In Reply to: "Pearl Harbor" Reconsidered posted by mikenyc on August 11, 2002 at 11:45:24:
None of the movies that has dealt with Pearl Harbor has been totally satisfactory. This film falls into the catagory of not a very good movie, but a great DVD. Have some company over, fix nachos and Marguerittas and go to it (oh, turn up the subwoofer a bit). Nevertheless, I must say that I disagree with your re-evaluation of this film and here is why.1. The visuals are rather nice, if you haven't seen them before. This is Bruckheimer, and we have seen them before. They have, for me, ceased to be effective and have become a stock mannerism.
2. The love story is predictable, as in . . . saw this coming a MILE away. In fact, I was watching with a friend and I kept saying ". . . please tell me this isn't the ancient 'but he isn't really dead' routine." Oh, well.
3. The sensibility for women that pleased you was a typical movie anachronism, i.e. a 21st century attitude superimposing itself on a time when such attitudes didn't exist. I guess they wanted to be sure they didn't offend any potential customers who have a political ax to grind in this area. Good for the box office, bad history. And its gentle terms for describing the attack (substituting "surprise" for "sneak") absolutely reek of whimpiness. (Is Bruckheimer Swiss? Or just the typical politically correct denizen of Hollywood? Agh. No matter. Even more customers not offended.)The film avoids some of the banalities of the films that preceded it but perpetrates some new ones. It is (IMHO), like most movies of this genre, well made entertainment. No more, no less. I do own it, but for nacho movie nights.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: "Pearl Harbor" Reconsidered - Auricle 06:46:55 08/12/02 (2)
- "Pearl Harbor" and The Women - mikenyc 05:01:01 08/13/02 (1)
- Don't compress time - Auricle 13:16:15 08/13/02 (0)