Buena Vista Pictures | Release Date: May 25, 2001
5.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 206 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
87
Mixed:
59
Negative:
60
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
MrMovieBuffSep 30, 2016
Director Michael Bay and producer Jerry Bruckhemier decide to do their best when it comes to re-telling the story of Pear Harbor in 'Pearl Harbor'... a love-triangle romance film disguised as an epic and tragic war film.

Ben Affleck stars
Director Michael Bay and producer Jerry Bruckhemier decide to do their best when it comes to re-telling the story of Pear Harbor in 'Pearl Harbor'... a love-triangle romance film disguised as an epic and tragic war film.

Ben Affleck stars as Lieutenant Rafe McCawley, who is best friends with his childhood buddy, Lieutenant Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett). The two of them seem to be respected by Major Jimmy Doolittle (Alec Baldwin), despite their sometimes eccentric behavior. We see that later on Rafe seems to be infatuated with a Nurse named Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale), and you get the simple, cliche love story of how the soldier has to go off and fight while the woman just has to remain where she is and hope that he writes back to her indicating that he's still alive.

Rafe goes missing in action, and when Evelyn is told the terrible news, she later ends up becoming infatuated with Rafe's best friend, Danny.

This film is filled with some of the worst dialogue, considering that it is written by Randall Wallace (of 'Braveheart'), with such conversations including Rafe saying to Evelyn; "You're so beautiful, it hurts", then she says "It's your nose that hurts", and then he comes back with, "I think it's my heart". You'll be sure to throw up in the popcorn bucket.

The film doesn't do much justice to showcase the horrors of the attack on Pearl Harbor, there is a lack of suspense and disturbing imagery. It doesn't help that it's exactly what it is, a PG-13 war epic. It's trying to be 'Titanic' (1997) meets 'Saving Private Ryan' (1998), and you'd think that combination would make a great film, but instead, does the exact opposite.

Michael Bay only wanted to focus on the romance between three characters we really couldn't care for, instead of focusing on the attacks that shook millions of innocent people.

There are better war films, and there are better romance films... not sure these two are the right combination for an ideal film.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
JCM20Jun 5, 2016
Mediocre acting, rubbish directing and explosion after explosion after explosion...

but do you really expect to see anything else in a Michael Bay film?
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
gameguardian21Mar 24, 2016
While I was hoping this would honor American history, this wasn't very honourable, it was just a excuse for a dumb love story. At least they still got the battle done right, as that is Michael bay's specialty.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
FlickFreaks83Dec 11, 2015
'War", as someone once trilled, "what is it good for?" Well, bloody huge summer blockbusters, apparently. At least, that's what scourge of the arthouse crowd and best bud of the multiplex mob, Jerry Bruckheimer, was betting when he decided to'War", as someone once trilled, "what is it good for?" Well, bloody huge summer blockbusters, apparently. At least, that's what scourge of the arthouse crowd and best bud of the multiplex mob, Jerry Bruckheimer, was betting when he decided to plough $135 million of Disney's money into Pearl Harbor.

A risky proposition when you realise that it's not only a story about the invincible American military being caught with its pants down but has a cast, that while not by any means likely to turn up on Lily Savage's Blankety Blank in a hurry, are certainly no guarantee of financial success. The question, then, is, have Bruckheimer and his buddy Michael Bay (Armageddon) pulled it off?

The answer is that, as usual, the Bruckheimer brand has delivered an almost dead-cert hit. Whilst a bit on the anorexic side in the dramatic weight department, it's a natural born blockbuster that amply excuses its slightly soggy beginning and cut and shunt end with a centre-piece attack sequence that ratchets the action bar up dozens of notches and represents the final coming of age of CGI. Quite simply, you have never seen anything like it.

Story-wise best pal flying aces Affleck and Hartnett row over the affections of Kate Beckinsale, after she accidentally shags the latter when the former is supposed to have been shot down over Europe. It's a slightly soapy plot-line, not aided by Bay's determination to shoot everything by what appears to be a permanent sunset (and a pleasing sense of humour from Affleck vanishes far too quickly).

Bay's pre-war America looks like it emerged from a beer ad - little boys fly soapbox Sopwiths, while real-life biplanes zoom over amber waves of grain. But it's the bombing itself that was always what this movie was going to live and die on, and here Bay really delivers, from an astonishing first 'bomb's eye view' shot that sees the camera follow a falling munition through the decks of the USS Arizona. Then comes the perfectly timed detonation, using fantastically detailed long shots of hundreds of Japanese Zeroes buzzing around the exploding fleet.

It's an amazing, visceral experience. ILM's CGI is, for the first time, indistinguishable from reality. Torpedoes hiss under the thrashing feet of drowning soldiers, men are blown through upturned ship's propellers towards the camera, and fighters plough into each other. It's an astounding, nerve-shredding experience that leaves the mealy-mouthed whinings about flat-packed characterisation bobbing in the wreckage.

As long as you're not expecting Dostoevsky in the drama department, it's a thoroughly well-built dramatic actioner with awesome CGI and a surprising structure which delivers the bit you know about in the middle, leaving an ending with at least a little surprise.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
brichardsonNov 26, 2013
I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He's way better than Ben Affleck
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MovieGuysSep 19, 2013
This movie is so superficial and exaggerated, that it feels like an empty hollow shell of a movie that is historically inaccurate with lots of Michael Bay-approved explosions.
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
1
cameronmorewoodNov 7, 2012
The most incoherent plotless war film I've ever been forced to sit through in my entire life.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
JAM123Dec 3, 2011
I thought this movie was pure crap! It made me want to puke my lungs out and then eat them again and then puke them out one more time. It's just another one of Michael Bay's nothing but special effect and cool action sequence movies whichI thought this movie was pure crap! It made me want to puke my lungs out and then eat them again and then puke them out one more time. It's just another one of Michael Bay's nothing but special effect and cool action sequence movies which have absolutely no storyline and rely only special effects. That's why he's said to be one of the worst directors in all of movie making and has only few okay movies (Transformers, The Rock). Enough about the director, let's talk about the actual movie I'm reviewing. Let's start with the less weak characteristics of this film. One is the length. There was an intermission and I had to switch the discs. Right when i thought it was finally over and I could get back to my life, it had another 3 hours. A little exaggeration but the movie felt like years to me because of the pain of watching it. It was so boring and just plain stupid that I was actually hesitant to put in the other disc and finish it, because after the first disc, it could have been over. It had a conclusion and everything and nothing was missing but Michael bay had to go and **** up Hollywood once again. Movies like this and Michael bay make me so mad (as you may have guessed) and it embarrasses me that good actors and directors, such as Spielberg and Matt Damon, are working the same jobs as these bozzos. Not only do I hate the length I also hate the acting and storyline. Both were terrible and Ben Affleck is the king of it. Almost every one of his movies (besides The Town and Good Will Hunting) are terrible and his acting is also bad. He's my least favorite actor for sure. The only reason I gave it a one is for it's special effects. They were actually outstanding fo its time and I at least applaud that, but everything else, I boo. So don't waste your time watchin this. It just makes me want to shoot my own movie and compare the two of them. In conclusion, MINES BETTER!! Take that Mike. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
sinadoomOct 18, 2011
This review contains spoilers. Way too long. Quite boring too. If there was actually content, it might do justice to the length. But the only bit of action (where Japanese attack Pearl Harbor) is not well done or connected to the story. I mean, how the hell do these idiots hope to take down planes with a shotgun or thompson? Collapse
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
Justinavery7074Mar 30, 2011
I wish that someday Michael Bay is at some resort and something like this would happen to him. He has hit a career low, here. The only movies that are worst than this are Freddy Got Fingered, Battlefield Earth, The Happening, and Transformers 2.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
ArkonBladeOct 27, 2010
i remember when this film was coming out i wanted to see it really bad . i love war movies espicially ones based on real wars that are factaul. i was camping at the time and dragged my friends away from are vecation to go see this film . ii remember when this film was coming out i wanted to see it really bad . i love war movies espicially ones based on real wars that are factaul. i was camping at the time and dragged my friends away from are vecation to go see this film . i feel so bad that i made my friends wach this gaurbage . this film had for ever eched why micheal bay is a **** director and always will be . first off i find it near impossable to screw up a war film based on actaul events when every thing is writtin for you all you have to do is read a history book and bam you have your scripts but no bay wanted to turn a tragic day in american history into a damn love story ... WTF does a love story have to do with the attack on pearl harbor? not a damn thing .i was expecting a indepth look into the US military and japanese military eplaining this all . but no it was a indepth look at a love triangle with some HORRABLE acting . this was micheal bay trying to rip off james cameron's titanic film . this film takes a HUGE crap on all the people who fought and died at pearl harbor . if i was a vet from that battle id go punch micheal bay in the face and poke his eyes out so he is unable to make more **** films like this. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
ThomasKDec 1, 2008
When this DVD came out, I was dying to buy it for my collection sure that even though I had not seen it...I was sure to love it. This is the most disrespectful and irresponsible excuse for a film of all time. Worst movie ever, ever, ever! If When this DVD came out, I was dying to buy it for my collection sure that even though I had not seen it...I was sure to love it. This is the most disrespectful and irresponsible excuse for a film of all time. Worst movie ever, ever, ever! If you know anything at all about WW2 or historical war movies than think of this trash as someone spitting on the graves of those who died on 12/7/1941. This is not about the attack on Pearl Harbor at all. It should be called "As the World Turns" and the DVD is not even worthy of being a coaster on my coffee table. Throw it in the fireplace and let it burn if you have any pride in this country. Worst movie all time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JaredC.Aug 16, 2007
I prefer war genre's, and this is a good choice, but comparing it to Behind Enemy Lines, U-571, and Saving Private Ryan, this is an embarresment, it was worked out the most terrible way possible, I hated absolutely everything in it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KoenD.May 30, 2006
Ridiculous movie. Worst movie I've seen in my entire life.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
DanR.Sep 30, 2005
Armageddon, in its blend of ridiculous action sequences and tear-jerking, sopping sentimentality is perhaps bearable as escapist entertainment because of its science fiction premise. What is so offensive about this film is it's attempt Armageddon, in its blend of ridiculous action sequences and tear-jerking, sopping sentimentality is perhaps bearable as escapist entertainment because of its science fiction premise. What is so offensive about this film is it's attempt to apply a similar kind of blind action movie for the guys/shallow romance for the chicks aesthetic to an actual, tragic event. Only Cuban Gooding's acting, the production values of the main attack sequence, and the depiction of the intelligence and communication failures that could have prevented the disaster deserve some credit. The rest is insulting. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful