 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I picked up the DVD set to this film with some hesitation, but with great curiosity, after a few partial viewings on cable Tv. After viewing the DVD director's cut, I've come to the conclusion that this film has been pilloried, unfairly.What struck me most, about this film, was the unique uuse of cinematography to carry the whole load, for setting the whole tone for the film. It's very stylized, and wanting to be something special, rather than evocative of other films in the genre. It strives to set itself apart, from being a history and having anything to do with reality. The "look" seems to be created, to set the film apart, from others of it's genre, with the desire to be judged on it's own terms. The heavy presence of black, or dark, shading, makes me, more apt to suspend the viewer's sense of what reality should be and allow the film to take off on it's own journey of reality.
The problem with this genre, is that in films like this...fiction story set in the context of an historical event...any story is rendered silly by the Event itself. That the facts or history, dominates, and swallows the fictionalized human/Love story, whole, and for the viewer, they are not allowed to "swallow" the fiction part as being "realistic"...as if Love has rules of reality, all of a sudden! So what we are left with, is being hard and unfairly judgemental of the fiction part of the story, because the History of it, dictates that we do. The viewer has to hold every part of the story as Fact...and not allowed to enjoy the film experience, which, in and of itself, is not supposed to be real, in any sense.
Compared to other films of it's type..."From Here To Eternity",
"Tora, Tora, Tora", "Midway", ""In Harms Way", "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo", "The Purple Heart"...the Love story part of "Pearl Harbor", stands up as less complicated to understand, and more plausible, than these socalled "classic" films. In particular, I love how the film expresses, and is more sensitive, in it's portrayal of the Female Perspective during war time, and their sexual relationships with men in war, as it were, without being preachy. If you recall the weak, tossed off, human stories of say "Midway", and especially, "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo", the PH love triangle is very convincing as acted, with it, surrendering less to the contemporary dictates of politics. The Race Card in "Midway" is more symtomatic to Political Correctness of the 70's, than the actual truth of the reasons for doing it, was to what was actually going on in the US of the 30's and 40's. And we say the PC Police are heavy handed in our Society ?Anyway...someday this film will get the due it deserves, and the critic's favorite punching bag, Michael Bay, perhaps, will get some respect. The Bloodsport of Film criticism...well that's another whole subject, isn't it? It appears these days, we need someone to tell us whether we will like something or not...we are not that capable of judging on our own anymore ?
Follow Ups:
Just got it on DVD: outstnding transfer of an absolutely classic movie. Putting "Pearl Harbor" next to it is like putting a drooling idiot next to a college professor.Joe.
Thx for the info.I am gonna look for it. One of the best movies I remember seeing as a kid.
To me it was like watching paint dry.How they could make one of the most compelling events of history, THAT dull, was beyond explanation.
Too bad Kurasawa's footage was completely ditched. He was the only thing interesting about the whole project!
At last! Something we agree on, although I would liken "Pearl Harbor" to a 14-year old boy: all good intentions and raging hormones.
P40 crashing into parked planes was an actual accident that took place during filming.KP
C'mon Mike, that movie was a travesty. The acting was cardborad, the dialogue was pedestrian, the relationships were sappy and worst of all it played fast and loose with history (i.e., Ben Affleck comes to the rescue of the RAF). About the only thing well done in this flick were the special effects which amounts to about thirty minutes of a 3 hr movie. I knew something was up when the studio (Buena Vista) made a publicity stunt of wining & dining veterans of the REAL Pearl Harbor attack for several days, then providing them a special VIP screening just before the movie openned wide. They did this because the History channel was geared up to heavily promote the historical film to the point of running a special episode of History VS the Movies on the eve of it's premier with those same veterans making the comparisons.Well, the veterans were polite during the program and several even liked the film, after all, Buena Vista had rolled out the red carpet for them. However, reading between the lines combined with comments of a couple of the more curmudgeonly vets made it very apparent that the movie wasn't anything like what they experienced. As for Pearl Harbor being "less complicated to understand, and more plausible" than other war films such as Midway, From Here To Eternity, Tora, Tora, Tora, etc., well, that's a stretch. If you mean by less complicated, less challenging, then I might agree, but plausible? The historical distortions in Pearl Harbor are Hollywood at it's worst!
> > > "...someday this film will get the due it deserves..." < < <
The only way that this film could get it's due, would be to refund some of the nearly $200 million dollars earned at the box-office to those who were suckered in by the hype.
> > > "...and the critics favorite punching bag, Michael Bay, perhaps, will get some respect." < < <
Can the critics help it if Pearl Harbor was a dud and the bombs hit the Bay instead? ;^)
AuPh
What everyone is forgetting, is, is that it's a movie, NOT history. It was never meant to be anything more.
The problem isn't that movies made around historical events have to be 100% accurate (i.e., the love interests, the creation of fictional characters, etc.), but revision of the actual events themselves is abhorant even when in service of the fictionalized characters depicted in the storyline.> > > "What everyone is forgetting, is, is that it's a movie, NOT history. It was never meant to be anything more." < < <
Don't get me wrong, I like popcorn movies and am more than willing to overlook silly mistakes in science in SF movies. Historical movies are much more problematic for me. Just because a film is "NOT history" doesn't mean that the events depicted won't arouse a subliminal belief that that's the way events occured. Unfortunately, a lot of folks will see the picture and believe that it's an honest retelling of historical events or, sadly, if they were involved in those events, may be grossly offended by the inaccuracies. The fact that you are able to view this as purely entertainment is all well and good, but we must never overestimate the sophistication of a popcorn movie's audience.
AuPh
There is too much critical viewing done in films like this, and, to me, it becomes an impediment to the film process.I feel this is a characteristic of our time and age, rather than something inherent in the film process. Even pre-9-11, we are a society of skeptics, and perrenial kill joys, who in our socalled "sophistication", are really not that sophisticated as we think we are. It's our loss, sadly.
(nt)
The first part = Tora tora
or
The second part = The Bridges at Toko-Ri?
The Tokyo raid, actually. To me, overall, Alec Baldwin actually handed in a surprisingly confident performance as Doolittle. His hard work may not be evident on screen...as it shouldn't...but his commentary track contribution shows he took the role seriously.Ben Affleck's performance, was, also, the result of hard work of preparation. Again, both, their commentary tracks confirms this. But then, who listens to the commentary tracks, right ?? If you're aware of some of the history depicted in this film, it helps to appreciate this film, more.
...if you are aware of the history it makes dreck like this even harder to swallow. The 17 G aircraft maneuvers. The contemporary missle armed frigates in the harbor. The...oh, never mind, it's just not worth it....And Baldwin? "His hard work may not be evident on screen" You're right there. It was so transparent that until you mentioned it I had completely forgotten that he was even IN the movie. No doubt the mark of a true master of his craft.
One thing though - please quit talking about this movie - I had blessedly forgotten how bad it was....
joe
meant it.
I found that Pearl Harbour was TWO films..in one..
The first part like, Tora..
The second part like, The Bridges..
Yeah, I got it. And....
I'm sure glad I saw (& enjoyed) this film BEFORE I read all of your criticisms... because, they are all valid!toobwacky
I do not how about you but at very moment when the girl begun to take off his stockings to bend the injured people I walked out of the movie theater. Was there anything else after I left?
So you didn't miss anything. I'm a sucker for anything with ships and planes, bonus for submarines and rockets. I guess that would be like cheetahs and panthers for you.
You would be surprised to learn that I spent all my youth among the boats, ships and sea. Actually I did two voyages as a professional sailor-electrician...
I am old(er), but that is what I would still like to do... There is no time I have enjoyed more than my time on ships, I'm sure I think about it every day. It's not the cruising I like so much, it's the being surrounded by water. I know what Freud would say...
...is a more intellectually stimulating activity than watching this movie. In this case the critics were right.joe
Just thinking about chewing gum is better than this turd. I never saw the whole film I shut off the DVD. I can't even tell you when I shut it off as nothing made enough impression to say where I gave up.Steve
What's to reconsider. An utterly predictable, trite film. Cool digital special effects -- that's it.While most of the films you mention are not that great, either: "From here to Eternity" is in a class by itself. Why? Because its about real people who act like real people, not soap opera characters. It is not the story of Pearl Harbor; it is the story of people played out against the backdrop of Pearl Harbor.
"Tora, Tora, Tora" and "Midway" both illustrate the trap that the "Pearl Harbor" guys wanted to avoid -- bloodless, documentary re-creations of famous battles. Yet, Pearl Harbor fails because it straddles the fence. Unlike "Eternity", it is unwilling to totally abandon the concept of re-creating Pearl Harbor from a Gods-eye view (after all, gotta show off those cool special effects!). But it splits the difference between being a story of a few people with the Pearl Harbor attack as a backdrop and being a documentary re-creation. As a result it fails at being either.
What I would like to see is the Pearl Harbor story told from the perspective of the Vice Admiral in charge of the facility -- was he complacent, sloppy in his command or did things just line up in a series of conincidences that produced this terrible result? What did he feel, what did he think, how did he react as the pride of the American Navy, his Navy, was getting blasted to bits by enemy aircraft? What did he feel afterword when he was court-martialed? Did he accept blame? Or did he try to shift the blame on to others?
That's a story with some real depth to it.
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.
"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 don't know about that.
Women were taking over men's job's in the workplace, and with it, the whole concept of contemporary sexuality, was being turned on it's head. With the entire world at War, and the concept of "living for the moment", it was a time of great liberation for Women, in every aspect of their lives.
That it is was only to be temporary, and last until the men returned home at end of the war, was inevitable...at least until the development of oral contraceptives and Family Planning, of the Fifties and early Sixties.
The seeds were planted for change during the war and but did not sprout until much later. We agree on the later, here is why I say "much". Rosey the Rivetter was (with only a few exceptions) much happier at home rearing kids and making dinner for hubby. And that is exactly where she went as soon as it was possible. Familly planning began to mainstream (with the resistance of the Catholic church) in the 60's. That mainstreaming was mostly complete by the 70's, but for the workplace the effects were (and still are) gradual.However, even imposing a 60's set of mores on a film set in WWII would be incorrect, much less 2000+ mores. Which was my point.
I agree with you that the cinematography (just) redeems "Pearl" to the extent where it is (just) watchable, but considering the budget thrown at this and what is obviously a very grandious attempt; I think it misses by miles.
That seems to be par for the course with Hollywood war film offerings; others even more appalling:
"U-571": just awful. Most 2 dimensional Harvey Keitel has ever been, must have taken some extra effort by the director to achieve that.
"Stalingrad" apalling unredeemable drivel.
Some that aren't bad:
1st 20 minutes of "Private Ryan", drivel for dialog thankfully drowned out by explosions;
Vietnam sequences in "Forrest Gump"
Edward Zwicks "Glory", and that only because of Denzel Washington (he won an Oscar), oh, and the exceptional musical score.
Eric
Tokyo*
You are " very " kind with your comments.
The rhetoric will tone down considerably when the current batch of lousy films fades into deserved obscurity. There's got to be a renaissance of cinema sometime, but I guess I'd better not hold my breath.
No doubt there are new Directors out there somewhere who will follow in the steps of Antonioni, Peckinpah, Malle, Tarkovski, Greenaway, Kurosawa, et. al. even a Blake Edwards clone would be nice.
Directors with a fresh outlook, unconstricted by formulaic "advertising Agency" reverse engineered plots, with something to say; not obviously aiming to please the "great dumbed down" or worshipping at the Shrine of the Great Bland Eye. Please, new Directors, and lots of them.
Fellini never had the digital tools, or the budget of a "Pearl", but if you want top see a really great film, watch "La Strada" or "La Dolce Vita". They're Black and White BTW. I'm sorry, but I have a knee jerk reaction to garbage
Eric
Tokyo
"There's got to be a renaissance of cinema sometime, but I guess I'd better not hold my breath."Directors today, are the products of mega Hours of Television viewing and education in Film Schools. Tv teaches derivitive, inexpensive, cookie-cutter forms of entertainment. Film Schools teach you how to make The Deal. What else could one expect in our cinema, today, other than hours and hours of already been seen, cud ?
All of those directors that you mentioned were/are craftsmen.
What makes these people different, from those who aspire to create something special, is that they dared to reach into their personal soul and life experience, and expose it for all to see...take it or leave it. They wanted to say something, within the confines of a commercial business.
Everyone today wants to play it safe. Because it's easier to get The Deal.
Yep. Why should film makers be any different from politicians? Or most other businesses for that matter.Wonder what Joderowski is doing these days?
Garbage- The only word for- Garbage- Tons & Tons of & I do not share your optimimism, that the future may bring us better days & nights, to go after this sublime passion, that is ...voyeurism.
But for me, it will not change my interior mood as we have, all the Lubitsch, Ford, Hitchcock, Chaplin, Truffaud among the one and others we did not cite....
One of the few hopes of mine is Aldomovar, we will see.
If he had ( the tools ) he will have ruine his films, nothing more I distaste than this less than perfect digital world, that put pieces together who does not belong together ( sic ) AND in an offuscating way for the eyes.
The Rose,
Germany
The Two Directors extant that are both extremely unlikely to sign Hollywood contracts anytime soon, and whose next films I eagerly await
They have yet to disappoint me; I thought Leighs "Secrets and Lies" was a masterpiece, and Almodovars "About my Mother" showed a maturity of craftsmanship that went beyond his usual over-the-top style, it's a thin line, but they are out there.
Eric
Tokyo*
Secrets and Lies is one of my favorite films.
I LOVE all Leighs films ( S & L )maybe the less.Waite till Pedro new film is showing-the critics says-the best- till now.
Patrick
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]