Am I the only one who didn't hate this movie? - Pearl Harbor (2001) Discussion

[–] austinman 14 years ago

No you're not the only one.
The world is full of people that thought Leonard Part 6 was a cinematic triumph.
Kind of sad isn't it?
One thing is sure, if you pay for this level of crud, Bay will happily create more POS for you to mindlessly endure.

reply

[–] mariposa-9 14 years ago

What these snobs don't understand, is that ALL historical biographies are inaccurate. What kind of story is interesting about Pearl Harbor other than the attack? Nothing. So they have to surround the attack with a bunch of inaccuracies to make the story interesting. It's called the filmmaking BUSINESS!

reply

[–] austinman 14 years ago

"So they have to surround the attack with a bunch of inaccuracies to make the story interesting."

What the hell are you talking about?

This is just lazy filmmaking, Bay clearly couldn't be bothered with accuracy.

I thought it was the directors job to minimize errors, not lackadaisically include them to intrique/confuse/irritate the audience.

Just wondering, which inaccuracy did you find MOST interesting? Because, as you stated, they must have been placed there on purpose.

reply

[–] mariposa-9 14 years ago

What you don't understand, is that there is no story about Pearl Harbor other than the attack. If there is another story, please tell me.

So if we do agree about that, then how can the filmmakers make an interesting movie about the attack that will make money? I'll tell you how. Create a fictional story about two pilots and a girl.

I know it's BS, but it's called a MOVIE!

reply

[–] austinman 14 years ago

Sorry my interest in teaching you details of WWII are really minimal.

Somehow the creators of Saving Private Ryan, A Bridge Too Far, Das Boot, Waterloo, D-Day-the Sixth of June et al were all able to pull off what you claim is impossible.

You know how they did it?
It's called FILM making.
It actually takes dedication to the craft of telling a story not merely dedication to making money by selling formulaic crud.

reply

[–] mariposa-9 14 years ago

Sorry my interest in teaching you details of WWII are really minimal.

Who said anything about WWII?

Somehow the creators of Saving Private Ryan, A Bridge Too Far, Das Boot, Waterloo, D-Day-the Sixth of June et al were all able to pull off what you claim is impossible.

Boy did you miss the point. I suppose you weren't even going to consider it, and just steadfastly adhere to your Pearl Harbor is crap, platform. Unfortunately, my interest in explaining to you the details of my point is "really minimal".

reply

[–] austinman 14 years ago

ROTFLMAO

You seem to think you have 2 points
1) You are bored by war movies.
*Sorry but theres really not much that i do to help ya

2) That Directors MUST include inaccuracies to make a good war movie.
*Absurd, I've given you examples but you're apparently unable to address them.

What point were you trying to make that I didn't address?

reply

[–] mariposa-9 14 years ago

There must be some sort of sentence interpretation class. If that's the case, you have a lot to learn. Where did I say I was "bored by war movies"?

As I said before, ALL HISTORICAL BIOGRAPHIES (that includes war) HAVE INACCURACIES.

Let me give you an example: Oliver Stone's Platoon is based on his experience in Vietnam. He wrote it AND directed it. AND IT HAS INACCURACIES.

Hopefully I've made my point, but somehow I doubt it.

reply

[–] austinman 14 years ago

No unfortunately I'm still trying to figure it out.

But perhaps I misinterpeted.
When you stated "What kind of story is interesting about Pearl Harbor other than the attack? Nothing. So they have to surround the attack with a bunch of inaccuracies to make the story interesting"

I took it to mean that you would be bored by an factual story, is there another interpetation?

Platoon is a fine movie.
Yes, I am sure there are minor inaccuracies
IIRC one of them is the wrong pull tab on a beer can.
This in no way affected my enjoyment or caused suspension of disbelief
Please list in Platoon where "they have to surround the attack with a bunch of inaccuracies to make the story interesting"

Compare to Pearl Harbor:
Theres a jet fiighter, theres a nuclear sub, there's the FRIGGIN memorial to the USS Arizona!!!!! (let that sink in for a moment).

There are dozens of additional blatant errors that can only be ascribed to "careless research"
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/faq#.2.1.4
Bay just didn't care to research one of the most important events in US history.

Since you've already described this movie/or process as formulaic BS, on what basis do you continue trying to defend it???

reply

[–] mariposa-9 14 years ago

Let's make this easy for you.

I took it to mean that you would be bored by an factual story, is there another interpetation?

Yes. There is no story about Pearl Harbor other than the attack. Please, think about it. This was the problem with Tora, Tora, Tora. So boring up until the attack, because there was no one to identify with. Just a bunch of nameless, faceless people. Maybe more factual, but a dead movie; which equaled, box-office bomb. No pun intended.

Pearl Harbor chose not to go in that direction. Like Titanic's fictional romance, Pearl Harbor created a fictional love triangle. Give the audience someone to identify with, and root for. Basic elements of any successful screenplay. Box-office success.

And please, don't give me that elitist crap, it insults the memory of the people who died that day. I believe if those people could speak from their graves, I'm sure they would tell you to lighten up, it's just a movie.

Pearl Harbor is inaccurate, of course, but I didn't notice a jet or a nuclear sub. This is the first time I've heard of that.

Since you've already described this movie/or process as formulaic BS, on what basis do you continue trying to defend it???

Because it's simply entertaining, and that's what it's all about. I know it's inaccurate. Everybody who enjoys the film knows it's inaccurate. The difference between them and you, is that you wanna whine about it. It's just a movie.

reply

[–] austinman 14 years ago

"Pearl Harbor chose not to go in that direction."
Yes, Bay tried the unique , never-done-before spin of:
Boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back again. IE the worst/cliched of formulaic plot lines

"it insults the memory of the people who died that day. I believe if those people could speak from their graves, I'm sure they would tell you to lighten up, it's just a movie." Your absolutely right. The best opinion of this crud should come from Vets, the people who actually experienced it. Here's the review from the late Brigadier General Kenneth Taylor, one of the pilots who did in real life what Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett portray on screen. He described the film as "a piece of trash...over-sensationalized and distorted"

You know, I couldn't have said it better.

"but I didn't notice a jet or a nuclear sub. This is the first time I've heard of that." Well maybe that's one of the reasons that you like it; I made the dreadful mistake of actually watching the movie while it played. Mea Culpa.

Oh if it's a quilty pleasure.
That I understand.
Personally I like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"
But I also recognize that it's NOT a good movie; it has no production values, the acting is atrocious and the script is uneven.

See, the problem is, I thought you were saying Pearl Harbor was actually good film making.

reply

[–] mariposa-9 14 years ago

I give up, lol...

reply

[–] thebabe3 11 years ago

I loved it, I thought it was a great film and the story just added to the drama.

reply

[–] mrxxbrian 14 years ago

the two of you need to hug it out

reply

[–] vinithshere 13 years ago

@austinman

I really don't understand why so many people hate the movie. This movie is not just about the attack on Pearl Harbor. It isn't a documentary for Christ's sake, for it to be 100% accurate with the facts. Pearl Harbor tells the story of the tragic attack from Rafe and Danny's point of view.

About you whining about the inaccuracies, you talk as if you've been there and witnessed the attack taking place. It's a MOVIE. Get that into your head. It didn't promise to be a 100% accurate documentary about the attack. It's a fictional story with the attack as the backdrop, like how James Cameron made Titanic with two fictional characters Jack and Rose. It wasn't just about the sinking of the Titanic but it was also the story of two lovers who happened to fall in love during Titanic's cursed maiden voyage. Got it? It's a similar case with Pearl Harbor.

reply

[–] murad23 14 years ago

A Bridge Too Far was hardly accurate. It relied on debunked views of who was to blame and scapegoating without noting the plan was starved of the recommended logistic support by half.

And Saving Private Ryan was accurate on a micro level it contirbuted to many false myths and views overall.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 14 years ago

There may be some people who fall into the slot you've just described, but I don't think that's the majority.

Many people will accept a few liberties.

For example: The Longest Day with the guy who wins all the money in a game prior to d-day and then decides to lose it all to 'improve his luck average on the day'. Probably never happened, but can accept that it may have happened.

Only speaking for myself (as I can't speak for others, but it may ring true for them also) I dislike Pearl Harbor because it took liberties and went way way way too far with them. Had Bay (or is it Wallace's fault?) stuck with Pearl Harbor, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the love triangle he probably could have pulled it off. I can accept that movies sometimes have to appeal to all sides. Pearl Harbor wanted to have a love sub-plot to get the chicks in... no worries... I'll accept that.

Why did he have to include the "Battle of Britain" sub-story, or the "Doolittle Raid" sub-story? It made it so unbelievable that it started to make the plausibility of the actual attack on Pearl Harbor seem fictional.

It's like the boy who cried wolf. People go to movies and want to be told a story... they don't want to be blatantly lied to. I mean, some clearly do, but those who didn't like the movie don't.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] shulma2002 11 years ago

I loved this film as well. We all knew that the romance part was fabricated as was the romance in "Titanic" which also had plenty of inaccuracies. Haters of this film also go-after the attack sequence. If so inaccurate, why did the Director of the Pearl Harbor Museum, Daniel Martinez,send director Bey a letter claiming that the film captured the essence of the Dec. 7 attack?

reply

[–] DataGrab 14 years ago

I actually enjoyed this after watching a lot of action movies therein....

A ship sank and the end of Titanic

reply

[–] They_have_no_reflections 14 years ago

You are not alone i love long dramatic movies. This film was very entertaining. People just love to hate anything related to Ben Affleck, god knows why?

Sorry, you're not a winner

reply

[–] jmreynolds-2 14 years ago

nah, your not alone, everybody thinks their a critic, if you have nothing good to say......bla bla bla, i like it and i know the ww2 story, this is a fun watch, idgaf if they don't like my opinion, i think the naysayers suck also.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 14 years ago

Nope! Not here.

Hate: Pearl Harbor & Armageddon.

Love: Dogma, Good Will Hunting.

Oh, look. What's similar about Pearl Harbor & Armageddon? Michael Bay.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] greekdish 14 years ago

Good Will Hunting was a good movie, but way overrated. Dogma was horrible. For you to even list that movie as better than Armageddon or PH just proves how far out of touch with Americans you are.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 14 years ago

1 - I didn't answer anything with regard to 'being in touch with Americans'. I'm gratefully not American, so wouldn't expect to be familiar with their culture.

2 - my response was to the fact that I dislike this movie despite not being a hater of Ben Afleck (as claimed in the post to which I responded to), and gave examples of two movies with Ben Afleck that I enjoyed.

3 - to respond how you have just proves how out of touch with English (the language) you are.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] hapalife52 14 years ago

I don't care what anybody says, I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!! I remember watching it when it came out on VHS (yeah that's right V-H-S) with the whole family for the 1st time. Loved it. made me cry. Nothing but good memories.
The thing is, it's JUST A MOVIE! Every War movie, IS JUST A MOVIE! If all movies were Historically accurate, they would be pretty boring. We need to spice them up a bit to give it that entertaining appeal because its ENTERTAINMENT. Why is it that people always talk trash on Michael Bay saying his movies sucks when for the most part they are financially successful and make their money back and sell big time on home video. Someone has to be buying those tickets and buying the VHS/DVD/Blu ray!
The fact is that people in general ( who don't spend all day on webistes like IMDB or joblo or Ain't It Cool news) don't give a damn about what the critics say and go see a movie if it interests them.

reply

[–] trackallstar 14 years ago

Dogma was hilariously entertaining, but not what I would consider "great." Armageddon is one of the most over-the-top, cliche films of the 90s. It has Michael Bay written all over it. Sorry, but when it comes down to it, Dogma's better.

I ate a big red candle

reply

[–] They_have_no_reflections 14 years ago

Dogma is better than Armageddon yes, but for me PH tops Dogma.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES trailer -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHQsmt_yUsI

reply

[–] bobgllsp 9 years ago

What was wrong about Armageddon????

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 9 years ago

I didn't like it. It was typical OTT action with little or no substance.

reply

[–] greekdish 14 years ago

I agree with you. I enjoyed the movie, and still watch it anytime its on. The battle scene is amazing. Way too many people out there who cant watch a movie for the sake of entertainment, and analyze it too much. Just look at other past movies that had critical success.....Brokeback Mountain, Hero, Crouching Tiger, Precious, etc....they all sucked.

This movie was great, and I watch this as much as I watch Private Ryan, Tora Tora, Titanic, LOTR and Star Wars. People need to stop analyzing movies and just watch them for pure entertainment value.

reply

[–] paultpault 14 years ago

I loved the bombing scene whether it was factually correct or not and all the flying scenes on a biG tv with surround sound are great. They ripped off Titanic love story crap but yeh I enjoyed it while I can see all the flaws it is still watchable. Maybe they shouldve just made a historical version without love story. I thought Kate B was great in it also. I noticed Matt Damons ultra bright teeth in Saving Private Ryan but still enjoyed that movie also.

reply

[–] x-perfectdrug-x 14 years ago

I loved the first half of this movie. I could have done without the Doolittle Raid or whatever, but the first half was great.
Call me a sucker but I enjoyed the love triangle as predictable as it was (during my first viewing of this film I was with my boyfriend whom had already seen it. I guessed everything in relation to the love story before it happened, right down to the ending of the movie). It had a nice old world romantic feel not to mention I just love that era in American history.
Then the bombing of Pearl Harbor was cinematically so stimulating, forget the inaccuracies, it was deeply moving.
Overall a great first half of a movie, it went downhill after the bombing.

reply

[–] bobgllsp 9 years ago

The Doolittle Raid was a large part of the whole Pearl Harbor story

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

No, I liked it. In all honesty, I'm not familiar enough with my history to have known that it was inaccurate when I watched it for the first time, but I'll take people's word for it that it is, and (depending on how blatant those inaccuracies are) that's a problem Michael Bay could and should have avoided. But I don't think that makes the movie worthless. It's still entertaining and respectful of those who fought in WWII, even if money and sensationalism were the motivation behind it.

reply

[–] kaz-s-07 14 years ago

I actually really love this film, I think it's great, yeah it may be a bit clichéd but that's what makes it a film worth watching, I personally think that the actors did a great job portraying the romance side of it. I honestly have to say this film did make me have a little cry at the end, I mean, come on, who wouldn't feel a bit emotional when Danny dies, practically telling Rafe to bring his kid up! Love it!!

reply

[–] sdorph 14 years ago

I personally think that the actors did a great job portraying the romance side of it.

You've got to be joking, the Love Boat portrayed romance better than this POS

'In order for one to be affected by insults, one must have some respect for their source'

reply

[–] RbSnedlap 14 years ago

The overall problem with the main characters is this.
They are not in any sense `real` people but are more intended as teen-age fantasies of what a WW II fighter pilot or Navy chief nurse would be.
The character of Rafe for example walks through this story as `The Hero`, doing things that in the real world would get him killed and just seems to survive through `dumb luck` rather than any ability.
Evelyn is shown as being a supremely able nurse that even doctors just follow her orders blindly.
This despite her being far too young for the job she is supposed to do and she just happens to have two good-looking guys madly in love with her!

"Any plan that involves loosing your hat is a BAD plan.""

reply