An embarrassing failure - Pearl Harbor Reviews

"Pearl Harbor" is one of the worst movies of the year. The film is uninspired, shockingly unoriginal, lacking in truth. It confirms the fact that Michael Bay is not a great filmmaker at all, he is nothing more than a showman, a student movie-maker who, for some reason, is allowed to make big, impersonal, Hollywood films. It's hard to believe that Randall Wallace, who penned the wonderful "Braveheart," wrote the script to this "Pearl Harbor." Perhaps he did have a good script until Bay ruined it with his childish visions. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay obviously intended "Pearl Harbor" to be a film ranked with past Hollywood greats. They also, no doubt, had high hopes of being nominated for an Oscar or two. Yes, "Pearl Harbor" is another grand Hollywood epic in the tradition of "Titantic" and "Saving Private Ryan," but the film has a weak structure, no emotional truth, and poor editing. "Titantic" won an Oscar for Best Picture not because it's a big Hollywood film, but because James Cameron knew how to tell a story. Pearl Harbor lacks a strong, emotional story. It's as if Bay took the roughest draft of Randall Wallace's screenplay and shot the film without any rewrites. "Pearl Harbor" is a movie based on other movies. The chaotic attack scenes from "Saving Private Ryan." Innocent people sliding down the sinking ships as if they were auditioning for the sequel to "Titanic." Thousands of planes attacking battleships, filmed like an action sequence from "Star Wars." "Pearl Harbor" expects us to be moved by its immaculate and dishonest notion of romance, while using a historic tragedy as fodder for popcorn-movie extravaganza. Imagine if audiences around the world told Steven Spielberg that "Saving Private Ryan" was the best crowd-pleasing, guilty pleasure, popcorn movie they'd ever seen. "Pearl Harbor" will be put right next to other action films like "The Rock" and "Con Air." "Titanic," too, had a fictional love story set against a historical backdrop. But director James Cameron infused the romance with truth and compassion. In "Pearl Harbor," Bay is too busy trying to create an "old-fashioned" Hollywood romance. The film's love story is self-conscious and contrived. In "Titanic," Cameron gave his characters, Jack and Rose, strong, identifiable goals, and each scene in the film raised the stakes and revealed their internal conflict. Jack is a third-class citizen in search of a new life; Rose is a high class girl struggling to understand her high-class values, in need of someone to love her the way she is. When these two characters meet, we can truly understand their yearning for a better life and their longing for each other. In Pearl Harbor, the characters played by Affleck and Beckinsale fall in love, but there is a falseness in this, because, in the beginning, Beckinsale's character is arbitrary -- she could be any beautiful girl and it wouldn't matter. Why? *SPOILER ALERT* Because besides for falling in love with a handsome pilot, her character has no strong goal. Her character exists because Bruckheimer wanted her to exist. There is nothing at stake for her until Affleck leaves. "Pearl Harbor" is clearly a film inspired by the sweeping scope and structure of "Titanic," as well the as the chaotic war scenes in Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." Perhaps Bruckheimer believed that, by combining elements from the two films, he would be able to create the ultimate epic. Indeed, the film does have all the conventional elements of a Hollywood epic: a sweeping, romantic score by Hans Zimmer; lush, colorful cinematography; breathtaking action sequences; and beautiful leading actors. All it is missing is a good director, and a soul.