posted 05-26- 09:43 AM            

It's not too bad. The first part was very slow with the love bullshit and all that jazz.

The special effects in the attach scenes were very well done. The attack sequence itself is worth watching the movie.

There were a lot of inaccuracies in the planes and ships of course. But, if you are that anal, well...lol..this movie ain't for you. You know, carriers with steam catapult launchers and Spit MK IXs in the Battle of BOB..

What they did show of the real planes was quite awesome, though.

All in all, its pretty entertaining...no Saving Private Ryan of course, but better than Enemy at the Gates. Speaking of SPR, is it mandatory for Tom Sizemore to have a roll in all modern day WW2 movies involving Americans?

posted 05-26- 11:08 AM            

Werner

posted 05-26- 11:46 AM               

Not every reviewer candy coats things.

Now if Mad Dog was a movie reviewer he would tear everyone to crap.

posted 05-26- 12:18 PM               

The best WWII air battle scenes ever (too be expected).

Some innaccuracies..."The P40 can't outrun a zero so we'll have to outfly em" (backwards)

Ill have to check but I'm pretty sure that the two fighter pilots that got airborne at Pearl didnt participate in the Doolittle raid. But you had to expect Bruckheimer to foul it up somehow

DanW, it seems Tom Sizemore has assumed Tele Sevales (sp?) role as the ultra macho guy in every WWII movie

5.5 out of 10

posted 05-26- 11:47 PM               

Besides, I have an awesome home theater system with giant subs and to me DVD is the way to go.

posted 05-27- 12:58 PM            

As a war movie I'd say its still worth going, being more interested in the ETO than PTO anyways, I thought it was really interesting to get a glimpse of the American Eagle squadron and all those spitfires.

I give it a 7-8 out of 10. It will be interesting to see what Jag and TS think of it, the three of us are going to see it Friday.

About historical accuracy, I think that we can draw a lot of parallels between our views towards movies like Pearl and Enemy and the whole hardcore gaming debate. I think it'll be pretty rare that you ever get a movie that gets 100% of its facts bang on, so I for one am prepared to accept and enjoy a movie that doesn't have any gross misrepresentations (like the old tank trick, using American ones for Germans), especially if it gets people out to the theatres. Sure Pearl Harbor isn't going to teach people about what happened, but I think that in this day and age even the most disinterested people will go in knowing about the event in as much depth as they're going to need, so added detail will largely be lost on them. Even so I thought PH had some good detail, like the the cook manning the AA, the two pilots who got off the ground... Tid bits that people may now add to their knowledge of the event, myself included on both counts.

I heard a rumour that Spielberg has started work on an Iwo Jima film? Does anyone know more about this?

Werner

posted 05-27- 04:52 PM               

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/250090p1.html

He gives is a 1.5 out of 5. Really tears it apart. Quite rightly it sounds.

The reviewer wants more substance and historical accuracy, Thats stuff I look for also so this will definatly be a renter just for the explosions and stuff.

posted 05-27- 08:56 PM            

Same thing with Pearl. I'm curious as to how much money this thing rakes in this weekend. Shit, its not THAT bad lol. Sure, it's pretty fake, but its fun. Where else are you gonna see WW2 planes on the big screen?

posted 05-27- 10:43 PM               

Screw history channel, you don't have to change and dramatize history to make it exciting.

I personally like reviewers that are hard on stuff, be it movies, cars or vid games, theres too many 9 out 10 crap, then I go and get one and find out it sucks the huge one and wonder if the reviews tried out or watched the same thing as me and why they didn't noticed all the glaring problems.

I would rather a movie critic be extra hard on a movie then too light.

BTW if you ask me how much money it makes on the first weekend isn't really an indication of how good a movie is, just how well the marketing was.

Did you like titanic?

posted 05-28- 12:05 AM            

I don't think it's responsible to portray it accuratly for one simple reason. It's not about Pearl Harbor. The attack is the back drop and mood for the film. It was never advertised as an accurate movie. It's basically a 3 hour cheesy love story. True, it's centered around Pearl Harbor, and the film title is 'Pearl Harbor', but it's not a film designed to accurately portray the events that took place. In fact, it was probably named 'Pearl Harbor' for marketing reasons. Shit, Pearl Harbor ranks right up there with an event in history that every American knows, and one that most of the population of our country has feelings about. To name the flick Pearl Harbor is absolutely brilliant marketing.

But, to get to the original point, I don't think it has any responsibility to be accurate. If it was advertised and concived as a historically accurate picture, then, it fails miserably. Instead, its a campy love flick that is wrapped around one of the most memorable moments in American history.(being a bad memory of course).

It won't go down as another Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg wanted to that movie to be as accurate as possible and even stated that in the bonus footage from the video. I think Pearl was just made to make a killing at the box office.

posted 05-28- 10:50 PM               

I figure a movie is made to entertain and not inform. We can read books and see documenteries if we want the facts. If we want to escape and be blown away we have to set reality and facts aside and just enjoy the show.

True, some movies come very close to fact and still entertain us. Very rare but happens. I liked "Memphise Belle" even though it was very inacurate. I wanted to be entertained and let myself be. Sure I could have sat there and picked it apart but why?

I am sure I will like Pearl Harbor even though it skirts reality, I just won't see it with this picky friend.

posted 05-29- 12:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Razer:
PH rocked! The whole time I watched the flight stuff I wanted to grab a stick and out them out!

---

hehe, me too. When you saw the cockpit and "F3-style" views I couldn't help myself; turning my head to "padlock" the bogey, just like in SDOE.

Hawk - I agree with you 100%. I know people like that too (my father!!). When I really want to make him squirm I'll put on one of the old bond movies. hehe, bond fanatic, I own them all.

Werner

posted 05-29- 08:07 AM               

But what Can you do I guess.

I just know If I was making a movie like that it would be true to life.

posted 05-29- 01:28 PM               

Pachy,

posted 05-31- 06:57 AM               

I went with the wife last night for the sole purpose of being entertained, and I was. I smiled a little at the glaring inconsistencies-- but didn't mention them (otherwise wifey may not go to another movie with me again!)

There were some great combat scenes, and despite the love story-- I really was into the story...it was also good to see the vets there going to the movie-- they seemed to enjoy it and I am sure they appreciate that Hollywood, despite its tendencies to stretch facts for drama, was doing a good job of keeping people aware of what happened back then.

On a side note-- did they show the previews for that new movie about the Navajo code breakers to you guys? That looks to be good-- even if Nicholas Cage is the lead

------------------

Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless!