A script that will live in infamy - Pearl Harbor Reviews

President Roosevelt said that December 7, 1941 was "a day which will live in infamy." Not if Hollywood has its way, though. The new, much-hyped, star-studded summer blockbuster PEARL HARBOR makes the earth-shattering sneak attack seem, sadly, forgettable. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett play two childhood buddies dodging bombs at the "infamous" naval station who want us to think that the most compelling action underway entails a boy-crazy nurse (Kate Beckinsale) they are both involved with. The surprise attack, and other war episodes, are just scenery -- for the schmaltzy love triangle story, which never gets off the ground. Obviously, the intent of the filmmakers was to provide a love story, ?a TITANIC (1997) for audiences to latch onto and humanize the tragedy. The problem is that (spoiler alert!, spoiler alert!) *nothing* happens to these people during the attack. When it finally comes, nearly an hour and a half into the sappy, stock story, the attack plays out as this fire and light show -- a sure visual feast -- that is completely disconnected from the rest of the movie. Instead, the pic insists on bumbling on about this story we really do not care about -- even while the story we *do* care about (the spectacular attack) is unfolding in the background. As a result, the writers have to add an additional military exploit at the end (as if the "day which will live in infamy" was somehow not enough), to resolve the drawn-out story line, even after the main course has been well digested. The bookends of the film, involving the Battle of Britain and General Doolittle's expedition (bombing Tokyo) have the feel of sloppy afterthoughts. Especially with the Doolittle episode at the tail end of the film, it is obvious to us that the entire mounting of the episode is but a charade to resolve the love triangle by attrition. Once we know that, we can discern that all these guys about to fly out to Japan to get killed are totally dispensable to the scriptwriters -- why should *we* care? This is a terrible way to honor WWII vets -- by turning them into toy soldiers! The early part of the film set in Britain, is not much better. It is a slap in the face to our English friends to suggest that they, who endured constant bombing under the Lufwaffe while America passed neutrality laws, were really uninspired about the war and it took an American hotshot (Affleck) to come and rally them. (The neutrality laws, historians point out, would have made this entire episode impossible because Affleck, who plays an active duty soldier, could not have legally been sent.) At over three hours of length, and $140M to make, this movie is a total waste of time, money, and effort. If you want to pay tribute to "The Greatest Generation," read the book (by Tom Brokaw). (Carlos Colorado)