I just got home from the N.Y. premiere of "Pearl Harbor," which I attended tonight. I was a bit anxious to see it, as I was no doubt influenced somewhat by the hype and everyone else’s eagerness to see it, but remembering that this was a film by Michael Bay, a guy who thinks space shuttles can travel to distant asteroids in hours, I was skeptical. "Bad Boys" was OK, I loved "The Rock" when it came out, "Con Air" was standard fair, and "Armageddon" was abysmal. I had planned on merely attending, and then I was asked by my supervisor at the market research company I work for to staff the screening. I ended up making sure each group of guests sat in the correct reserved section (There was like, 6 different ones), and I got to seat actor Kyle MacLachlan. The movie started at 7:24, almost a half hour late. My thoughts:

THE CHARACTERS
The characters were stereotypes, and the dialogue and love story was cliched and corny. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnet’s southern drawls were annoying, and even FDR’s speeches and posturing at times came off as corny. Hell, the guy barely looks like FDR. One of the finest actors in the whole cast, Cuba Gooding Jr., has one of the smallest roles in the film, as there are no-name characters in Rafe (Ben Affleck) and Danny (Josh Hartnett)’s band of friends that have way more screen time than Cuba, the Oscar-winning actor.

THE ATTACK
The attack doesn’t occur until an hour and a half into the film, and Ben Affleck doesn’t even arrive there until shortly before that. (He volunteers early in the filrm to join the British Eagles, who are fighting the Nazis in Europe, while the U.S. heretofore has remained out of the war.) The whole attack sequence lasts only about 20 minutes (out of a two hour and fifty-four minute film). It is neither as shocking nor as realistically shot as the storming of the beach at Normandy in Saving Private Ryan, and the movie continues on after that until after the U.S.’s attack on Tokyo. (I guess they didn’t want to end it with us getting our butts kicked; they wanted to end it after we had our revenge.) I’m not even sure why they called this film "Pearl Harbor." Pearl Harbor hardly seems to be the focus of the film. It was interesting to see the Japanese military’s perspective on the situation, with occasional behind the scenes goings on among the Japanese admirals and prosecutors of the attack, and I was actually impressed with the fact that they showed the Japanese as humans: We see a pilot suiting up while hearing a letter he writes to his parents, and we even see a photo of loved ones in one of the pilot’s cockpit.

There is the usual modestly entertaining material here for people who go to the movies for the social experience, or to just sit down for three hours without much investment in what’s on the screen. There are a couple a funny lines, Alec Baldwin’s character is a leader we want to root for, there are some relationships here and there that we might form some rapport with, and a couple of deaths that might make you flinch (if you’re the kinda person who sleeps with night light and a teddy bear tucked under their arm), but for the most part, there was nothing new or original here, and nothing that really moved me.

"Con Air" was standard fair

Michael Bay did not direct Con Air; Simon West did. However it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer who did produce all of those other movies.

Luigi: Two hours and 54 minutes? The print I saw on 5/25 was about ten minutes longer, including credits.
I heard somewhere (I don't remember where) that the actual attack on Pearl Harbor was only 15 or 20 minutes long.
Michael Bay's touch is very much in evidence here: constantly moving camera, quick cut editing. I heard the price tag for this was $140 million. Speaking of hype, on my way home from the theater, I ran into my sister. She had never heard of the film.

Brian Fitzgerald: Michael Bay did not direct Con Air; Simon West did. However it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer who did produce all of those other movies.)

Luigi Novi: My mistake.

To Adam: Well, I saw the premeire, and since I didn't want to get crushed by the crowd (The Loews Astor seats 1,400 people), I walked out when the story was over, and didn't count the credits. I timed the movie from start to finish and that's how long it was. Yes, the attack sequence was about 20 minutes long; I wrote that in my original post above. Ironic that in real life, the attack lasted a bit less than two hours, but in a two hour and fifty-four minute film, it took up only a ninth of the movie.

I was thinking about seeing ot till I read this review. http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/pearl25f.html

Gotta love good ol' Rog. I don't always agree with his reviews, but I love reading them. His book I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie!, a collection of his best negative reviews, was a joy to read. Must be Schandenfreude.

More revisionist history written by Disney . . . *shudder*!

That bit in the trailer where a Zero zips down an alleyway between to buildings looked a little doubtful to me. So did those modern US warships that get wasted. But maybe they cleaned that up for the finished article.
On antother note... how does this film compare to "Tora Tora Tora"? Because that film seemed pretty darned definitive.

Adam, if I were you I wouldn't put too much stock in what Ebert says about what movies are good. Remember he is the same guy who gave Congo & Never Been Kissed better ratings than Gladiator. I like what my local paper said about this movie. "Cheesy yes, but there are diferent types of movie cheese and this is a big slice of American chedder".

As for the movie one thing it got right, and Private Ryan got wrong, was the characters' ages. In Private Ryan everyone was late 20s - 30s and up. The way I hear it most of the people at D-day were early 20s and many were younger. I didn't mind the southern drawls, but I'm from GA and while I don't have a southern accent myself but I can spot when an actor is over-doing it and these guys weren't.

Forget cheese, Brian, what about CORN?

The so-called love story in this joke of a film was so corny that Mazzola got a royalty.

That's up for debate, I must admit that I like the fact that when the attack started the guys just tried to get into the air and fight the Japaneese rather than continue their little personal fight between one another, I know many other movies would not have let the characters switch out of personal problem mode so quickly.
(i.e. Titanic, "The ship is sinking around us so I'm going to go chase someone around the lower decks with a gun"
Deep Impact, the world may end in a few months so my dad and mom need to get back together, sorry Tia but the after school special about accepting divorce is filming on the set next door.

I don't know if anyone's noticed this yet, but it looks like the US flags used in "Pearl Harbor" are of the offset rows of stars, indicating the 50-state design rather than the evenly spaced columns used in the 48-state design. The ones used on the official website and in promotional posters are definitely 50-star flags.

Leave it to "Disney"...they're always "Mickey Mouse-ing" with history movies.

World Trade Center reference: Just when I thought I had already seen, heard or come up with the best reasons why this movie was an utter piece of shite, I read something on Roger Ebert's page on the Sun Times website that did an even better job, and uses the WTC tragedy to put some perspective on the Pearl Harbor attack:

Here's an idea for a movie to be made in the year 2060: An epic about the attacks against the Twin Towers. Only let the three-hour film focus mainly on a love triangle stemming from a pair of friends as stock traders in New York and a young receptionist. When one of them is on a plane from Boston to L.A. and another is busy with a client in the Twin Towers, the men are suddenly thrust in the middle of a terrible plot where there is chaos and tragedy, but we completely disregard the 5,000 citizens dead and instead concern ourselves with the love lives of three whining yuppies. Or, we could just look at ''Pearl Harbor'' and think about how horrible it is to trivialize such a tragedy on the screen.

If you want to see a real Pearl Harbor film, see Tora! Tora! Tora! Although that film has an almost "historical documentary" feel to it, it does a much better job of showing how devastating the attack was, and how bad military intelligence got in the way of preventing (or at least lessening) it.

As for this new film, I thought I was watching Top Gun dogfights with WWII fighter planes, something those old warbirds could never have done. I cringed at the "Death Star Trench Run" between the rows of hangers, and the use of a "chicken run" to cause several Japanese planes to collide with each other.
I was disappointed at all the modern warships present, since with today's technology, they could have been disguised (either in production or post-production). And to get nit-picky, the Oaklahoma was nowhere near the Arizona, as post-attack scenes have them positioned. (That's something I'd seen in pre-release photos, but assumed the producers were economising on set space and would fix the error in post-production--boy, was I wrong!) And why was the Nevada's ill-fated attempt to leave the harbor NOT EVEN MENTIONED? You couldn't ask for a more Hollywood moment than that (complete with the Stars and Stripes flying!)
Another thing that bugged me was how many tall objects (water towers, ship masts, etc.) kept dramatically falling over. Over-use of a dramatic effect lessens its drama.
Did anyone think the "flying at sunset" scene in this film was a literal interpretation of the "flying scene" in Titanic?

Just as a side note, I've had a lifelong interest in the Pearl Harbor attack (I've even built a model depicting it for a veteran's museum), so my profound disappointment in this film was probably stronger than most people's. I could tear this film to shreds for its historical content (or lack thereof), but that wouldn't really be fun for me (nor, I suspect, for the rest of you).

I was just watching Tora Tora Tora! with my mom yesterday, and we both thought that it was a lot better than the newer Pearl Harbor. Even the scenes with the fighters at Walker being blown up seemed more realistic than the CGIed effects of PH...

Regarding warships. The Japanese use an aircraft carrier with an angled flight deck which is a post war invention. Three Spruance class destroyers are tied up at Battleship row, and to anyone with any knowledge of WWII ships, they will know that modern vessels look significantly different to WWII ships. Also, if they really wanted to use an authentic looking ship, why not the USS Missouri?
It may not have been present at the attack, and it may have been modernised but it looks a lot more like a wartime ship than some Spruances.

Also, if they really wanted to use an authentic looking ship, why not the USS Missouri?

The USS Missouri was used in the film it "played" the West Virginia.

also the USS Texas played the USS Tennessee, USS Oklahoma, and the USS West Virginia and interiors of the USS Hornet. The interior of the USS Lexington was also used for the USS Hornet.

http://movie-mistakes.com has a good list of Pearl Harbor mistakes.

Yet I doubt they listed the most obvious ones:

--The plot (trite, inane, ridiculous, etc.)

--MAKING THE •••• THING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

All of the above complaints are correct. This movie was nowhere near as good as it could and should have been.

Why are Navy nurses examining Army pilots?

Why do the same Supruance class destroyers(the ones that are tied up together) keep blowing up over and over again? (I counted 5 or 6 different times)

Why does Ben Affleck, who's in New York, board a train to get to ... England?

The radar that was on lookout duty that day did not have the familier "circle-with-a-sweeping-radius-that-picks-up-planes-as-dots" layout. Instead, operators looked at a wavy line, that looked a little like a voice printout. When there was constant spike when the radar beam was pointed in a certian direction, the operator knew he had a hit.


Ever notice that in most Bruckheimer and/or Bay films the hero commits a major crime, but because he's the hero, its okay? Ben and Eve steal a police boat in Pearl Harbor. Bruce tries to shoot Ben in Armageddon. John Cusack steals a car in Con Air (granted for a good cause). Sean Connery wipes out most of San Francisco and Nicolas Cage steals a car (again for a good cause) in the Rock.


However, a few people who worked on the movie have something to be proud of.

In the Battle of Britian dogfight scenes, the German fighters have yellow snouts, which is the marking of the German squadron that did more then it's share of the escort duty for the Luftwaffe in that battle. (Play MS combat flight simulator with the Battle of Britian sequences. Same color Messerschmits)

I liked how the costume departments dug up the blue capes for the Navy nurses for that one scene.

When in The Rock did Sean Connery wipe out most of San Francisco?

I think he means with the Humvee he stole.

And while you're compiling the list, don't forget Asleep in 60 Seconds where the entire plot hinges on Nicolas Cage stealing cars to save his brother's life.

I saw "Tora!Tora!Tora!" before I saw "Pearl Harbor", and "Tora!Tora!Tora!" is to me the better account of the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. However, I still enjoyed "Pearl Harbor" for what it was, which was not really so much a movie about Pearl Harbor, but more a movie set in 1941 and 1942, about two guys and a girl in a love wishbone (it wasn't really a love "triangle"), who (among other things) happen to get caught in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't think as many people would have so harshly criticized the movie if it had been called something with a more content-reflective title, such as "Love and War", as opposed to "Pearl Harbor". The only thing that really bothered me about the movie was that the producers went for the PG-13 rating to make the movie more accessible to moviegoers under age 17. "Pearl Harbor" had a lot of explosions and a lot of flying bullets, but the movie's scarcity of realistic blood and gore in the attack scenes diminished the movie in some respects.

but no studio would have put up $140 million for an R rated flick this this. BTW in a week or so the VISTA series (Special Edition DVD Set) will come out with an R rated version of the film.

According to the Internet Movie Database, "Saving Private Ryan" (1998, rated R) grossed about $216.1 million (U.S. box office) on a $70 million budget. "Pearl Harbor" (2001, rated PG-13) grossed about $198.5 million (U.S. box office) on a $152.8 million budget.

Every time you make a movie you are gambling. I'm not saying that lower rating always equels more money. I'm saying that Private Ryan was a lower risk as it cost half what Harbor cost & the fact that the most succussful director in history (Spielberg) can make over $200 mill with an R rating won't change studio heads thinking about what has a better chance of making money.

If you go here:

http://us.imdb.com/Top/

and look at the US top 10 movies for the past 5 years you will see that only 9 out of the 50 were Rated R. 3 were G; meaning that the other 38 were PG or PG-13.

Every movie case is different. However, in the case of "Pearl Harbor", I think the movie was actually hurt somewhat at the box office by its shyness away from realistic blood and gore in the action/battle scenes. I think "Saving Private Ryan" and other war movies that followed, such as "The Thin Red Line" (1998) and "Black Hawk Down" (2001), have led to an increased audience expectation that movies purporting to treat war in a serious manner will be as realistically graphic as were those movies in their action/battle scenes. It's true that the highest grossing R rated movies haven't grossed as much as the highest rated PG-13, PG, or G rated movies. According to the Internet Movie Database, the highest grossing R rated movie in U.S. history to date was "Beverly Hills Cop" (1984), which grossed about $234.8 million in the U.S. and ranks #27 on the all-time U.S. box office list. However, I think that "Pearl Harbor" could have grossed more money than "Beverly Hills Cop", even in the $300 million range, for a couple of reasons. First, "Pearl Harbor" had the advantage of being hyped as an "event" movie set for release around the start of the summer blockbuster season (May 21, 2001), while "Beverly Hills Cop" was a December 4, 1984 release which didn't have nearly the amount of pre-publicity that "Pearl Harbor" had. Second, the release of "Pearl Harbor" coincided with a resurgence of popular interest in World War II and U.S. World War II veterans, following movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line", the HBO mini-series "Band of Brothers", books like "The Greatest Generation" by Tom Brokaw, and other similar items. Third, the release of "Pearl Harbor" was timed to lead into the 60th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Fourth, the movie had a big-name producer in Jerry Bruckheimer; a commercially successful director in Michael Bay; some well-known stars in Ben Affleck, Jon Voight, Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Alec Baldwin; and some rising stars in Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale. Fifth, the movie had a good, commercial, pop/country ballad sung by Faith Hill for the soundtrack (and the song had a decent video starring Faith Hill). Sixth, the trailors looked great. I expected this movie to pull in $300 million. But critics hammered it, and word of mouth didn't do much for its box office draw. "Pearl Harbor" grossed about $75.2 million in its first week of release. In week 2, the movie grossed $29.6 million. In week 3, $14.7 million. In week 4, $9.9 million. In the weeks after that (in order), $6.8 million, $4.7 million, $3.2 million, $2.0 million, $1.0 million, $0.8 million, etc. How much of the movie's quick box office drop was due to audience dissatisfaction with the love story material, aversion to the chosen historical subject matter, or dissatisfaction with technical aspects of the movie, I don't know.

"Why are Navy nurses examining Army pilots? "

This nitpick although valid might be just a case of what could have really happened. In all the confusion of the attack, I wouldn't have been surprised if medical personnel were examining anyone.

Unless of course you are talking about the scene near the beginning of the movie with the eyesight tests.

MAJOR nitpick.

Look at how aircraft carriers have operated throughout history. The island structure is on the starboard side of the ship, with the aircraft taking off over the bow. Watch the sequence where the Japanese aircraft are launching from their carriers....they are actually launching their aircraft from the stern.

I managed two screen caps.

http://www.mirafurlan.freeyellow.com/carriershotone.jpg

http://www.mirafurlan.freeyellow.com/carriershottwo.jpg

Did I see Petey the Plane in one of those caps?

Petey, noooo!

Douglas, some carriers like the Akagi had their island on the port side.

I also know that some carriers had no Island at all like the Zuikaku, but if you see that shot earlier on, the angled flight deck at the other end of the vessel is plainly obvious.

It might require another couple of video captures, and I'm sure some of the deck shots show launches with a starboard island.

I must confess that I've never seen the movie. But from Pearl Harbor Movie Goofs! I see what you mean. They tried to simulate the Akagi and made this embarassing mistake. Flipping the frame (like TOS did) would have been much better.

Also note Los Angeles Union Station stand in part for Grand Central Station ?

Also unlikely that Queen Mary would have been in port at the time, and if so, it would have been painted wartime gray, et cetera, et cetera and so forth ! :-)

that was supposed to be Grand Central? geez.....

Don't remember this, but the actual morning of the attack was supposedly quite foggy, and the planes did not, nor could they have flown through the valley like they did in the movie.

-JM

I love how Mitchell Field (Its now Hofstra) shows the very mountainous terrain of Long Island. Come on, theres a guy from Massapequa in the scene... they should have known better.

I've noticed another nitpick in this film, when Rafe and Danny do their high speed chicken run at the Army Air Corp Airfield BEFORE he volunteers for Eagle Squadron, the year is stated as 1941.
Now I'm no genius at history, but even I know that the Battle of Britain took place in 1940.

I remember when I saw this movie I was hoping they'd use the actual Declaration of War speech by the Prez. It of course wasn't but would doing that have been a problem/mistake, other than the fact that the voices wouldn't match up? For all the lack of historical authenticity this movie has it could've at least used actual footage, unless that guy in the car was real footage.

Someone on another site has stated that the 'Battle of Britain' in this movie could be the lesser battles after the main BOB during 1941. This I doubt myself, but even if it is true, this really mucks up the placing of the Queen Mary in New York Harbor as by this time she was on her way to Sydney as a troopship.