It was forest gump of WWII.

[ June 05, 2001: Message edited by: bear ]
 

Seriously, though, I'm interested in seeing it. But I hear it's like 3 hours long and is mostly just romance. As if all the good action stuff is in the previews to get guys to see it.
 

[ June 05, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
 

It was WAAAAAY too much story, crammed into WAAAAY too small of a time frame. If they'd tried to work the story around just the one "event" (the attack on Pearl Harbor), that would be fine (maybe). But instead, Bay and Bruckenheimer try and make this huge sweeping epic on the scale of "Titanic". Despite the film's name, we also get to see the Battle of the Atlantic, and Jimmy Dolittle's Tokyo raid.

They tried to do a lot with the movie, and they failed. Sure, the battle scenes are pretty cool. The attack on Pearl Harbor looks DAMN cool to me, but I wish they hadn't tried to go for a PG-13 rating: frankly, Saving Private Ryan depicts the horror of war a hell of a lot more effectively than this monstrosity.

As far as World War II Pacfic movies go, I'll stick with Tora! Tora! Tora! and The Thin Red Line.

Other thoughts on Pearl Harbor:

Kimmel -- why the hell is he portrayed as being halfway competent? Between him and Strong, they could've stopped the Japanese before they reached Pearl if they'd done their job.

Affleck & the Eagle Squadron. Er. Active duty American soldiers were NOT allowed to fight for the British (or anyone else). Sure, they were some Americans fighting the Germans before 1941 -- and, yes, Eagle Squadron did exist -- but they weren't active soldiers, they were mercenaries.

FDR ... STANDING? Uh, I don't think so. At least, not the way it's portrayed there. Sure the dude did his camoflauging with the press -- few people knew he was in a wheelchair until LONG after his death (my grandmother, to this day, refuses to believe FDR was EVER in a wheelchair).

On the other hand ...

I'm glad the producers steered away from that whole "FDR knew about it" conspiracy theory. The whole theory falls apart with the most basic insight (namely: "Dude, FDR wanted to fight the Nazis, not the Japs...")

And ... that's about it, I suppose. All in all, this is the first Michael Bay film I have not enjoyed. Hopefully, the next one will be back on track.

Hopefully.
 

I can't say I hated it as much as having a rock hit me in the eye or getting poked in the liver with a stick.

Not quite.

Clearly there was no problem of where to begin wasn't for Michael "Armageddon" Bay and Jerry "Top Gun" Bruckheimer. Nope, no problem there...they just dashed off to their local clich� store for an extra helping of World War II plot devices and soldier stereotypes. Why waste money on a real plot when you can spend that on special effects. Heck, the first scene where we see the two kids a grow-ups is a Top Gun-esk testosterone fest complete with a butt chewing from the commander. AND there is even a character named Goose for goodness sakes.

The love story as construct for war movies is not a new thing. Only rarely is it done as poorly. Take a better movie, From Here to Eternity (1953) for example. Burt Lancaster is in love with Deborah Kerr only he's a company First Sergeant and she is the wife of the company commander, who is having an affair on the side as well.

That story is intertwined with a second love story between Montgomery Clift and Donna Reed (who makes another appearance later in a different love story role). Clift plays a character who was once a boxer who has killed someone in the ring and wants no part of boxing any more inspite of his (the above) company commander. He eventually falls in love with Reed, a dance hall girl, winds up killing another fellow in a fight and deserting to stay with his love. All these stories culimate in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Complicated stuff that. Now, I mention From Here to Eternity at in this context because for it, the attack on Pearl Harbor was peripheral to the love story and yet integral to the complete story and character development. Much of which Pearl Harbor was mot...only they didn't call From Here to Eternity something like the attack on Peral Harbor on December 7th did they. Noooo. Nuance for Pearl Harbor apparently was out the door at the first budget meeting.

More on that.

They Were Expendable (1945) features a love story that is encompased by the World War II battle that surrounds it. John Wayne plays a navy officer, who while battling in the Philippines falls in love with the above Donna Reed. Robert Montgomery plays the commander of the PT Boat squadron commander who helps Wayne make those tough choices that include leaving Reed behind to do the duty that lay ahead. Great story because it does not overawe the construct that they two officers were fighing around Battan and got caught up in the subsequent Amerinca withdrawl from there.

Next point, character development. See above about a nuanced plot.

The Japanses characters might as well had "Stop" painted on them becasue they were not characters, they were signposts. Signposts used by the filmmakers to tell the moviegoer where the story is heading next. Now, that doesn't really have to be a bad thing a good deal of war movies paint their antigonists with a thin brush. But in the case of Pearl Harbor, it's insulting. It goes something like this:

'Why do you go to Pearl Harbor Admiral Yamamoto?'
'To wake a sleeping giant Genda-san.'
'But why?'
'Don't ask, I haven't got the re-writes yet.'
'How did we come up with this strategy? Why are we fearful of the Americans?'
'Also in the re-writes...which we will forego for a bigger special effects budget.'

It you want a fictionalized look at the event and some of the things leading up to it, see Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970). And that also brings about the subject of the laughable dialog. Seriously, I turned to my girlfirend and we both laughed out loud at some of the things said.

And that also brings about the subject of the laughable dialog. Seriously, I turned to my girlfirend and we both laughed out loud at some of the things said.

And at this time I don't want to bring up the subject of the Doolittle raid and how it was MONTHS after Pearl Harbor and how it has NOTHING to do with the story other than giving a big 'hurrah we got 'em back' umph to the end of the movie. End it right and talk about the salvage efforts, talk about the men killed and wounded, talk about the recovery of the island, talk about the round-up of Japanese and Japanese Americans, don't go all "action movie" on us.

Want to good movies, rent those mentioned above along with Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944) about the Doolittle raid and The Purple Heart (1944).

Go see Pearl Harbor if you want to see how not to treat the subject.

[ June 06, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
 

You repeated yourself there quite a gosh-darn bit, dude
 

I am very disappointed in Bruckheimer�

 

Ok, edited back to correct size.
 

Riiiight.
 

A little belated, but it made me chuckle.

[ June 10, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
 

The face paint which became one of the films visual logos had gone out of fashion centuries earlier.

No way was Wallace the father. He and rich English girl were never in the country at the same time. Likewise her being at his execution.

The Irish didn't turn on the English.

Other stuff I can't remember.
 

Psyliam-What "rich english girl" are you reffering to btw?

other than that. I still enjoyed the movie on a purely visceral level. mmm. battle scenes are cool.
 

Yes, I know that doesn't make sense. But, she was a girl. I'm sure she was rich. And, since she was married into the English royal family, you could call her "English", I suppose.

Unless there's someone else I'm forgetting...
 

But yeah. Same thing. Not in the coutry at the same time. Yadayadayada.