|
|
|
| HOME | REVIEWS & RATINGS | BEST & WORST | FAQ | CONTACT | LINKS | FUN STUFF | POSTERS | DVDs |
| "Survey says...." Click here! And put in your two cents worth! |
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not a big fan of movies with nothing but explosions and babes. I feel that all movies should meet a few basic requirements: solid story (which doesn't have to be realistic, but at least logical), character depth and artistic and/or entertainment value. Before I saw the trailer for Pearl Harbor, I didn't expect much from the movie. After all, I was less than thrilled with the last two releases from producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay: The Rock and Armageddon. However, after seeing the trailer, I had changed my mind. This didn't look like the typical Bruckheimer production: it looked as if it actually contained a story and had a serious development. Sure, it would be loaded with American patriotism, but who could blame the filmmakers? This is, after all, a war movie released on Memorial Day. As luck would have it, I managed to obtain tickets to an advance screening at Montreal's newest movie theatre: the AMC Forum 22 (in the building where the Montreal Canadiens used to play before the Molson Centre was constructed). I thought: "Cool. I get to see a great movie in a great movie theatre." It turns out I was half right: it was a great movie theatre. I wish I could say the same about the movie, but the fact is that it didn't live up to my expectations, which — in retrospect — might have been too high. The beginning of the story is interesting. Rather than making this movie nothing but a war movie, it also combines a major love story that fuels the development of the story. This way, Bruckheimer and Bay manage to attract both men and women to see the movie, although for entirely different reasons.
As a group of army nurses are on their way to New York for a big night out with the soldiers, we hear how Evelyn Stewart, played by Kate Beckinsale (Much Ado About Nothing, The Last Days of Disco, Shooting Fish), met Rafe McCawley, played by Ben Affleck (Good Will Hunting, Armageddon, Chasing Amy). And since time is of the essence, they fall in love at first sight. So far, so good. The story moves on. Our hero has volunteered to fight in England, as a "loan" from the US Government, while his belle and best friend, are stationed in Pearl Harbor (wink, wink). Meanwhile, we witness the Japanese prepare for their attack. This is one of the movie's strongest points: it does not portray the Japanese as cold-blooded killers, but rather shows them as simple men who felt that war was their only option. I particularly appreciated the fact that they were talking in Japanese (with subtitles), rather than in English, which is too often the case in American movies.
Nearly halfway through the movie, the first weaknesses begin to unravel. Bay shows us again and again that the attack could have been prevented, by showing us the many wise Americans who "had a hunch" that the Japanese were about to attack, among whom we find Captain Jesse Thurman, played by fellow Canadian Dan Aykroyd (The Blues Brothers, Grosse Pointe Blank, Ghostbusters). Of course, "I-want-proof" men refute all these warnings. Still, the movie is enjoyable. And now comes the main course: the attack itself. While this scene apparently lasts about 40 minutes (I didn't time it, but that's what I've been told), it feels much shorter. I was simply in awe of the attack's execution, from the realism of the planes, boats and special effects to the sheer horror that the Americans must have felt on this historic day. This is what I expected of the movie and Bay delivered this part flawlessly.
So, here I am, waiting for the credits to roll (I had no idea how long the movie was), but to my surprise, it kept on going. And going. And going. I wouldn't have been surprised to see the damn Energizer Bunny at this point. Herein lies the biggest problem with Pearl Harbor. With its 183 minutes running length, it is WAY too long. It should have been titled "Pearl Harbor and a lot of meaningless stuff afterwards". Rather than end the movie with the attack, which could have been followed by a narrative explaining its importance in the Americans' involvement in WWII, the filmmakers decided to bore us with a minor attack on Japan, which throws the movie completely off balance. It wouldn't have been this bad if it had been a short and sweet scene, but such is not the case.
Instead, we have to suffer through scenes of an American attack on Japan and the preparation of that attack. These scenes were so unnecessary that they felt like an eternity. Why did the director decide to include these scenes? Most likely, because he thought that American public would not want to see a movie where America lost in the end (even though everyone knows that they ended up participating in WWII and greatly contributed to the allies' victory). Yet, with all the Vietnam movies out there, we know such is not the case (and don't tell me it was a tie!). On a more positive note, I was pleasantly surprised by some of the acting performances. The most impressive was without a doubt that of Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy, Deliverance, Heat) as President Roosevelt. The role might be small, but Voight plays it with conviction.
On the other side of the age scale, we find the young William Lee Scott (October Sky, The Opposite of Sex, Gone in Sixty Seconds), who plays Billy. Although Scott has so far been typecast as the "young and cocky" character, he is slowly maturing into a more versatile actor, but his ascension could take a while since Scott is "cursed" with a baby face. For his part as Danny Walker, Josh Harnett (The Virgin Suicides, The Faculty, Blow Dry) gives a decent, but not memorable performance. Too often, he face is crisped, as if acting was giving him stomach cramps. The casting director made two questionable choices. The first is Alec Baldwin (Glengarry Glen Ross, The Hunt for Red October, Beetlejuice). Baldwin, who once was a favourite actor of mine (between 1988 and 1992, when he made his greatest films), doesn't look like he's taking this role seriously at all. There are even some scenes when I thought he was going to explode in laughter.
The second questionable choice is Cuba Gooding Jr. (As Good As It Gets, Boyz N the Hood, Jerry Maguire). I have nothing to say against Gooding's acting: he was great. But that's the problem: he is a great actor stuck in a small "token" black role. The story of Petty Officer Doris Miller — a black soldier who wants to defend his country but who has been stuck in the kitchen — is interesting, but since it could not be developed to its full potential, it should have been cut. Rather than helping to expose the racism problem that existed in the American military, it just cheapens it. In a nutshell, I still recommend Pearl Harbor, but with a proviso: either leave once the attack is over or be prepared to sit through pointless scenes. Reviewed on July 2, 2001. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ABOUT MOVIECRITIC.CA | AWARDS | FAQ | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY | USER SURVEY |
|
This page was last updated on: Sunday, 21-Mar-2004 16:21:05 CST © 1998-2004 Luc-Rock Paquin. All Rights Reserved. All movie images © by their respective owners. Used with permission. Before "borrowing" something from my site, please ask me. "Reel Canadian Movie Critic" logo by FranclyGraphic.com. 
|
