When I got home after seeing "Pearl Harbor," I went online to read some reviews of the movie. Wow, critics have been ruthless! Sure, a few liked the movie, but for the most part, film critics (the real ones, the ones who get paid to do it) hated "Pearl Harbor." As for me, I really liked the movie, but that's not to say that I don't understand why the critics disliked it so much.
"Pearl Harbor" was directed by Michael Bay, and Michael Bay's movies are far from critic-friendly. "Pearl Harbor" is Bay's fourth feature film, and his first three are "Bad Boys," "The Rock," and "Armageddon." What do all those movies have in common? Well, I mean aside from the fact that every scene in those movies seem to take place between 6PM and 8PM (what filmmakers refer to as "the magic hour"). The common element is that all of those movies look beautiful. They're loaded with eye candy. Michael Bay makes movies that look absolutely gorgeous, but he's no storyteller. He doesn't direct to tell stories, he directs to create images that are stunning. He got his start making commercials, and it seems like he's still trying to "sell" everything he places in front of the camera, and that's fine. He's a visual stylist, nothing more, nothing less, and when it comes to that kind of directing, Michael Bay is one of the best.
Here's an example. There's this shot in "Pearl Harbor" where a bomb is dropped from a Japanese plane, and the camera follows it down until it lands on the American ship (I'm giving nothing away, the shot is in the trailer). It's an amazing shot, and it looks really cool, but that's it. Someone like Steven Spielberg, a brilliant director, wouldn't use that shot. Instead, he'd be paying attention to what the people on the ship are going through as this bomb is about to hit their ship. It's two completely different takes on the same thing. Spielberg is telling a story, so he'd focus on the emotions of those involved. Michael Bay just wants the audience to say "whoa." I know I did the first time I saw that shot in the trailer.
The first Michael Bay movie I ever saw was "The Rock," and I didn't like it. It was airheaded, it was filled with cheesy jokes, and I just couldn't get into it. A couple of years later, I saw "Armageddon," and I absolutely loved it. When I saw the trailer for "Pearl Harbor," and they were excellent trailers, by the way, I decided to watch all of Michael Bay's movies. I bought the Special Edition DVD for "Bad Boys" (which I hadn't ever seen before), and I spent nearly forty bucks on the 2-Disc DVD of "The Rock" that's part of The Criterion Collection. That purchase probably seems even more foolish than the one for "Bad Boys" since I actually saw "The Rock" and didn't like it. As it turns out, "Bad Boys," though flawed, was very entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And when I sat down to give "The Rock" another try, I ended up liking it a lot. I liked it even more than "Bad Boys," and almost as much as "Armageddon." With a Michael Bay movie, you simply need to walk in knowing what to expect.
Another reason that some critics will rip on the movie is the historical inaccuracies. Come on, people! Lighten up! It's a freakin' movie, not Mrs. Carulli's 11th grade American History class! I don't understand that complaint. I mean, if you want a documentary, watch The History Channel, ya know? This is a movie, and the primary focus is entertainment.
Anyway...
"Pearl Harbor" was written by Randall Wallace, who also wrote "The Man in the Iron Mask" and "Braveheart." The script was good, but I think that when he was writing it, he was writing with the intention of it being directed by someone more like Spielberg than Michael Bay. Also, it's very obvious that it was heavily influenced by "Titanic." That's okay, though. That sorta thing is inevitable considering the success of "Titanic."
Familiar faces are all over this movie, but the focus is on three characters who are played by Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale. Ben Affleck is one of my favorite actors out there. He's very talented, and he seems like a genuinely cool guy. I remember back when he was doing small roles in small films, such as "Dazed and Confused" and "Mallrats." He's come a long way since then, and I'm very proud of him. You go, boy! Josh Hartnett, well, I don't really know what to say about him. He was very good in this movie, but the only other movie I ever saw him in was "The Faculty," and though I liked the movie, I didn't like his character at all... but I think he was supposed to be a character that the audience liked. He was recently in "Here on Earth," and despite starring the beautiful Leelee Sobieski, it looked like a cheesy chick flick, so I avoided it. I have nothing against him, though, and like I said, he was good in this movie. Then there's Kate Beckinsale. Damn, that woman is so hot! How come I've never seen any of her movies? Especially "Brokedown Palace," which stars her AND Claire Danes! Kate Beckinsale is a stunning beauty. As for her acting, she's very good. Her acting is very subtle, which is odd for a Michael Bay flick, but it didn't seem outta place at all. There's also Alec Baldwin (he's great here), Jon Voight (he plays President Roosevelt, and he's awesome... one of the best acting jobs in the movie, actually), Cuba Gooding, Jr. (I'll get to him in the next paragraph), James King (she's been popping up in quite a few movies recently, and her acting is pretty good... but how did she become a supermodel with those teeth of hers?), Dan Aykroyd (a small, thankless role where he doesn't do much), and Tom Sizemore (who was also in "Saving Private Ryan," so I guess he has a thing for World War II). Two of my favorite obscure character actors have small roles in the movie, William Fichtner ("Armageddon," "Contact," "Go") and the great Leland Orser (creepy guy, and he can be seen acting creepy in "Seven," "Alien Resurrection," and "Very Bad Things"). For those of you who know about him, you'll be happy to know that in this movie, he wears those glasses that he always wears.
Cuba Gooding, Jr. plays a character who was based on a real person. He was excellent in the role, and I think the real person's story is interesting enough to warrant it's own movie, but I don't think it belonged in "Pearl Harbor." In this movie, it's nothing more than an unnecessary subplot, and it doesn't do the story justice. If they DO make a movie out of that guy's story, I think Cuba Gooding, Jr. should star in it. By the way, Cuba Gooding, Jr. fans take note. He's in this movie for maybe ten minutes.
Look, "Pearl
Harbor" isn't perfect. It's got corny lines, it's too long, and the
action gets redundant, but it's still a very entertaining movie. Also, though
it has a $150 million price tag, what I saw on the screen looked a LOT more
expensive than $150 million, so in a weird way, you'll feel like you got
your money's worth watching it.