Big and Dumb. But not necessarily fun.

so "Pearl Harbor" is a three hour war epic; the most expensive film ever greenlighted by a studio ever or an ultra-expensive folly from a pair of studio producers/directors so successful, they thought they'd never make a flop, let alone as embarrassing piece of egg on face as this? Both really. But with a reputation as big as this to lose, it had to happen sometime. Every once in a while, the hype machine backfires.

In an obvious attempt to produce something more than their usual lightweight but incredibly predictable, jingoistic pro USA fluff, combined with the best way to maximise their revenue and passage into "serious" movie making ."Pearl Harbor" tries to do this by spotwelding a number of safe and predictable succesful mega-movies in an attempt to make the film all things to all people, but ultimately is an overlong, unsatisfying patchy and poorly paced movie.

Imagine "Titanic" meets "Braveheart" meets "Saving Private Ryan". All of those were critically acclaimed and Oscar nominated or Oscar winning - all where either best picture and best director nominees or winners; it must have seemed like an idea to print money. Then blend in "Starship Troopers", and suck the brains out!

"Pearl Harbor"'s major problem is that it's a two hour movie squeezed into three hours. The script is long and unnecessarily unwieldy, almost replicating the structure of "Titanic" to the last detail; the love triangle between 2 men and a woman, the midpoint intense ship-sinking climax in which thousands die , the sense of inevitability followed by a brief resolution where lovers are reunited.

However, it lacks any emotional empathy for the characters, and whereas "Titanic" had the advantage of coming in the pre-millennial tension, cutting across class boundaries and country divides, "Pearl Harbor" instead isolates anyone who isn't an American jingoist, turns a military defeat into an exhilarating cause for celebration, and then carries on a good hour longer than it should do. And then, there's the threat of a even longer directors cut promised on DVD soon. At least in the US at any rate. With more gore.The fact of the matter is, with some serious editing, this could indeed be much much improved, but as it stands, it's a stinker, a by the numbers formula movie, redeemed only on a technical basis.

Technically and visually, it's a feast. The supporting cast (Dan Ackroyd, Jon Voight) is impeccably cast and portrayed by actors: rather than good looking teenage TV soapstars such as Josh Harnett and Kate Beckinsdale. who aren't so much floundering out of their depth than treading water with concrete boots, simply being unable to hoist the enormity of this movie on their shoulders. Ben Affleck is so out of place, it's almost untrue.

It's a war movie in the way people haven't attempted in a great great many years. It's a love epic, like "Out of Africa", with 40 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" uncermoniously dumped in the middle, and then a brief, unsatisfactory stab at revenge at the end; when its suddenly realised that no way are you gonna make the most expensive movie ever that ends with the US getting profoundly ass kicked by Japan. Its like the first 2 hours of the film are the film proper, and then it seems like its gonna end, it's a set up for the sequel that they realised would never come.Well, that's where the DVD changes over at any rate -In the US at least.

It has to be said; the build up to the actual attack itself is a stunning piece of editing; almost impeccably done, when we're not distracted with a b-movie romance sub-plot. But in reality, its pretty much lifted wholesale from the superior and definitive Pearl Harbor movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!". At least in that one they got the open-bowed design of the Jap carriers right, but In reality it's a war movie with a love story tacked on to make it a chick flick, or a chick flick with a war movie bunged in the middle to satisfy the men. It satisfies no-one.

The attack on "Pearl Harbor" itself is possibly one of the most visceral, yet bloodless cinema war sequences ever. Its stunning in its breadth and its scope; but just when you can't believe what's happening, it cuts away to an irrelevant reaction shot. The money shots have true "f---- me!" potential, but when you're amazed, stunned and shocked by shots of ships blowing apart in graphic and meticulous detail, you're then underwhelmed by the fact that it'll hold your attention for ages longer, rather than the obligatory shot of the cute puppy dog that follows soon afterwards. But It has to be said: the effects here are probably ILM's finest work to date, bordering on photorealism, and you even forget sometimes in the midst of it all, that these are effect, until you see things no camera could do.following a torpedo to impact from behind, the bomb shot that follows a bomb from release to explosion in an armoury, exploding a battleship apart.

And if you want the gory version, go order the directors cut from the US. Here In the UK it's only presented in fragmentory excerpts on disc three as a multi-angle feature.

If nothing else this is a truly epic war movie, hampered by the imitations of the workmen (rather than visionaries) who deigned that hamfisted bludgeoning of the issue and stirring music would be a substitute for substance and depth. Yes, it uses the innovative techniques Spielberg pioneered  years ago in "Saving Private Ryan" to great effect: jerky, handheld camerawork, jump cuts, different film stocks, blurring and distortion of the film, but.as soon as the attack is over, these disappear into a bland, workmanlike unexceptional, unoriginal, derivative and overly ambitious war movie, that mistook its own incompetence for importance, but looks wonderful.  

So close and yet so far far away. 6 months later, the film could have cashed in on the 60th anniversary and the US public would have lapped it up : post september 11th this film would have been the money spinner it so desperately wanted to be all along. But it deserves to be seen on the big screen, because the small screen can't even begin to do this justice.

The Uk has got the short end of the stick here:- There's a 3 disc so-called "Ultimate" edition of the DVD which replicates the first disc of the existing 2 disc set, and then just adds in 2 discs of meticulous bonus features. The actual attack is served from 4 seperate camera angles and 4 seperate commentaries - and then there's half hour long features on cinematography, effects shots, actors boot camp and so forth. But all this could have been happily replaced with a definitive documentary rather than the bite size pieces here.Here in the UK the box set simply replicates the existing cinematic cut here you probably already own rather than the gorier, more explicit and more realistic (yet unreleased outside the USA) Directors cut with its 4 seperate commentaries which is a true lost cause.

Ultimately it's 40 minutes of the best war movie in history, sandwiched inbetween 2 hours of boring, inconsequential love story. However, I still dig the movie, despite all that. Is that so wrong? 

Comments

Written by Guest on 2005-04-12 11:15:18

wtf Written by Guest on 2005-04-21 13:42:00 this is serious pplz i mean this is part of american history im only 17 but its history yeah sure its not fun its boring but shit! this is apart of our past if we dont be carfull "History" will repeat its self

Written by Guest on 2005-05-18 13:56:23 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQuote: haha

Written by markreed on 2005-05-20 10:26:26 I miss you more than they missed the point when they made Pearl harbour...     did you not see Team America?

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 1.0 beta 2!