I've been an amateur Pearl Harbor buff ever since I read Walter Lord's Day of Infamy back in elementary school. I did a research paper in college on the numerous U. S. mistakes leading up to the attack ie., failure to decode secret communiques in time, radar operators being told to ignore massive plane formations the morning of the attack, etc. My wife even gave me Gordon Prange's At Dawn We Slept, the essential read on the subject for us junkies as a birthday present one year. So here we are in a theater last summer when this magnificent, awesome movie trailer begins with Japanese planes flying by Hawaiian mountains and I immediately lean forward in my seat and look at my wife and smile. At the end, however, came the words that anybody expecting a serious, realistic, historically accurate treatment of the Pearl Harbor attack would fear: A Jerry Bruckheimer-Michael Bay film. ------------------
Not realistically however. It is one thing to show people being shot. It is another to present war in a realistic setting. Movies like Apocolypse Now did that. Saving Private Ryan did that. Big difference. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
Jeff, Not realistically however. It is one thing to show people being shot. It is another to present war in a realistic setting. Surfguy mentioned that Pearl Harbor survivors thought it was pretty realistic. What more do you want? I just saw several interviews on the news with Pearl Harbor veterans who saw the movie. Overall, almost all of them liked it and thought it was well done. They felt the war scenes were pretty realistic. Seriously, though, the movie was excellent (in my opinion). I don't know how historically accurate it was, but I didn't know about the follow-up attack we made and all of that. I thought that part was very interesting, if it's true. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I, too, have been there, twice. And I'd love to go back again...one of those places you can't get tired of going to. Sobering IS the perfect word for it, though. It's an extremely emotional experience, regardless of your interest level. One of the most amazing experiences I've ever had. Standing on the Arizona Memorial, it's so eerily quiet and surreal. ------------------ Jazzkiller
Huh? First off, those are sitcoms, not dramatic shows. I could see if you said Judging Amy or NYPD Blue or West Wing or something, but it doesn't make sense to compare a drama to sitcoms. Also, Seinfeld was incredibly UNDER acted and it was done on purpose. No one would ever consider Jerry Seinfeld an actor. There were plenty of scenes where he was nearly laughing. As for overacting, that is true. However, it is nearly impossible to find acting with anything less than a very broad stroke in film today. I've long been an admirer of great actors and well-performed roles and we aren't exactly living in a time where popular film is creating masterpieces. Most terrific acting is being generated in the great independant films. Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn't think that most people could handle the subtelties of fine acting in blockbuster films, so they tend to pander in how the film is shot, in its direction and in dialogue. On a rare occassion, a film will find equal popularity and critical acclaim and be deserving. The last movie like that was probably American Beauty. There have even been a few blockbusters like Saving Priavate Ryan or Apollo 13 that met the standard. But, it is rare. Too many demographics to satisfy and too much money to be made and/or lost. I personally LOVE action films and a good comedy will keep me parked in front of a film screen or tv set. But, a great acting performance will make me watch a film over and over. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
Yeah, I've been as well. The arizona memorial was incredible. Overall, it's a very powerful place to be -- just imagining standing there and seeing all the zeroes coming in to attack, looking around and everything's blowing up and on fire, and people are dying all around you. It just makes you wonder how people really felt then . . . I think I'll watch Tora, Tora, Tora again this weekend, and leave "Pearl Harbor" for later. ------------------ blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
I saw the movie this afternoon and I thought it was VERY weak. I was completely disappointed with the watered down fluff hollywood story telling. This movie should not have been called Pearl Harbor, maybe the fly boy and the nurse or something but not Pearl Harbor. The love story was decent and the 20 minutes of action was great, but this movie was a complete mess. It's like they couldn't decide what they wanted the movie to be so they just threw a bunch of stuff together. A title like Pearl Harbor should demand a little more reponsibility to accuracy and a more informative, realistic portrayal of what happened. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
I liked the last hour and a half, but the first seven hours, well... I thought it was definitely worth watching, first off. But the first half of the movie had NO action scenes in it, and it was pretty much a romantic drama. Then the second half was NOTHING but action. Good flick, though. ------------------ Jazzkiller
Ugh... Saw it last night... the best thing that I can say about it: at least my gf paid for her own ticket. It was that bad. The love story was completely unconvincing, and both guys came off as jerks, and the girl as shallow. The history was MAIMED. Did anyone else notice the FDR wheel chair scene? Hmm... interesting, considering the fact that he hid his weakness as much as possible EVEN from his close associates. Admiral Yamamoto's famous quote came at the wrong time, the "poor Americans" in government really weren't THAT surprised in all likliehood... and FDR wanted to stay OUT of the war. And what really pissed me off: it pretended to be a realistic representation of the horrors of war... yeah, which is why the movie ultimately glorified it. Like, I felt that after seeing the violence in Saving Private Ryan that there had been a reason I'd been watching all that suffering. The movie was telling you: this is horrible, war is mindless, it's absurd, and has no meaning. Pearl Harbor wasn't consistent in this. At times, it was just showing you blood and guts... and I was like, well that sucks. But the movie didn't make a point about it, and there wasn't any true censure. In the end, I thought it actually sort of glorified fighting.... which I thought was ethically irresponsible. And the stupid thing tried to incorporate too much. It was a war movie. But oh NO! That's not enough... it was a love story too. But wait! We need more... so it's suddenly a pilot story as well. Come on... any 3 of those themes could have made a decent Pearl Harbor movie. ALl three looked cluttered and incoherent. It sucked. Don't waste your money. The war scenes were well done. But the acting, direction, and script blew. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited May 28, 2001).]
Space Ghost, That is because "The Matrix" had absolutely no chance of being "overacted", since Keanu Reeves was in it. He "underacts" anything he touches. Worst actor in history, IMO. I probably would've like The Matrix ten times more had he not been the lead character. As it is, I only like it okay. ------------------ DREAMer's Rocket Page
Obviously you are forgetting about Kiefer Sutherland and Freddie Prinze, Jr. when you make the laim that Keanu Reeves is the worst actor in history. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Just saw it. I took it at face value. It was a very good movie and better then I expected. I do recommend it, and I tend not to like the big blockbusters. I don't think Sutherland is a bad actor. Reeves kind of runs hot and cold to me. Haven, so FDR didn't want to enter the war ? I had heard that congress didn't want him to, and that was why he "let" Pearl Harbor happen, so that the US can jump into the war. ------------------ "norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
Movies that Reeves performed well in (only because it was the only movie past, present, or future ever to match up with his "style" of acting): "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" Movies that Reeves didn't ruin (by himself): "Point Break" and "Speed" Movies that Reeves' indelible horrific acting abilities soaked through and through: All the rest of 'em.... I particularly would like to personally strangle the person who cast Reeves in "Bram Stoker's Dracula". IMO, the WORST casting job ever. It was made even worse (if that could be imagined) by choosing Wynona Rider, of all people, to play the female lead. I get physically sick just thinking of that movie. Gary Oldman is the only reason I haven't pipe bombed everyone involved with that motion picture. ---------------- Here's a challenge: Name ONE movie that Keanu Reeves made better with his performance. ------------------ DREAMer's Rocket Page
The best post in this thread is gr-8's. Take it at face value. It's an entertaining summer movie, nothing more and nothing less. It seems like the producer and director are being reamed here because they tried to tell an interesting story and because they relied on technology to make the story appear plausible. Frankly, I don't care that the history is not purely accurate. I didn't expect it to be. We as a populace are dunces when it comes to history (ditto current events. Which begs the question, do we know anything about anything?). The last place I'd expect to find reasoned exploration of a historical event is a major motion picture. But I expected as much. Keeley and I exchanged a series of emails way back when Clutch first scooped us that the picture was being made-- we totally parodied the idea and the fact that they were making a big budget film. Note: for the jamcrackers out there, there are references in this to Confucius (a Chinese philosopher) and 'eating rice'. These are intentionally racially obtuse remarks made to parody Hollywood's shoddy track record on race issues. I wonder how they're going to make a 90 minute attack into a 3 plus hour film... show it twice? *********************** Yeah, a 90-minute attack that we already know the ending to. All our boats get sunk. Then we get mad and win the war. Well, I think it could be OK. Advisor: "Mr. President, there's been an attack... on PEARL HARBOR." FDR (sitting with his back to the advisor): "Attack...? How bad?" Advisor: "We... we lost them all, sir." FDR (swiveling to face the advisor): "In that case... you know what has to be done." FDR leaps from his wheelchair, tears off his shirt, whips two bandoliers of ammunition out from underneath his desk, and grabs an AK-47. FDR (looking gravely out the window, speaking softly): "It's GO TIME. When I get through with them, they'll be eating rice through a straw!" (turns back to the advisor) "Ready my attack copter." ****************** Sounds like you made FDR a mix of Groundskeeper Willie and Max Power! ****************** Yeah, and I haven't even gotten to the part where a badly-wounded FDR hovers his attack copter just outside the 50th-story office window of Admiral Yamamoto, draws a bead on him with the scope of his assault rifle, makes eye contact for a brief instant, smiles slightly, and then says... "...say hello to Confucius for me... IN HELL!" Then he fires, blows up the entire building, and the scene cuts to him and Eleanor snuggling in bed. Anyway, the point of all this is that I think Pearl Harbor unintentionally put several targets on its back-- selecting an emotionally delicate subject, spending a record amount of money, and hyping the film for months and months in advance. There were just going to be some people who automatically would not like it, people who went in with a USS Arizona-sized chip on their shoulder. Personally, I'm with Clutch. I'd give it somewhere between two and three stars. It was too long, and parts of it were predictable (NO, I don't mean the part where our boats get sunk-- I knew that was coming. I mean the romance and FDR's hilariously overdone gallantry). I wouldn't see it again for $8 and I wouldn't wait in line for hours on end (a la Star Wars), but it was enjoyable and I'll buy the DVD when it goes on EBay in a month. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited May 29, 2001).]
... To the kagys of the world if you are going to close a thread, then dont reference the exchange in that thread in another thread....... ------------------ I am an invisible man. [This message has been edited by kbm (edited May 29, 2001).]
Kagy: Abusing history is irresponsible. Whether or not they realize it, directors are creating culture when they make movies. These movies affect the way we think, look at our world, and the we we understand ourselves as Americans. By ignoring the larger issues of the ethics of war, they're encouraging another generation of boys to glorify it as well. When they ignore the probability that our leadership knew about the attack, they're perpetuating the American myth of our perfect innocence and naivety. A nation that can do no wrong, who only fights when they must. Our leaders are just and pure, etc. That's not true. I admire FDR... but he probably knew. I'm not even sure it was wrong to conceal it. But you can't ignore that. Look at the way it handled the Japanese. Have you ever examined that period of their history? It's FASCINATING. The path that led to fanatical nationalism was extremely complex and not inevitable. By sort of alluding to it, but not explaining it, or casting it a historical context, I thought, was racist. All the direction decisions were meant to make it more dramatic. But they were irresponsible and will lead to more cultural confusion. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
I doubt I will go see this movie. IMHO, it is impossible to make a better motion picture about Pearl Harbor than "Tora! Tora! Tora!". ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
To the kbms out there: lighten up. If anyone doesn't get the reference, they'll just mooooove along. Or they can email me! Or, I guess they can make annoying posts in the thread trying to tell an admin what to do, but surely they'd have the sense not to do that. After all, no one's here to make enemies. Haven-- well, again, that depends on how seriously you take movies. I don't rely on them to define my interpretation of history or culture, so I don't care how accurate the chararacterizations are. But let me play devil's advocate here. I assume then that you would then insist that Hollywood directors refrain from injecting political bias into their directing...? After all, if they're creating culture and they're misrepresenting a line of political thought, that's irresponsible too, right? I mean, Rob Reiner's snoozefest from a couple years back with Annette Benning and Michael Douglas (The American President, I think it was) portrayed modern political conservatives in a demeaning and misrepresentative light. Should that be prohibited...?
