. The Japanese launched a premeditated attack on the US, and in the course of destroying ships they massacred several thousand unarmed men, most of whom were asleep in their beds. So don't give me this soft-focused crap with the Japanese constantly saying how they don't want to go to war, but they have no choice. God love them. And did they have no choice in the years subsequent to that, when they completely discarded the rules of the Geneva Convention, by torturing and often killing Allied pows? And what about the tens of thousands of civilian Chinese whom they slaughtered? Who forced their hands on those occasions? Japan has long indulged in a martial culture, in which war is celebrated. It opened up the Pacific War, angered the US with its cowardly attack, and eventually learned that it should have been more careful what it asked for. And why does the director Michael Bay go out of his way to be so openminded and revisionist? Who knows, but perhaps it has something to do with the huge box office takings such a film normally generates in present-day Japan. This film pretends to honour the memory of the US servicemen, but in seeking out the yen of the Japanese, all it does is insult that memory. Furthermore, it damages the very attempts of genuine historians in recent years to formulate informed and considered revisionist theories of history. It is all well and good that we are at peace with our German and Japanese friends in 2001. Like any rational person I am glad of that. However, that is not an excuse to re-write history and erase the very nasty shit those countries did fifty years ago. I was not so angry when I left the theatre, probably because I was so bored after sitting through the damn thing for three hours. But thinking more upon it, I really, really hate this movie. And shame on the American audience for once again supporting such rubbish in droves

  • June 20, 2001, 9:15 p.m. CST

    DISNEY stocks Flunk because Pearl Harbor couldn't SAIL

    by kienmlee

    To be honest,Titanic succeeded because the Titanic tragedy provided the setting of (to some, not me) a great romantic tragedy. To Michael Bay, Pearl Harbor with the love triangle was an excuse for him to make the movie with explosions. Why a great action movie director would wanna do that ... is actually not beyond me, perhaps he wanted to challenge himself and do some romantic tragedy too. But it failed, because the setup for the Pearl Harbor attack (before, during and after) takes too much time and required attention. Titanic just required the ship to just fucking crash into the iceberg. Anyways, the love triangle was laborious. Can't imagine the 3 fellas fell into love so quickly, cheesily. As a result, our lovely teenager girls did not watch the movie AS MANY times, and so DISNEY's stocks were downgraded today. Sucks for them. Eisner thought this one would outdo LionKing. Bah.

  • June 22, 2001, 7:56 p.m. CST

    if this was the 40s. you might've liked it

    by popefiction

    if you like old classic movie romance, you'll like pearl harbor's romance. i liked it. i saw it with one of my friends, and 3 other girls. one of the girls cried. and my friend and I made a joke right when***SPOILER ALERT!!*************************** ben afflek came back to see josh hartnett with that nurse girl. i said to my friend sitting to my left, "Ben Afflek! You re right on time for 'I love Lucy'!" all the veterans, all the chicks, and all the horny guys in that theater laughed like a living hell! it was on eof the best movie theatre expierences I've had sinse I saw 'Gladiator' the day it came out in LA (i sat next to a bum).

  • June 29, 2001, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Last!!

    by Dead Last

    And if you flame me, I'll be forced to re-post, and then AICN will kick me off, and then you'll cry and regret what you did, but it'll be too late! Don't do it.

  • June 30, 2001, 11:15 p.m. CST

    read this!!

    by arnica66

    there are several things that i would like to comment on about PL and the comments made by other "talkbackers"--- personally i thought the movie was visually and emotionally pleasing but the whole configuration was pathetic the love story was totally and completely unneeded and it completely held the movie back from being the movie of the year or decade (which i truly think it could and should have been) ( personally i think the best part of the love story was when Benny boy got socked in the nose with the cork) why must american society constantly fallback on love, sex and nudity as the exciting part of a movie?-- i mean come on! cant we think of anything else that can stimulate our brains?!-- pulling the race card-- i thought it was really pathetic how hollywood crammed in the whole Cuba Gooding Jr bit with the overly dramatized love story they just didnt fit-- dont get me wrong i think it would have been a very important part to include in a pearl harbor WITHOUT a love story with decent documentery appeal the writers of the film should have ultimately left out the love story, showed more historical accurate facts, shown more about the sailors and how it effected them and the general populous, showed half of the event from the Japanese perspective ( with the japanese actors speakers english of course----the average american attention span does not reach far enough for a viewer to actually READ subtitles! ), and portrayed the whole film in more of an epic format-- opening a window to what america really was like "way back when" and ps-- i really do think that american higher officials and yes FDR, knew about the bombing beforehand---of course!--- it was the perfect way to get americans-- terribly phobic of war because of WW1 and the Depression-- into a war that they knew would provide a ton of money for companies like AT&T ( who sold field radios to natzi germany during the war --- fact not conspiracy theory by the way ) isnt it obvious ppl?!~ and pps i f u wanna see a good movie go out and rent Gladiator-- that movie rocked!!!

  • July 31, 2001, 7:47 p.m. CST

    Enough of the Pear Harbor bashing

    by e4ia

    I saw Pearl Harbor a week after it opened and enojoyed much of it. Yes, the love story was corny but the movie pulled me in I got caught up in the story it told. Of all the movies that I've seen this summer, the image that still sticks out most in my mind is that of the fingers and hands of the sailors in the sunken ship grasping through the small vent as they slowly drowned and the men who were trying to save them helplessly holding theirs hands or finger as they died. There were other powerful moments in the film as well. Considering that this film was made by the same man who took a big $150million Disney crap 2 years ago called Armagedon, I was very impressed. Now, after a summer of Pearl Harbor bashing, I think enough is enough. It is to the point now that it is unfashionable to do anything else but say that you hated it. After a summer of flashy junk ("Evolution" anyone?) and disappointments, it is time to give Pearl Harbor a break.

  • Oct. 19, 2001, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Pearl Harbour

    by wilma

    Dear Harry & co. Your reputation as passionate and unbridled film reviewers is incredibly deserved, based on the evidence I've seen thus far. But Pearl Harbour 'okay'? 'like it'? This film is an unbridled, two-dimensional, god awful piece of shit. I agree, the opening 3 minutes are amongst the most pointless in the history of film (but yes, should be re-cycled as a Coke or perhaps a tampax commercial). But where in the name of christ is the good movie trying to get out? Josh Hartnett - a very hard working, talented & even beatiful male actor - just about makes his character watchable, despite being hampered by the cartoon dialogue and emotional phoneyness of the writing. Ben Affleck. Over-rated, over-employed and unfortunately over here. Ben Affleck is a nearly actor and always will be. Kate Beckinsdale has proven she can do some interesting work but comes dreadfully unstuck throughout almost the entire movie. The romance between Kate and Ben is woeful. I have never seen Mills and Boon translated so perfectly to the big screen. I have never been in a cinema where the audience laughed at the film makers so much. Did the creative forces think that by putting Kate and Ben in a lifeboat it would make us think nostalgically of Tiutanic? All it doea is stretch the patience that a movie this expensive can smell so strongly of lukewarm puke. The shots at the Railway Station should be shown to every film maker in the world who is about to make a romantic movie. Cliche can work but only if it has a heart. This movie has no heart. It is a pornographic, nostalgic special effect which has no idea of where to begin explaining what Pearl Harbour was really about. (I don't exactly know what Pearl Harbour means to you guys over there, but I KNOW it wasn't about this. Yes, the effects are special. The explosions are sort of exciting. The bomb camera angle (as everyone in the world now knows) is incredibly visceral. BUT THE MOVIE DOES NOT HAVE A DRAMATICALLY TRUTHFUL MOMENT IN OVER 180 MINUTES!!!! I liked Titanic as a spectacle though found the comic book dialogue occassionally obtrusive. Pearl Harbour is sunk by it's script and the fact that Michael Bay does not know how to direct actors. If a truthful moment were to creep up behind him and bite him in the ass he would try to replace it with some CGI. I'm sure at this very moment George Lucas is on the verge of signing him up to direct the next Star Wars trilogy and sink action/sci-fi cinema forever. One footnote. I have a 65 year old uncle who has been to the cinema twice in five years, to see Private Ryan and, now, Pearl Harbour. He would never under any circumstances see any movie post 1975 but has been to see these movies because he feels it is his patriotic duty to see them. It is a clever marketing ploy to make action movies and then sell them as respectful homages. Perhaps the film-makers tried to make the films for the right reasons. Somewher along the way, especially in the marketing campaigns, the films become a cheap way of exploiting a generation who died to keep us free. Anyone involved responsible for steering the selling of the films in this direction should be run out of Hollywood for ever. It's a shame they'll probably be given pay rises. Cheers, Dan

  • March 29, 2002, 1:27 p.m. CST

    this movie is nothing else but a heroic patriotic bad stupid SOA

    by drjones

    and concerning your taste in movies i don`t understand you liked it HARRY!!!!

  • June 6, 2003, 3:25 a.m. CST

    I hate Pearl Harbour

    by Mennon

    Cut out the slow-motion walking. The characters. The smaltz. The crap, corny, rubbish. I liked the explosions. I hated te movie.