Buena Vista Pictures | Release Date: May 25, 2001
5.5
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 202 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
85
Mixed:
58
Negative:
59
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)
4
EpicLadySpongeFeb 4, 2016
A movie about Pearl Harbor would've been cool.... if Michael Bay didn't direct it. The point is... the concept looks brilliant. Why do we need Michael Bay to direct it again?
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
4
csw12Feb 9, 2013
Except for a 40 minutes of massive explosions and pretty good film making while the Japanese attack, the movie couldn't be more boring, phony, and irritating.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
ThegodfathersonApr 30, 2013
Pearl Harbor. Yeah, it's another Micheal Bay movie. People think it's the best movie ever. Trust me a one time watch only. So, Pearl Harbor is about 2 friends who get twindled in love with a girl while fighting the sadistc Vietnam horror.Pearl Harbor. Yeah, it's another Micheal Bay movie. People think it's the best movie ever. Trust me a one time watch only. So, Pearl Harbor is about 2 friends who get twindled in love with a girl while fighting the sadistc Vietnam horror. This film revolves around Japanese warriors fighting Alec Baldwin. F**k yeah! This movie is good for two things- Acting and Story. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
grandpajoe6191Sep 18, 2011
Michael Bay's so called blockbuster "Pearl Harbor" is a strong biased movie with cheesy dialogue and a terrible script. The next thing the movie needs is more trimming on the film edit (Seriously, 2 hours 58 minutes?), and less preposterous action.
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
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
4
CineAutoctonoDec 24, 2015
"Pearl Harbor" was a film inspired by a bloody war US against Japan, action scenes was outstanding , but it was too boring , and Michael Bay began to make the bear, to add romance although it was not a bad idea.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
oxanaJan 3, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Drama, love-triangle (dead are not always as dead as you think, so never start dating your darling's best friend before you know for sure ;). War and its consequences are well displayed in this movie, which had depth, but still doesn't reach my heart. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MovieLonely94Jun 11, 2011
Pearl Harbor is a war and love film that re imagines the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid and tells the story about two Tennessee men named Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker who are now working in the Army Air Corps. RafePearl Harbor is a war and love film that re imagines the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid and tells the story about two Tennessee men named Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker who are now working in the Army Air Corps. Rafe is having a romantic relationship with a nurse named Evelyn as well as trying to struggle with his friendship with Danny, but little do they know that the Japanese have planned to attack Pearl Harbor.

For a film that has something to do with the most important event from the 1940s, I found this movie to be quite a guilty pleasure. It has the style and the potential of the event, but that's not worth saying much.

The sets were too cheesy, The romance was boring, There were overused clichés, and the storyline was too tiresome and predictable even though it was trying to keep you interested of what's going on. That's it for the bad.

So, what about the good things? Well, I will say this: The cinematography was great, The actors have pretty much talent from their roles, The CGI effects were okay, and the action wasn't that bad. I liked Michael Bay's directing and it has given the actors enough screen time.

Overall, Pearl Harbor isn't good or bad either. It's very mediocre at best, but at least Michael Bay tried. It may not be the best movie you could ever see in your entire life, but it's definitely worth a watch.

5/10
Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
homer4presidentMar 28, 2015
Here's a quote from the movie that shows how bad the dialogue is:
-Ben Affleck: "You are so beautiful it hurts"
-Kate Beckinsale: "It's your nose that hurts" -Ben Affleck: "I think it's my heart" Wow...that's just...wow. The first time I
Here's a quote from the movie that shows how bad the dialogue is:
-Ben Affleck: "You are so beautiful it hurts"
-Kate Beckinsale: "It's your nose that hurts"
-Ben Affleck: "I think it's my heart"
Wow...that's just...wow. The first time I saw that scene, I literally cringed in my seat because of those lines
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
OfficialDec 30, 2013
Directed by Michael Bay, "Pearl Harbor" is an explosive and action-packed war film. That being said, its script and acting are simply terrible in many places. The dialogue in serious moments are so cheesy, you honestly want to laugh insteadDirected by Michael Bay, "Pearl Harbor" is an explosive and action-packed war film. That being said, its script and acting are simply terrible in many places. The dialogue in serious moments are so cheesy, you honestly want to laugh instead of realizing the situation and become emotional. Well, once again, Michael Bay impresses us with his action, but overall resembles a disappointment. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
6
FilmVirtueMar 28, 2015
Though similar to Titanic in the form of a love/disaster story, Pearl Harbor loses points in the form of originality, but makes up for thrilling action sequences. Aside from It being a film, may it serve as a reminder of the events that tookThough similar to Titanic in the form of a love/disaster story, Pearl Harbor loses points in the form of originality, but makes up for thrilling action sequences. Aside from It being a film, may it serve as a reminder of the events that took place at Pear Harbor long ago. Expand
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
8
gm101Oct 19, 2011
Despite the lame love story, this was a very entertaining World War II movie (dare I say it, better than Saving Private Ryan). Not to mention one of the most patriotic movies out there!
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
bfoore90Dec 28, 2016
Surprisingly watchable for a Michael Bay film but its still fundamentally flawed and historically inaccurate when it comes to Pearl Harbor and the events following. It wastes a talented cast (Affleck, Hartnett, Beckensale, and Gooding Jr) onSurprisingly watchable for a Michael Bay film but its still fundamentally flawed and historically inaccurate when it comes to Pearl Harbor and the events following. It wastes a talented cast (Affleck, Hartnett, Beckensale, and Gooding Jr) on a movie that was written poorly with cheesy dialogue and was seemingly just being made to show off Bay's use of CGI and inability to be a quality filmmaker. Expand
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
2
sinadoomOct 18, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
Jedi_JettsonJan 26, 2012
Throughout many areas of acting, it was corny, the script was retarded, several actors were miscast in their roles, the story was lifeless and unappealing, and the historical inaccuracy suffers from a poorly-written back-and-forth plot. InThroughout many areas of acting, it was corny, the script was retarded, several actors were miscast in their roles, the story was lifeless and unappealing, and the historical inaccuracy suffers from a poorly-written back-and-forth plot. In fact, many action sequences were misguided despite a lot of entertaining explosions. I am NOT impressed. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
4
pgmarkDec 16, 2010
So disappointing ... just when i thought Hollywood was going to continue to make great War flicks (which i love btw) this comes out. Not only did it get the sappy "Hollywood spin" but it dragged on and on and I was surprised I was so boredSo disappointing ... just when i thought Hollywood was going to continue to make great War flicks (which i love btw) this comes out. Not only did it get the sappy "Hollywood spin" but it dragged on and on and I was surprised I was so bored with it half way through. Truly I love War movies and they are my favorite genre but what a bore this was. Only the great special effects saved it from being a total Turkey and eking out a 4! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MovieManiac1994Jan 4, 2016
From a producer/director duo famed for commercial movies comes a spectacular flag-waver that's as fun as it is empty. It's history as a McDonalds' Happy Meal - - well-packaged, bland yet satisfying, filling without being worthwhile andFrom a producer/director duo famed for commercial movies comes a spectacular flag-waver that's as fun as it is empty. It's history as a McDonalds' Happy Meal - - well-packaged, bland yet satisfying, filling without being worthwhile and crammed with pounds of processed American cheese.

From the pointless characters-as-kids preamble to the repugnant My Heart Will Go On-style end-credits warble, director Michael Bay infuses the movie with his trademark kinetic ferocity. Which, for a romantic historical epic, is only fitfully suitable. Even though it's a three-hour movie, Bay gives you little cause to complain about slow sections - - Rafe's romance with Evelyn, for example, blasts from meeting to tearful farewells in a pleasing flurry of iconic `40s set-pieces. But by avoiding boredom, Pearl Harbor has no time to inject any warmth, or to characterise any of the characters. The only workable relationship, for example, is Danny and Rafe's, while Evelyn is merely a cipher in scarlet lipstick.

Surprisingly, this dynamic approach works badly where you'd think it'd be a bonus - - during the main attack. For, while the Battle Of Britain scenes seamlessly combine live footage with CGI planes and tracer fire to masterfully create the violence of mechanised death, the actual Pearl Harbour bombing is soulless - - a dazzling 45-minute effects showcase. But every time you want to linger on a sky full of planes or a battleship rolling over, Bay's restless camera cuts away.

Yet considering it's an American World War Two movie, the Japanese get plenty of screen time to establish themselves as humans. In the thrilling build-up to the attack, for example, subtitles are replaced by the voiceover of a young Japanese pilot writing to his parents. That leaves us Brits to take the real cultural hammering, coming across as defeatists who thank God that the Yank Eagle Squadron has come to fight our fight. Which, for a unit who actually shot down 73 German planes at a loss of 77 American, is nothing less than cheeky.

Yet all these are minor quibbles compared to the final pointless hour, which exists merely to end on a small American propaganda victory rather than a major military ass-whupping. This reprisal raid on Tokyo doesn't just ruin the movie's flow, it's a different film in its own right. That Pearl Harbor doesn't stop at the natural ending of President Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" speech can only be explained by America's deification of winners. But then again, what else would you expect from Bruckheimer and Bay?

A relatively comfortable trip with no surprises to interrupt your enjoyment, Pearl Harbor is also like every war movie made during the last 60 years - - but with effects that were inconceivable even a year ago. Watch, enjoy, and then forget about it entirely.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
moviefreak12Nov 29, 2010
one of my faverite movies of all time. The love story is not as good as the titanics but still enjoyable. The bombing was by far the best of the whole movie and the ending will make you cry the first time you see it.
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
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
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
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
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
1
KoenD.May 30, 2006
Ridiculous movie. Worst movie I've seen in my entire life.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
10
JessicaBAug 11, 2001
This is the best movie I've ever seen, go see it, its very good.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
DonH.Sep 18, 2005
Attack on Pearl first-rate, gut-wrenching. All else maudlin at best. Oddly, all leads are unconvincing save at times Cuba Gooding Jr, as if there was no rehearsal, and nearly all 'minor' parts convincing. Nice bit by Jennifer Attack on Pearl first-rate, gut-wrenching. All else maudlin at best. Oddly, all leads are unconvincing save at times Cuba Gooding Jr, as if there was no rehearsal, and nearly all 'minor' parts convincing. Nice bit by Jennifer Garner as a frenzied nurse, some inspired shots of children at play watching in bewilderment as Japanese bombers approaching the harbor fly low over them. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
EricaH.Jan 1, 2009
One of my favorite movies. Its a bit on the lengthy side, sure. But its made up of a really great cast which, for me, just brings it all together.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
mirandaoJun 12, 2009
I absolutely love this movie! i cry almost everytime i see it near the end, and when rafe comes back of course! i think the love story is bittersweet, and the film is marked with outstanding special effects during the battle scenes. the only I absolutely love this movie! i cry almost everytime i see it near the end, and when rafe comes back of course! i think the love story is bittersweet, and the film is marked with outstanding special effects during the battle scenes. the only minor flaws with this movie is affleck's mediocre acting and sometimes-corny dialogue. you should definitely buy a copy of pearl harbor!! Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
9
GerronK.Jul 26, 2006
"Pearl Harbor" is an intricately made war movie. Forget the superficial romance and the especially bad dialogue in the first 30 minutes of the movie. It gives an intense perspective of what happened on that fateful day and what happened "Pearl Harbor" is an intricately made war movie. Forget the superficial romance and the especially bad dialogue in the first 30 minutes of the movie. It gives an intense perspective of what happened on that fateful day and what happened after. I enjoyed the movie a whole lot. It may have been 30 minutes shorter, but as it is it works. Expand
0 of 1 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
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
9
RyanM.Dec 15, 2001
Okay, so it's no return to the war genre from "The Thin Red Line." But, it is very, very, very entertaining. Its epic valor and powerful 40 minute bombing sequence are exceptionally executed. Also, the performances are surprisingly Okay, so it's no return to the war genre from "The Thin Red Line." But, it is very, very, very entertaining. Its epic valor and powerful 40 minute bombing sequence are exceptionally executed. Also, the performances are surprisingly good, Josh Hartnett surprised me as the third man in the triangle of love. Ben Affleck was solid (as he usually is.) And Kate Beckinsale! Wow! What a performance. I thought I was watching the next Susan Sarandon right in front of me. It is one of the most beautifully shot films I've seen this decade. And, even though it didn't make a penny in profits. it looks like it would?ve with it?s brilliant special effects. It?s one of the most amazingly put together films of the year, and its battle sequence it genuinely frightening. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
sgtandrew1799Sep 13, 2011
The movie was good especially when they play chicken with the zeros, the only reason i didn't give it a 10 was because, the story line was thrown off when the girl cheated on the main character.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews