Pearl Harbor (Michael Bay) - tell me why it was so badly received

[Mal]

So, I finally watched Pearl Harbor!

I knew it was panned by just about everyone when it came out in the States but seeing as I've actually really enjoyed the other Bay / Bruckheimer movies that people seem to hate (eg Armageddon) I figured it was worth a go.

Well, what do you know - I thought it was great!

Please, tell me why it was so poorly received. Is it because the subject matter is too sensistive to an American audience for it to be given the "Hollywood" treatment?

Is it historically inaccurate in terms of the miltary events depicted?

Obviously, the love triangle story may be too sappy for some but Titanic is one of my favourite movies so that doesn't bother me at all!

I know it isn't a deeply intelligent film - but I like a good blockbuster and Pearl Harbor fitted the bill perfectly as far as I am concerned.

Anyone else think it was unfairly panned?

[harmonica98]

I haven't seen it, but I believe it was panned due to being overlong, badly acted and empty. Plus directed with Michael Bay's normal sledgehammer-like subtlety. The love triangle came in for particular criticism.



Obviously, the love triangle story may be too sappy for some but Titanic is one of my favourite movies so that doesn't bother me at all!



Well that might explain it then! Perhaps you have a penchant for overlong, sappy empty spectacles! ;) Seriously, to each his own, glad you enjoyed the film.

Tom

[smilin ed]

Dreadful, risible movie.

[Drifter]

These reviews do a good job of summing up why it was so poorly received:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1108389-pearl_harbor/

[El Bacho]

A few things might have played a part:
- the scene where volunteers for the suicide mission are asked to take one step out of the line. The entire line takes that step together at once.
- the fact that a major tragedy and defeat is more than compensated by an American victory just one hour later in the movie, as an over the top finale. It cheapens the whole historical event and the trauma it created.
- FDR standing on his feet.

Now, Mal, you've got to rent "Team America: World Police". There's a song about "Pearl Harbor" in it that sums up many people's feelings about the movie.

[Chip TRG]

Never saw the movie yet myself, but I always thought the Faith Hill tune that was released with the movie was a poorly-hidden retread of "My Heart Will Go On". Not so much in tune, but in idea and subject matter. It just sounded forced to me.

[shokhead]

My dad was there and it wasnt like the movie.

[kevinsinnott]

I had the disadvantage of seeing it before reading reviews and found it pretty good. It's timing was terrible in the marketplace, however.

[Oatsdad]

I had the disadvantage of seeing it before reading reviews and found it pretty good. It's timing was terrible in the marketplace, however.

How do you figure? Because of 9/11?

[Oatsdad]

I always thought the flick was flawed but okay. Love scenes? Bad. Action scenes? Good. There's enough of the latter to compensate for the former.

My review:

http://www.dvdmg.com/pearlharbor.shtml

[kevinsinnott]

How do you figure? Because of 9/11?

Partly that, and the film was ahead of an overall patriotic and group-over-individuality trend that is starting to emerge.

[Claudio Dirani]

Did my best to love the movie, but I think there was some really forced scenes. Plus, Affleck's actings is not convincing, imho.
It's not a bad movie at all, though not that great either.

[vinyl anachronist]

This movie has the WORST LINE EVER in it. When the bombs are dropping, one of Josh Hartnett's buddies asks him what the hell's going on. And his reply is:

"I think World War II just started!"

So all that stuff in Europe, the German invasion of Poland more than two years before, the subsequent invasion of France, the Blitz in London...that was just bickering among neighbors?

Michael Bay's films are often ridiculous, and they insult the intelligence of the audience. It's all about looking cool, and giving the audience a visceral thrill, as opposed to dealing with logic or even a decent story line.

Pearl Harbor is abysmal.

[xios]

In an era where everyone smoked, I don't think there's one cigarette in any scene in that movie.

[Claudio Dirani]

This movie has the WORST LINE EVER in it. When the bombs are dropping, one of Josh Hartnett's buddies asks him what the hell's going on. And his reply is:

"I think World War II just started!"

So all that stuff in Europe, the German invasion of Poland more than two years before, the subsequent invasion of France, the Blitz in London...that was just bickering among neighbors?

Michael Bay's films are often ridiculous, and they insult the intelligence of the audience. It's all about looking cool, and giving the audience a visceral thrill, as opposed to dealing with logic or even a decent story line.

Pearl Harbor is abysmal.


You made a point that I hadn't thought about in my first post.
Plus, talking about forced situations, you have a glimpse of a superhuman after Fleck's plane crash survival. Ok, miracles do happen, but...
And what about the RAF fleet being saved pratically by Fleck alone?!
:help:

[rod]

Watch John Ford's "December 7th" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005AAA1/shtv-20), "Tora! Tora! Tora! (http://imdb.com/title/tt0066473/) and "From Here to Eternity" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0045793/), then try to watch "Pearl Harbor" again.

[Claudio Dirani]

Watch John Ford's "December 7th" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000000198/shtv-20), "Tora! Tora! Tora! (http://imdb.com/title/tt0066473/) and "From Here to Eternity" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0045793/), then try to watch "Pearl Harbor" again.

Never watched to December 7th, but the other films you mentioned are real classics! I do love the theme. Another of the greats, in a different aspect, though, is the Dirty Dozen. One of my all-time faves.

[PreciousRicky]

My favorite critique of the movie was that the flick was about the Japanese dive-bombers interrupting a love-affair.

[Oatsdad]

This movie has the WORST LINE EVER in it. When the bombs are dropping, one of Josh Hartnett's buddies asks him what the hell's going on. And his reply is:

"I think World War II just started!"

So all that stuff in Europe, the German invasion of Poland more than two years before, the subsequent invasion of France, the Blitz in London...that was just bickering among neighbors?


While that IS a silly line, all of the battles you discussed were European. We had the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. Well, there were the Italians as well, but they barely count. ;)

But it wasn't really, truly a WORLD war until the Japanese attacked the US. It was much more localized...

[pdenny]

Now, Mal, you've got to rent "Team America: World Police". There's a song about "Pearl Harbor" in it that sums up many people's feelings about the movie.

Pearl Harbor
by Team America

I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that’s an awful lot girl
And now, now you’ve gone away
And all I’m trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He’s way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that shi**y movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you

:D

[wayneklein]

So, I finally watched Pearl Harbor!

I knew it was panned by just about everyone when it came out in the States but seeing as I've actually really enjoyed the other Bay / Bruckheimer movies that people seem to hate (eg Armageddon) I figured it was worth a go.

Well, what do you know - I thought it was great!

Please, tell me why it was so poorly received. Is it because the subject matter is too sensistive to an American audience for it to be given the "Hollywood" treatment?

Is it historically inaccurate in terms of the miltary events depicted?

Obviously, the love triangle story may be too sappy for some but Titanic is one of my favourite movies so that doesn't bother me at all!

I know it isn't a deeply intelligent film - but I like a good blockbuster and Pearl Harbor fitted the bill perfectly as far as I am concerned.

Anyone else think it was unfairly panned?

It's visually stunning but the writing and characterization is trite. The acting wasn't very good IMHO. That doesn't make it any less enjoyable for some folks. It all depends on what you wanted out of the movie I suppose.

I felt the same way about the writing in "Titanic" as well. Some day it'll be in one of those "Camp Classics" sets. Spectacle doesn't always need to be well written or acted since the whole purpose is to make you feel awe at the action and visuals.

Nonetheless, it still works as entertainment. What's most important, though, is that YOU enjoy it even if others don't. I have a few films like that as well where I recognize the flaws but still enjoy them as entertainment as well.

[El Bacho]

While that IS a silly line, all of the battles you discussed were European. We had the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. Well, there were the Italians as well, but they barely count. ;)

But it wasn't really, truly a WORLD war until the Japanese attacked the US. It was much more localized...

According to this logic, World War I should be plutonized, as it never really concerned America (apart from the Lusitania incident).

The war also concerned Africa (through the colonial empires) and the term "World War II" was used before Pearl Harbor and wasn't the fortunate invention of a US soldier who knew a couple things about international diplomacy.

[theoxrox]

I was put off by some astonishingly bad lapses in historical accuracy:

1) The two young guys were driving a 1941 Buick convertible sedan, a top-of-the-line model that neither could have begun to afford with military pay as it was then.

2) The American "destroyers" moored 3 abreast which were repeatedly bombed and strafed by the Japanese planes were 1970s/1980s ships, which are not even remotely like pre-WW II destroyers.

3) One of the "Japanese carriers," seen from the air, was a nuclear-powered US carrier of at least 1960s vintage, which also had an angled deck, which didn't show up until about 1952.

4) The CGI of the USS Oklahoma was fakey-looking, but at least they had the arrangement of the main battery guns correct. (extra credit here!)

5) A pair of fighter pilots being assigned to pilot two of Doolittle's Army B-25 light bombers, taking off from a carrier deck?? Get real!!

6) The USS Hornet, from which the Tokyo raid was launched, had the correct hull number painted on the deck (#8!) But it was shown once with an angled deck (not until 1952, dammit!). At least it was a conventionally-powered Essex class carrier, which was the most appropriate type to portray the Hornet.

The "love story" aspect was unnecessary drivel, IMO.

I had hoped for a great flick, but the annoying liberties taken with common sense reduced my enjoyment a lot!

My grade for it: "C-"

[Mal]

To an American serviceman at Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941 I imagine it did feel like the Second World War had just started.

I see nothing wrong with that line.

[Steve Hoffman]

I was put off by some astonishingly bad lapses in historical accuracy:


My grade for it: "C-"

Bad lapses in acting accuracy, you mean.