MovieChat Forums > Pearl Harbor (2001) Discussion > I don't understand the constant bashing ...

I don't understand the constant bashing this movie gets

posted 2 years ago by Wuchak (8855)
10 replies | jump to latest

This is obviously a Titanic-ized version of the tragic events of Pearl Harbor—a fabricated drama/romance hooking the viewer into the deceitful attack of December 7, 1941.

It's 85 minutes before the attack occurs so the drama/romance and build-up to the infamous day BETTER be good, and it is. It's believable too (except maybe for the premature sex scene, which inaccurately transfers modern morals to the early '40s). This first act successfully brings us back to the era of the early '40s and sets the stage for the attack. I didn't think there would be any action until the big attack but I was wrong, as we get some quality action when Rafe (Ben Affleck) goes over to Europe to fly for the British. There are also a couple of fight sequences.

While dancing & drinking, Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale) comments to Rafe how shy Danny (Josh Hartnett) seems to be while he’s shown just sitting at a table too shy to talk to a girl or ask someone to dance. Rafe responds that Danny is like a brother to him, that Danny's father abused him, and he therefore lacks confidence. While these characters are fictional, this is REAL. Much later, Danny goes to a woman's apartment fumbling & stumbling to ask her out. The conversation is, of course, awkward. He then walks away, speaking under his breath, "You're such an idiot!" This is good stuff.

The film also shows that the timid average-looking man can win the heart of a beautiful woman just as well as the confident handsome man. It's simply a matter of passion, patience, risk, humble pie and playing your cards right.

As for the Pearl Harbor attack, it's a full 30 minutes of great war footage. Critics argue that there are many historical inaccuracies in the film, but what? Seriously, what is so historically inaccurate in the film? I'm sure there are a few minor inaccuracies (maybe Jimmy Doolittle's boot laces weren't right, Oh, my God!!), but what film with a historical backdrop ever has everything 100% right? The gist of the event is accurate. And the subplot with Cuba Gooding Jr. as Navy boxer Doris Miller is a true story.

The film is also respectful of the Japanese viewpoint as they meticulously plan, prepare for, and carry out their massive raid. I felt this was generous on the filmmakers' part since nothing can justify their deceitful and cowardly assault. They spoke with forked tongue of peace while planning the unprovoked aggression. Meanwhile there’s a great scene showing the Japanese pilots the night before the raid, praying and psyching up for the attack. It's very realistic.

After the attack, I knew there was a good 50 minutes left in the film so I was apprehensive regarding the remainder of the story; not to worry, though, as this final act compellingly details The Doolittle Raid, the first American bombing mission over Japan. More great war action.

This bold mission took place a mere 4.5 months after the Pearl Harbor attack on April, 1942. The raid is notable in that it was the only time in US military history that bombers were launched from an aircraft carrier. Sixteen modified bombers with five-men crews successfully bombed 10 military and industrial targets in and around Tokyo. Unfortunately, this was a one-way mission and they were forced to fly to mainland China to land, crashland or bail out, IF they had enough fuel, that is. Most of the Americans made it to China and safety with the help of Chinese civilians and soldiers, but hey paid dearly for helping as it is estimated that the Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese, vengefully searching for Doolittle's men! Incidentally, Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle is greatly portrayed by Alec Baldwin and, true to history, the picture shows Doolittle taking part in the daring mission. More historical accuracy.

Some criticize that the Doolittle Raid doesn't belong in the movie, but nothing could be further from the truth. If all the flick showed was the Pearl Harbor attack and the immediate aftermath it would've ended on a real downer. Showing the successful Doolittle Raid makes the film end on a positive note. What effect did the raid have at the time? For one, it caused American moral to soar from the depths. It has the same inspiring effect on viewers.

In light of all the criticism I kept waiting for "Pearl Harbor" to stumble and fail, but it never happened (except for the SoCal mountains observed on "Long Island"). Yes, the viewer has to be open to the drama/romance as it leisurely unfolds, but this just helps make the viewer CARE about the characters before the tragic events inevitably occur. I'm not a fan of Michael Bay. I have zero interest in his "Transformers" films, but this is great filmmaking. It provokes interest in the events and inspires the viewer to research them in more detail.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

i agree with all your point very well said

time has been good to this film. i think for three hour film it move pretty fast and is entertain. action scene very good. good for war film fans. pearl harbour and doolittle raid done good by ilm's.

what stand out is josh hartnetts. he make ben affleck look like marlin brando!! i wonder how this man get movie carer. he have no chemistry with english actress but ben affleck do.

it is only bay movie i like. his other film shit. pearl harbor is ham fist, corny, unintentional funny ("it's a DUD!!!" hahahaha) but is very entertain and guilty pleasures.

[–] Wuchak (8855) 2 years ago

for three hour film it move pretty fast and is entertain.

That's one of the main reasons I like it -- the story moves right along; it's compelling and entertaining.

he make ben affleck look like marlin brando!

Producers needed someone who could pull off the likable, socially awkward guy who lacks the charisma of the heroic best friend and, IMHO, Hartnett fit the part.

[–] Ranb (11307) 2 years ago

Showing incorrect aircraft for the period doing the kind of combat maneuvering they're not really capable of means the actions scene is poor.

[–] johnmiller (4011) 2 years ago

I think most people agree that this got greenlit with the budget it did because the studio wanted another "Titanic." But, like that movie, the relationship stuff was the last thing I cared about. And, the casting wasn't great here. That is too bad when there is a lot that works very well in this movie.

[–] Wuchak (8855) 2 years ago

You're giving a fair assessment and I appreciate that.

What I don't get are these people who rail on and on against the movie like it's some cinematic turd, even after over two decades. They'll even call people idiots for liking the flick. Please. It's an entertaining war epic that inspires the viewer to look-up the historical events.

It was written by the same guy who wrote "Braveheart." Interestingly, "Braveheart" is hailed by the masses when "Pearl Harbor" is the more historically accurate film. I think it's the better one, by far, but that's just me.

[–] johnmiller (4011) 2 years ago

"Missed opportunity" is the term I think best fits this film. I think you have to watch it and self edit as you go.

[–] Wuchak (8855) 2 years ago

Not me. The set-up in the first 85 minutes successfully takes one back to the early 40s with compelling drama and the interesting political build to the attack. From that point onward -- 98 minutes -- the film's exhilarating to the end with the infamous attack and, then, the bold Doolittle Raid. (While essentially a 'suicide mission,' amazingly 69 out of 80 airmen survived the mission, including Jimmy Doolittle).

But I respect your opinion. Many respectable people don't like the movie even if I don't get it. Roger Ebert, for instance, gave it 1.5 out of 4 Stars. Yet I feel it's superior to (the similar) "Titanic," which of course broke the box office and was praised/awarded to no end. Go figure.

[–] johnmiller (4011) 2 years ago

I mean, edit out the relationship stuff. :-)

[–] joegerardi (384) 2 years ago

For me, it was the ludicrous Doolittle Raid inclusion. This is from an earlier post of mine on this site:

"NO fighter pilot would ever be selected to fly a B-25 bomber for a never-before tried secret mission. It took place almost 5 months after the events of Pearl Harbor, and almost nothing depicted in the movie actually happened during the raid, except they did actually bomb Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuka, Kobe and Osaka. (Though the movie shows only Tokyo being bombed.) THAT BS was pure Michael Bay, and the Alec Baldwin character was nothing like the real James Doolittle."

It would have just been stupid to have fighter pilots in bombers. The movie insinuated that the raid took place quite soon after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Having the 2 main characters take off and attack the IJN place is a slap in the face to Welch and Taylor, the two pilots who actually did that. Imagine a true sports movie showing someone catching the winning touchdown, and them naming him differently.

The scene where the airmen fought the Japanese planes from the ground after they crashed was pure nonsense. Never happened. Why put it in?

"It has the same inspiring effect on viewers."
It shouldn't. America at this time was an isolationist country. We wanted no part of the European or Asian war. People don't get that at the same time as the Pearl Harbor attack, we also lost Wake Island and it was the start of the loss of the entire Philippines. It WAS a very dark time for the US: we feared we would be invaded by the Japanese, and as we didn't have a strong military, people thought we were likely to lose.

Anyone that knows history DOES believe that the movie stumbled and fell, and badly. One can state that it was only trying to convey the spirit of the attack, but then, with all the terrible alterations to history, why not use Australian Aborigines for all the actors? It would have been no worse than all the pissing on history that shown, and would still fit into Bay's narrative.

..Joe

[–] Ranb (11307) 2 years ago

The war footage is not good. It shows the Zeroes with the wrong paint scheme, dogfighting the 1943 version P-40's. A P-40 is unlikely to survive a dogfight with a Zero. The P-40 was a better all around plane except for climb rate and turn rate. It's armor and heavier firepower meant it was effective at ambushing the Zero in diving attacks.

The Doolittle raid was made using bomber pilots, not fighter pilots as the film depicts. The machine guns were already removed from the bombers prior to be loaded on the carrier; removing them was not the result of the early detection by the Japanese as depicted in the film.

I guess if a person does not mind seeing cell phones used in 1950's films and personal computers connected to the WWW in 1960's films, these kinds of inaccuracies would not matter to them.