MovieChat Forums > Pearl Harbor (2001) Discussion > Am I the only one who didn't hate this m...

Am I the only one who didn't hate this movie?

posted 14 years ago by rwkrok
122 replies | jump to latest

Okay, it's not Gone with the Wind....but really, does this movie deserve all the hate directed its way?
I'll concede all the historical inaccuracies - so what - it's a MOVIE.
It was never presented as a documentary so who cares if it's accurate. I could name a hundred (maybe a thousand) historically based movies crammed with inaccuracies that don't inspire anywhere near this degree of vitriol.
Is it because it's become fashionable to bust on Ben Affleck? (Okay, I can identify with that) However, I enjoyed the movie.
It was the first time I saw Kate Beckinsale and thought she was wonderful along with being probably the best looking woman on the planet. The flying scenes/battle scenes/destruction scenes were great. I was entertained. As far as the aforementioned inaccuracies SO WHAT. Every historically themed movie is crammed with them.
It's a MOVIE.

[–] Dave1136 9 years ago

Hey, I'm on your side rwkrok!

This was a very entertaining film! I don't understand all the hate but I enjoyed it and so what if it wasn't completely authentic.

People take things to seriously but everything Superman does is believed 100%!

[–] neilscandrett 9 years ago

no you're not the only one, people criticise this movie for being historically inaccurate but other films (Braveheart, Titanic, even Saving private Ryan) were horribly inaccurate but these are considered good movies. It's hard to make historically accurate movies because real life is Sooooo boring and would make a boring film. The problem this movie had was the all the critics ran to their computers after the premier and declared it one of the worst movies ever made (which actually isn't true…not by along shot). The public read these reviews are were going 'If it's that bad I'm not going to watch it' and the movie was never given a chance. I caught it on TV one night and was actually surprised, its not a great movie but it's not that bad and in some places it's actually quite good. As time passes people are actually watching the film and it's taking it's place as a half decent war film.

[–] uruseiranma 9 years ago

As time passes people are actually watching the film and it's taking it's place as a half decent war film.

I still find it pretty bad if most films are classified as, 'it wasn't bad...there are some good bits here and there, but you got to slog through the bad to get to the good.'

I heard the same sentiments with 'Batman vs Superman,' and I also feel 'The Dark Knight Rises' is the same way.

My biggest issue seeing it when it came out, was that it was a flimsy piece of eye-candy, where you didn't really feel the audience had 'earned' the right to care about anyone. It felt more like someone plastering paper dolls of character archetypes onto a historical event, and trying to make us care.

Probably out of all of Bay's films, the only one I'd give a pass to is 2007's "Transformers," because at several times...it doesn't feel like a typical Michael Bay film!...which leads me to wonder if Spielberg may have guided the edit of that film, given I almost felt some emotional turmoil when Bumblebee was captured by Sector 7.

"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."

- Toy Story 3 (9/10)

[–] Psilio 8 years ago

I haven't read any of the replies to this post, but yes I enjoyed the movie when I just rewatched it now. I skipped past the sobby/romantic parts, but like you say, "The flying scenes/battle scenes/destruction scenes were great." They really were great, and I was quite in awe.

Don't understand why I didn't remember anything from this movie from when i first saw it upon release, but I guess all the bad reviews kind of made me put it aside.

Very well made movie, though, if you skip the sobby scnenes :)

What we do in life echoes in eternity Russell Crowe as General Maximus in Gladiator (2000)