IMDb > Pearl Harbor (2001) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Pearl Harbor
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Pearl Harbor More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 198:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1974 reviews in total 

524 out of 798 people found the following review useful:

C'est magnifique, c'est ne le guerre pas!

Author: hissingsid from London, UK
28 January 2003

(Please excuse my French, it's probably wrong)

Roll up, roll up! See the cinematic spectacle of 2001! See the horrible deaths of 2500 or so people commemorated by a film about two guys who fly fast planes really fast. See them go ZOOOOOOOOM, see them go WHIIIIZZZZ! See them reprise the 'flypast and debriefing' scenes from Top Gun. Watch the beautiful love story unfold. See the true love two people have for one another tested and broken when Kate Beckinsale comes between them.

See a fine young actor reduced to playing Token Black Guy. Watch as he fights to prove he's more than a Token Black Guy, even though he's given so little to do that he ends up as nothing more than a Token Black Guy (even though, unlike the two guys in the planes, Token Black Guy actually existed).

Watch the awful bombing of a military target. Watch the heroic bombing of a city. Watch Jon Voigt recreate Peter Sellars' unforgettable character Dr. Strangelove.

Watch the whole reality of war, and the lives and deaths therein trivialised to make a Big Dumb Action Movie that thinks it's some kind of ghastly tribute to the American dead of December the 7th.

Or better still... don't!

On the other hand, if you want an unrealistic film with ponderously paced romance, fighter planes zooming all over the place and nice explosions, check this out. It's a lot of fun. Just don't take it seriously - you'll only encourage them!

Was the above review useful to you?

218 out of 352 people found the following review useful:

Historically Inaccurate

3/10
Author: Jen (kiwihazelnut) from Fort Collins, CO
9 September 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ignoring the claims that this movie was so wonderful because Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett are "so-o-o-o-o hot," and that the "music was so-o-o-o good," I want to talk about all the historical inaccuracies about this movie. People get the impression that by watching the movie, they will understand not one, but two historical WWII events: Pearl Harbor and Doolittle's Raid.

However, this is just not so. While extra care was given for the attack scene (I think WWII veterans would have crucified the producers if this had not been so), the other smaller details give the watcher a false sense of history. For one thing, no Red Cross Army nurses died (as they portray Betty dying). Also, no US soldier would go to Britain to join the Royal Air Force. The US Army Air Force had a unit (the Flying Tigers) in Britain helping out the RAF, but no US soldier would actually leave his unit to join another country's military (regardless of allies). It would mean a total US military discharge AND rejecting US citizenship. Ben Affleck's character could not have done that, especially when he was not a British citizen.

Also, Ben and Josh Hartnett's characters were fighter pilots. NOT Bomber pilots. The two are very separate things. Ben and Josh could never switch from being fighter pilots to bombers for Doolittle's Raid. The Army Air Force had pilots for all kinds of missions, and fighter pilots stayed fighter pilots, and bombers stayed bombers. Continuing with Doolittle's raid, it did NOT turn the tide for the Americans. It was not a military victory, and little in Tokyo was affected. It only served as propaganda to help the US citizens on the homefront (also, Doolittle's Raid was long after Pearl Harbor and not a revenge mission). Watch this movie if you're into sappy love stories, but NOT if you want to learn about Pearl Harbor (and/or the Doolittle Raid). Few historical facts can be gleaned from this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

311 out of 543 people found the following review useful:

Someone get me a pair of scissors!

3/10
Author: David Atfield (bits@alphalink.com.au) from Canberra, Australia
10 July 2001

What a great film this could have been! The recreation of the attack on Pearl Harbor is some of the best film-making ever - an extraordinary and moving sequence made utterly believable by state of the art special effects. It ranks up there with the opening sequence from "Saving Private Ryan" and the sinking of the "Titanic" as one of the most harrowing "disaster" sequences filmed in recent years. But like both those other two films, PEARL HARBOR is desperately in need of a decent script to frame the disaster sequence.

Okay - I could almost accept the hokey old love triangle romantic plot - certainly the stars are great to look at - but the dialogue really sucked: "I don't think I'll ever look at another sunset without thinking of you". Please! And all those hero shots from the ground, and the slow motion love bits, and the soppy music, and the eternal sunsets...

But what this film really needed was an editor! The climax of the film is the attack on Pearl Harbor - an American defeat. But it seems the film-makers decided that the American audience wouldn't be satisfied with this - and so the movie grinds on and on for another hour or so dramatising a revenge attack on Japan. And we're supposed to believe that this attack was fought by the very same guys who were on the ground in Hawaii. I mean we all know that America won the war in the end, so did we really need this long epilogue?

Personally I'd cut out all the Roosevelt and the Japanese high command scenes and concentrate on the experiences of the people on the ground at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese stuff was all completely unbelievable anyway. The sad loss would be the superb performance of Jon Voight as Roosevelt - but maybe they could make another film about him. I'd also end the film after the attack at Pearl Harbor, as the survivors pick up the pieces. So why not have a shorter Director's Cut - a novel concept - that makes this film the great film it could have been. If you like I'll lend the scissors!

Was the above review useful to you?

157 out of 240 people found the following review useful:

An utter waste of money, talent and history.

1/10
Author: muertos from United States
29 January 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Pearl Harbor is a movie so spectacularly awful that it would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating. There hasn't been a big-budget re-enactment of the Pearl Harbor attack since Tora! Tora! Tora! in 1970, and, due to the utter failure of this movie on every level, it's unlikely it will be attempted again for a long, long time.

The writing is ludicrous. It's a series of situations and set pieces strung together without a single regard given to character development or even plausibility. The acting is beneath contempt. Ben Affleck should never have been let anywhere near this film, and in the "love" scenes between himself and Kate Beckinsdale, it appears patently obvious that the actors completely detest each other. The attack scene is filmed and edited like a Saturday morning cartoon. And...excuse me...in real life Pearl Harbor was a DEFEAT. There was none of the stupid garbage with slick fighter jocks dogfighting Japanese Zeros. This film makes it look like a victory! And, excuse me...FDR could not stand up by himself. The scene in the cabinet room where he rises from his chair was simply laughable.

This film is beyond bad. It is insulting. It's a 6-year-old's coloring book passed off as history. Aside from that, it's probably the limpest, shoddiest big-budget "epic" produced in the last 10 years. The day it opened in theaters was truly a day of infamy.

Was the above review useful to you?

118 out of 178 people found the following review useful:

Abominable, abysmal, atrocious, ... and that's just the 'A's

1/10
Author: andyf52 from Maryland
7 June 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Spoilers

To borrow and paraphrase from that great orator and writer, Winston Churchill, 'Never in the annals of human endeavor have so many witnessed the butchering of history by so few.'

I remember a story on a national morning TV news program that was a major promotion for the debut of this huge waste of celluloid. This interview/promotion took place aboard the aircraft carrier that's on permanent display in New York harbor. The major male stars, Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, along with Producer Jerry Bruckheimer were interviewed by one of the hosts of this TV morning news show. In this interview, all three claimed that they enjoyed talking to veterans and listening to their stories. Well, I don't think they were paying much attention to those vets.

Or at least they decided to ignore reality when it interfered with their script!

Some historical facts that got in the way of Bruckheimer's blockbuster: It doesn't matter how simple WWII aircraft are compared to today's jets. Ask any pilot and he/she can tell you that you just don't go from flying American P-40 fighters one day, go to England and jump into the cockpit of a British Spitfire fighter and start shooting down HIGHLY EXPERIENCED, COMBAT VETERAN German PILOTS the next! (I don't care that even a blind pig can find the occasional acorn!) Each aircraft's handling qualities, e.g., speed, max altitude, rate of climb, rate of dive, turning, etc., are different. In other words, a pilot has to be TRAINED on that aircraft! To ask us to believe that Affleck's character, who hadn't seen REAL aerial combat prior to England, can shoot down experienced German fighter pilots the VERY FIRST TIME HE STRAPS ON A 'SPIT' is not only LAUGHABLE, it's insulting to the REAL pilots who fought and died in the 'Battle of Britain.'

The famous 'Doolittle Raid' took place on April 18, 1942 - a scant 4-1/2 months after the Pearl Harbor attack. Yet, we're supposed to believe that not only can Affleck's character IMMEDIATELY master unfamiliar aircraft (forgetting that a B-25 is a MULTI-ENGINE BOMBER no less for the moment!), apparently so can Josh Hartnett's character. It took EXPERIENCED B-25 bomber crews about that long to train for this extremely hazardous raid on Japan (January 1942 to April 18, 1942). No way in the world could P-40 fighter pilots be chosen to fly B-25 bombers in the 'Doolittle Raid!'

What I don't understand is that since Bruckheimer was obviously not interested in historical accuracy, in addition to Affleck's character's superhuman abilities of shooting down EXPERIENCED Germans pilots over England and BATTLE TESTED Japanese pilots over Pearl Harbor, rescuing sailors trapped in half-sunk ships, giving blood, and eventually taking the war to the Japanese in the 'Doolittle Raid,' why didn't Bruckheimer just have Affleck's character pump-out and raise the Arizona and single-handedly save her crew from their watery grave. Thank goodness there are some things even Bruckheimer can't swallow!

The special effects and battle scenes were great! Yeah, I know. Bruckheimer wasn't shooting a documentary. BUT, if you want an entertaining, more historically accurate dramatic portrayal of the events of, and leading up to, December 7th, 1941, stick with Tora! Tora! Tora! That movie is based upon the work of a historian considered by many to be the top of his field, Gordon Prange. Although Dr. Prange wrote many books on this topic, I believe his book, "At Dawn We Slept" was the basis of Tora! Tora! Tora! As a MEDAL OF HONOR winner, General Doolittle, and the heroic pilots he led on that raid deserved better than the way they were portrayed in Bruckheimer's schlock film. Despite the romance scenes, and when it was filmed, "30 Seconds Over Tokyo" is a much more accurate depiction of the famous "Doolittle Raid." At least it's more believable!

Affleck, Hartnett, and Bruckheimer may have listened to WWII veterans, but they did not hear. They did not learn. Nor did they appreciate the immeasurable costs paid by those members of this country's 'greatest generation.'

The only things I recognized as historically accurate about this film were: 1) the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan on December 7th, 1941; 2) the US Army did fly P-40s; 3) British pilots did do combat with Germans in the skies over England during the 'Battle of Britain;' 4) some British pilots did crash into the Channel; 5) Cuba Gooding's character, a black mess cook, DID shoot down Japanese planes even though he received no gunnery training; and 6) Doolittle did lead a force of 16 US Army B-25 bombers from the carrier USS Hornet against Japan. I can't speak to any accuracies about the nurses, or their quick thinking, e.g., writing with lipstick on the foreheads of the wounded.

The only way I'd own a copy of this film is if someone accidentally gave it to me as a gift.

Was the above review useful to you?

145 out of 243 people found the following review useful:

Based on a true story...only the names and events have been changed

1/10
Author: rude_boy_mick from United Kingdom
15 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Pearl Harbor is without a doubt the worst world war 2 film of the past decade! The plot was lackluster and unoriginal, the acting pathetic for the most part, and the history inaccurate.

It seems to be more preoccupied with portraying America in the best light than accurately depicting the facts. The love story is out of place and pathetic.

At the end of the film is a 5 minute rant about why America is supposedly great; it actually says "after pearl harbour all America knew was victory", obviously the writers had never heard of Vietnam.

The only good aspect was the special effects, but they could never make up for this absolutely dire film.

My only regret (apart from wasting 2 and a half hours of my life watching the film) is that I can't award zero out of 10!

Was the above review useful to you?

108 out of 173 people found the following review useful:

Someone hand me a sick bucket....

1/10
Author: mr_me
7 April 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh dear, what a waste of time and money and more importantly, three hours of my life. Titanic with bombs, only take away James Cameron and any sign of talent, story, pacing and throw in historical inaccurancies, clichés and a story that will make you want to throw up from all the cheesy moments.

The film is really divided into three parts. The first part, the love story, the two best friends and of course the girl. Then one hour later, develop a love triangle, wow, Hollywood has never seen anything like that before! (sarcasm intended) Also add several less important characters and bit parts that you hope will die in the bombing sequence that you know is coming, unfortunately, only one of them does.

Finally, the second hour, the bombing sequence begins. It's good to begin with, its good fun, the only part of the movie thats bearable. The special effects are great along with good fight sequences. Unfortunately, they even managed to spoil that with a ridiculous scene in which the two main characters fly around and save Pearl Harbor by shooting down two pilots.

Now you think that with the bombing sequence over, the end of the film is near, you're just about to get your coat and run out of the movies, when all of a sudden, you're subjected to one of the most pointless hours I have ever seen in a movie, in which the survivors, and only the survivors for some reason, fly over to Japan to get revenge. Oh dear. At this point, the movie has completely lost the plot, the acting is horrendous, the editing and direction terrible, and I have lost interest in all the characters. The story has been completely suffocated with the ridiculous sub-plots.

Avoid this film at all costs. Three hours of pointless clichés, cheesy scenes, unlikeable characters, historical inaccuracies and the worst direction I have ever seen. This film could have been so more, or less.

Was the above review useful to you?

114 out of 186 people found the following review useful:

Historical Trivia

1/10
Author: daniel-mcgarry from United States
24 November 2008

In 1941 it cost the Empire of Japan 147 thousand dollars to stage the three hour attack on Pearl Harbor.

In 2001 Michael Bay spent $132 MILLION dollars to film the event, and ran four minutes longer.

Even taking into account 60 years of inflation, the Japanese did a better job with a smaller budget...

Due to the ten line minimum submission this may be too short - but sometimes less is more.

20th Century Fox already did the Pearl Harbor attack in Tora Tora Tora - and did an excellent job. Michael Bay should have left well enough alone.

Was the above review useful to you?

139 out of 238 people found the following review useful:

Sappy love story, inaccurate history -- In short, *avoid*

1/10
Author: jmzkeenan from Canada
29 July 2008

I heard about this film while it was in production. I heard about how they were going to go out of their way to get all the right aircraft to film so things would look right. I heard how they wanted everything to look as authentic as possible. I heard that the movie would somehow encompass the Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor, and the Doolittle Raid (??? - an early warning sign). I heard that they were going to stage the premiere on an aircraft carrier moored in Pearl Harbor, for an audience of Second World War veterans. They even managed to get one of the veterans attending the premiere to say complimentary things about the movie. I knew that special effects technology had advanced enormously since 1970, allowing the filming of things that would have been impossible in the previous big-budget movie about Pearl Harbor, Tora Tora Tora.

So I thought "Given all this, how bad can it be?".

The answer, unfortunately, is AWFUL. This may not be Hollywood at its worst, but it's pretty close.

I don't know the origin of the phrase "Titanic with bombs" for describing this film, but it's pretty apt. One difference is that Bay and Bruckheimer together don't add up to James Cameron. Both films feature trite, sappy, predictable love stories (with every chestnut in the Hollywood Cliché guide clearly in evidence) layered over a real-life, tragic event. However, although I don't particularly like Titanic, I have some respect for Cameron's success in reproducing the appearance of the RMS Titanic and the events of the Titanic sinking on screen. I am prepared to watch Titanic (while fast-forwarding over the love story bits) just to see the history parts.

Pearl Harbor fails this test. The portion of the film featuring the attack on Pearl Harbor comes off like a video game -- Lots of sound and fury, but no realism whatsoever. The problem here is that this is not only a real event, but an event of pivotal importance in the history of the United States. Worse yet, the event is still within living memory. How will we feel in 2061, when a director decides to make a movie about September 11, 2001, and casually re-arranges the events of that day to make the resulting film "more entertaining/more commercial/more appealing to mass audiences"? Do you feel sick even contemplating that possibility? That's how I suspect that veterans of the actual attack on Pearl Harbor feel about this movie. The late Brigadier General Kenneth Taylor, one of the pilots who did in real life what Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett portray on screen described the film as "a piece of trash...over-sensationalized and distorted."

Watch Tora Tora Tora instead. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty accurate telling of what really happened at Pearl Harbor. (Tellingly, Tora, Tora, Tora used veterans like General Taylor as advisers to make sure that they got most of the details right). A newer film with improved special effects is not necessarily a better film.

Was the above review useful to you?

121 out of 208 people found the following review useful:

Epic Failure!!!

3/10
Author: Danielramos16 from United States
28 April 2008

OK the action sequences are fantastic, the music is wonderful & gripping, the Pearl Harbor attack was intense, it was at many points very emotional and made you a bit teary eyed because you feel for all the brave men & women who died on that faithful day in December 1941. Now lets get down to why this is movie failed miserably:

1.) First off the movie is way too damn long, I mean Jesus I would have to spend have a day to watch it so the makers failed to edit many scenes that didn't need to be in the film.

2.) Historical inaccuracies are everywhere. Little and small. I read a list of all the inaccuracies in this movie, I couldn't possibly write all of them down in this review that's how bad this film is. If you'd like to know what these inaccuracies are checkout Wikipedia and search Pearl Harbor (film). Trust me the list of historical inaccuracies are long.

3.) Waste of talent: Tom Sizemore, Jon Voight, Alec Baldwin, and Jennifer Garner are given relatively minor roles in the film.

4.) This is what really upset me. The movie is called Pearl Harbor, I thought it would be about the events leading up to that faithful day. in fact it's about a cheesy love triangle, A LOVE TRIANGLE! this entire movie is centered around three stupid & shallow characters surronded by characters just as annoying as they are. The Pearl Harbor attack doesn't come till the middle of the movie. there isn't much attention given to the events that lead to the attack, just these cliché characters. Pearl Harbor just seemed to get in the way. Goddam this is like a cheesy Soap Opera or a World War II version of Titanic. I mean how much more Cliché can we get?

5.) The Pearl Harbor Attack was a n intense action packed sequence, but even that was incredibly flawed. First off Why is there a Pee-wee baseball game being played so early in the mourning? second when Hartnett & Affleck get up in the air it seems like they shoot down about 20 planes, in reality the Japanese air losses where bare minimum. third there is too much emphasis on CGI effects. fourth this really made me laugh when a group of about 5 men went up into a tower and shot down an enemy fighter with rifles and automatic rifles ..... right... Damn they must have had good accuracy.

6.) Kenneth M. Taylor is a legendary hero of Pearl Harbor. He was one of two pilots who got into fighter planes and began engaging & shooting down Japanese planes. The other pilot was his friend George Welch, Basically Affleck & Hartnett were depicting them. Taylor called this film "A Piece of trash, over-sensationalized & distorted". This was a man who was there and did these heroic feats so you can't discard his opinion. This is proof that this film is a disgrace to our veterans.

Overall this movie was a huge disappointment & let down. If you are gonna do a movie based about Pearl Harbor then do it right! seriously! thousand of good men died that day so tragically in one of the most defining moments of American History and you wanna make a movie centered around fake characters and a cheesy love story. Michael Bay whether you realize this or not I think you disgraced a lot of WWII veterans. This film had so much potential and ultimately failed to deliver something spectacular that could have had a major impact in film. My recommendation, watch Tora!Tora!Tora! a far more faithful retelling of the Pearl Harbor attack. Pearl Harbor had a budget, but at least Tora!Tora!Tora! has heart.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 198:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history