| Product: |
Pearl Harbor (DVD) |
| Date: |
29/04/07 (133 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: It could pass three otherwise very dull hours
Disadvantages: Now let me see....
**WARNING – EXCESSIVELY NEGATIVE OPINION TO FOLLOW – READERS WITH A FLUFFY DISPOSITION MAY BE OFFENDED**
I suspect you may have gathered that I did not like this movie. It was the hype that did it. Any movie that gathers the volume of hype that this movie did will always have an uphill struggle convincing me that it was worth it – and Pearl Harbour simply wasn’t.
The film centres on two American pilots who have been best friends since they were children. The film opens with a brief piece of storytelling that shows the two boys as kids, pretending to be pilots and playing on a farm. (Clue – this is a subtle plot element added in to show that they were born to be super hero airline pilots). Fast forward a few years and we see the two men now enrolled in the air force. The film meanders along for a little while, interspersing the antics of the two chaps and their planes, with the debaucherous tales of army nurses and what they get up to with soldier’s backsides and syringes (ouch). One of the aforementioned pilots falls in love with a nurse, but gets sent off to fight the war in Europe (cue tears and hankie waving). It’s not long before he’s presumed dead, having been shot down over the North Sea and before you know it, his best mate is playing hide the sausage with nursie.
All this love nonsense is balanced with footage of a Japanese admiral planning a cunning attack on the US. He decides that to move things forward a little, the Japanese need to make a devastating strike on the US Navy – and Pearl Harbour is chosen as the target. Japanese tourists in Hawaii gradually provide the intelligence information required to make things happen (they’re like normal Japanese soldiers except they wear shirts with palm trees on), and as the (imaginary) calendar pages peel away, the attack draws closer. Needless to say, the film then portrays the terrible events in computer generated detail – the question is, will our heroes survive?
The main reason that I disliked this film so much was that the tone and content was inherently offensive. The whole story of the events leading up to the Pearl Harbour attack, and the events that subsequently followed, was about so much more than this. I really wasn’t interested in the pathetic love story that was draped round the rest of the plot like a limpet on a rock. The characters were two-dimensional stereotypes, who added nothing to the story, and took away so much. I have never really understood the obsession that Hollywood film-makers have with turning tragic events into romantic films, but I really think they over stepped the mark here. The film has a running time of 3 hours – at least half of which deals almost exclusively with the love theme. The Titanic did much the same thing – but the story of The Titanic is not fraught with the political implications that the Pearl Harbour incident was. The film even plays the race card, showing a black kitchen officer who summons all his inner courage and mans one of the machine gun turrets. It’s US jingoism at it’s absolute worst – its has nothing to do with racial equality and everything to do with making the Americans look great.
The film is also a terrible anti-climax. After the bombing of the harbour, there is a further sixty minutes running time, showing a “revenge” mission being undertaken by the air force. This is clumsily put together for no apparent reason other than to satisfy the obvious requirement for the American audience to see retribution. The mission is relatively uninspiring – but what about the events that took place thereafter? Amazingly, there is absolutely no mention of the US atom bomb attacks that shortly followed. Pearl Harbour was about something that was so much more relevant to twentieth century history than the finished product suggested – and the film makers should be utterly ashamed.
I am not an expert on history, and would be unable to comment on how realistically this film portrayed the events of the Pearl Harbour attack, but (pilots and naughty nursie aside) I have been led to believe that the film sticks closely to historical fact. I was quite intrigued at the film-makers’ portrayal of the Japanese naval commanders. At the time of the film’s release, there was great controversy in the States, as it was thought that the film would stir up great anti-Japanese feeling. I do not believe this could have been the case – the Japanese officer who masterminds the whole mission is portrayed as a troubled man – a man with honour and conscience who realises that what he is about to execute may not be “right”.
Technically, the film is very competent. The film advertises itself as visually breathtaking – a claim which the film’s producers can justifiably make. The sequences involving the torpedoes being launched, bombs being dropped and planes launching the attack are all extremely well put together. Nonetheless, the chaos of the events is such that the whole spectacle becomes something of an assault on the senses – the viewer doesn’t know where to look or what to listen to next – and I couldn’t help thinking that this was deliberate on the part of the makers. I’ve no doubt that if I were to concentrate on one ship, or one specific plane’s movements, I may not be quite so impressed with things.
The film’s next biggest fault relates to it’s casting. This film was an unashamed attempt to rake in the cash – and therefore relies heavily on its heart-throb leading stars. As you are most probably aware the two male leads are played by Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett – both very popular with female cinema audiences world wide. The overall story line might not appeal to a female audience – but throw in the promise of a look at Affleck’s arse cheeks, and they’ll be queuing round the streets. Such a commercial move is not without its pitfalls though – neither Affleck nor Hartnett are the accomplished actors that these roles would perhaps require. In fact, their on screen chemistry is such that I was continually waiting for them to make a move on each other. They both appear awkward and clumsy on screen – and Hartnett simply isn’t mature enough to carry such a leading role.
The supporting cast offers very little actual support. Cuba Gooding Jnr plays the racially suppressed kitchen worker. I’ve yet to see what the appeal is with this guy – but he has cornered the market in playing repressed characters. Alas, in Pearl Harbour he is little more than an afterthought – although probably rightfully so. Kate Beckinsale plays the lead nurse (and sex kitten). I normally like Kate – in this she’s not bad – she’s just not that good either, and in true Hollywood fashion, during the film’s climax her make-up remains untouched, despite everyone else around her looking suitably trashed. Alec Baldwin plays himself (nothing new there) and was a likeable as ever (i.e. not at all, even if he were the last man on Earth).
I’m afraid I struggled to find anything to like about this film – I only sat through the whole three hours to prove that it didn’t get any better. There was nothing corny or poorly constructed about this film – it was simply the case that the whole production was utterly mis-directed and put together blatantly to try and get a slice of the cash that The Titanic attracted. I strongly suggest saving your cash and not renting this release on video or DVD. Wait until it comes onto the telly – and then cringe in the relative comfort of knowing that you didn’t pay £3.00 to have your intelligence insulted.
Not recommended.
Summary: Affleck's arse checks do not a good film make
|
|
