Pearl Harbour (2001)

Originally posted by Slater
Well (to really nitpick) the movie showed some Spruance-class destroyers and at least one Perry-class frigate at Pearl Harbor.
They wouldn't actually be there for another 35 years or so.

Nice catch, Slater. I think the Navy was probably surprised, too. ;)
 
Originally posted by Neo
Going to see it this weekend....

YAY! I'm sure u is gunna have a gr8 time, providing that u don't fall asleep! It's a gud movie, but it v. long 2! :D
 
ya, it's 2 gud a movie 2 fall asleep in.........i come outta it feelin' like i'd bin in a war:D i don't fink u can fall asleep in da middle of a war..........:D
 
Haven't seen it, but I know what happens. I don't particularly like war films or tragedies, so I'll probably watch it on Sky when it comes out, and that way save myself a cinema ticket.
 
A very good film, good soundtrack to it & most important of all the most historically correct film to date!
 
Oh my God, this film is totally heartbreaking, and i'm not saying anything else for all you who havent seen it, but wow, go see it! But have tissues at the ready! *sniff* I cry at the damn song :rolleyes:

:fangs:xxx:smokin:
 
Heartbreaking most definitely & the end song is perfect for the film & so is the soundtrack aswell
 
The soundtrack is worth having as the music has been done perfectly to match the film - a very, very, very good thing that Hans Zimmer has managed to do with ALL the films he has done the music for
 
I liked pearl harbor, but after the Ship scene where it's attacked, it kinda dragged on for me and I was getting a bit bored with it. I watched it on video and it wasn't the same as the cinema, so this os one of the few films that I'll probably only watch once.
:flash:
 
True a lot films aren't the same once you seen them at both the cinema & home

Have only seen it a couple of times myself
 
Pearl Harbour

By the film trailer you could tell they were using standard romantic plots, and it threatened to be a very cheesy movie indeed.

However, I just watched this tonight - and was actually impressed.

The composition of the directing seemed very well done - the way they captured different perspectives to create multi-layered shots was pretty well done, in my opinion (I'm not a director. :) ).

Also, it was good to see that they didn't demonise the Japanese or patronise the British, and had Ben Afleck effectively playing a dumb American (ie, couldn't even pass his reading test).

What struck out most was that war was not glorified - it really made it horrific - lots of little moments did that, from the nurses being shot apart running to the hospital, to the hands of sailors outstretched from welded-open hull of a sinking ship, beyond all hope.

When it first came out I expected the film to be drowned in hype and patriotic praise, and sweep the oscars - but it seems like neither happened.

I'm told that "Torah Torah Torah" was a better film - I don't recall that one - but overall as a movie stand alone, Pearl Harbour I thought stood out well with it's own merits.

2c.
 
Re: Pearl Harbour

It was littered with historical inaccuracies, though this did not distract me from what was a good film. Up until 9/11 Pearl Harbour was a touchy subject for Americans. So it was quite brave of the director/screen writer to ensure a balanced view of the story was given.
 
Re: Pearl Harbour

The film is nothing but Hollywood fluff that cashed into the "Greatest Generation" hype. Bay's decision to use a view-point-of-a-bomb camera angle demostrates well his MTV music video approach to all his films.
 
Re: Pearl Harbour

I said:
By the film trailer you could tell they were using standard romantic plots, and it threatened to be a very cheesy movie indeed.

However, I just watched this tonight - and was actually impressed.

The composition of the directing seemed very well done - the way they captured different perspectives to create multi-layered shots was pretty well done, in my opinion (I'm not a director. :) ).

Also, it was good to see that they didn't demonise the Japanese or patronise the British, and had Ben Afleck effectively playing a dumb American (ie, couldn't even pass his reading test).

What struck out most was that war was not glorified - it really made it horrific - lots of little moments did that, from the nurses being shot apart running to the hospital, to the hands of sailors outstretched from welded-open hull of a sinking ship, beyond all hope.

When it first came out I expected the film to be drowned in hype and patriotic praise, and sweep the oscars - but it seems like neither happened.

I'm told that "Torah Torah Torah" was a better film - I don't recall that one - but overall as a movie stand alone, Pearl Harbour I thought stood out well with it's own merits.

2c.

Hi Brian:

Tora, Tora, Tora in many respects was a better film. It's reserved, almost documentary style of direction by Richard Fleisher, Kinji Fukasaku and Toshio Masuda was beautifully counterpointed by Jerry Goldsmith's edgy score, an intelligent, balanced screenplay and a solid cast.

As for Pearl Harbour . . . . well, I don't quite share your enthusiasm for that film. And as far as Ben Affleck goes, if a W.A.C. was given the choice between a dimpled chin and a soaring IQ, the girls will fall for the dimple every time.

Such are the things that future divorces are made of.

Likewise, if an American was given a choice between a film with good character development and an original story arc without bloodshed or one where all that "intellectual stuff" (read "faggotty crap" by the rank and file dolt) were replaced with scenes of wholesale devastation, computer-generated/amusement park ride composites and human viscera unspooling by the yard, they'll que up for the slaughterfest every time.

Such are the foibles that American culture is comprised of.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top