Pearl Harbor Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 13369.15 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x296 | 1904.43 MiB | hidivx | |
|
672x272 | 1399.32 MiB | divx | |
|
480x194 | 809.11 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x132 | 408.6 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
December 7, 1941 - It Was A Sunday Morning...
December 7, 1941 - A Surprise Attack That Changed Their Lives Forever
It was the end of innocence, and the dawn of a nation's greatest glory.
December 7, 1941 - A day that shall live in infamy
Experience the event that changed the world.
Man the Guns - Join the Fight[WWII Retro Poster]
Nurses Are Needed Now! To Have and to Hold![WWII Retro Poster]
Victory[WWII Retro Poster]
Buy War Bonds - Keep him flying![WWII Retro Poster]
December 7, 1941 The day America stood still!
The above summaries do a great job of describing the dynamics of the love triangle that develops between the two pilots that fall in love with the same nurse. The movie also does a credible job of displaying the war from the American side with FDR and our side. It also shows the strategy of Japan as they plan for and execute all facets of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While all details may not be historically correct, I believe that they do the job well - all things considered. Historic events that were altered were probably done so in an attempt to also make this movie the entertaining epic that it is.
| Ben Affleck | Capt. Rafe McCawley |
| Kate Beckinsale | Nurse Lt. Evelyn Johnson |
| Tom Sizemore | Sgt. Earl Sistern |
| Josh Hartnett | Capt. Danny Walker |
| Cuba Gooding Jr. | Petty Officer Doris Miller |
| Jon Voight | President Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
| Alec Baldwin | Lt. Col. James Doolittle |
| William Lee Scott | Lt. Billy Thompson |
| Greg Zola | Lt. Anthony Fusco |
| Ewen Bremner | Lt. Red Winkle |
| Jaime King | Nurse Betty Bayer |
| Catherine Kellner | Nurse Barbara |
| Jennifer Garner | Nurse Sandra |
| Sara Rue | Nurse Martha |
| Michael Shannon | Lt. Gooz Wood |
| Michael Bay |
5.30 out of 10 (52048 votes)
Visitor Reviews
a waste of money
posted on 28 Aug 2009If you want to see a movie about the attack on Pearl Harbour, then go see "Tora! Tora! Tora!". If you want a stupid action movie pretending to be a war movie then give this one a try.With that kind of budget it should have been a great movie, to bad that it has proved countless of times that big budget means mediocricy in every aspect other than the audiovisual part. The reason is simple, a REAL war movie will have a much smaller audience and probably have stayed in the reds forever. Therefore they make a mess of a movie that is part romantic drama, part history lesson(not really), part action and above all an ultrapatriotic piece of technological terror. Doing that they have ensured a very large audience(particulary in the US), but the quality is bond to be so-so. This was also done with "Enemy at the Gates", a movie that was far superior to this one but still lacking simply because it tried to hard to get a big audience.As a war movie it's quite bad. One of the problem with this movie is that it's way to "arcade", particulary the scene where our two heroes decides to play chicken with the japanese Zero fighters. The creators decided to make things look cool instead of making it look realistic. This may work in an actionmovie, but it just look plain silly in a war movie. In effect it has little touch with reality.I hope that the next time they spend so much money on a war movie they make it a WAR MOVIE(a movie like "Das Boot" or "Talvisota"), not a mess describing how the good old US of A won the war. 4 out of 10.
you'd better study the Pearl Harbor tragedy in history books!
posted on 28 Aug 2009Made by the same crew that delivered us "Armageddon" (1998), "Pearl Harbor" is a much less stupid movie than its predecessor and a more ambitious one. You find the actor Ben Affleck in both movies but he's better in "Pearl Harbor" than in "Armageddon" because he manages to avoid third-rate acting. It isn't sufficient enough to make "Pearl Harbor" one of the finest movies made in 2001 because Michael Bay's movie contains a quite important number of faults. Michael Bay wanted obviously to give to his movie a Hollywood extent and as a consequence it makes the film uninteresting. Moreover this is an unoriginal film because it borrows several sequences or ideas from other movies. For example, as it was the case with "Titanic" (1997), Bay chose to shoot the Pearl Harbor tragedy through the love affair between Kate Beckinsale and Josh Hartnett but this couple can't make the couple DiCaprio-Winslet forget. In short, this device appears colorless.But the Hollywood side of the movie can be seen at the special effects level. The action sequences are certainly impressive but they are crushed by special effects (when Affleck and Hartnett pilot fighter planes against Japanese pilots, you feel that you are inside a video game!).From a historical point of view, the movie only suggests an academic vision of the Pearl Harbor tragedy and we learn nothing new.Nevertheless when the film focuses on the very moving hospital sequences, Michael Bay knows how to create emotion.At the end, the whole gives a heterogeneous, shaky and conventional movie.
My comments will help you want to see the movie Pearl Harbor and will not give away anything.
posted on 22 Aug 2009Pearl Harbor was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. It was so much better than the movie Titanic. Pearl Harbor has taken the place of my first favorite movie. I love the way that Ben and Josh look through out the movie. Cuba is also cute in his role. You will love the action of this movie no matter who you are. The movie does not seem like it is 3 hours long. You are on the edge of your seat the whole movie trying to figure out what will happen next. I thought it only felt like a normal 2 hour movie. You will not be upset to see this movie whether you like Ben, Josh, and Cuba or if you actually love the story. I highly recommend this movie. If I could rate it on a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate this movie as an 10. You should go and see this movie this summer.
Focuses on boring subplot rather than history
posted on 22 Aug 2009"Pearl Harbor" employs a feeble and woeful attempt to duplicate the success formula of "Titanic," relating a historic event through a fictional love story. It doesn't work this time.Instead of showing the events leading up to and including the "Day of Infamy," we are instead burdened with a tedious, dry, contrived, and totally irrelevant love triangle plot device. This painful and insulting attempt to cash in on the Rose & Jack story from "Titanic" is a poor focus for the film, and fails for the following three reasons (there are more, but it would make this review too long).To begin with, the PH triangle characters do not serve as a link to the tragedy they witnessed, as Rose did. Her eyewitness account of the calamity provides an empathic link to the people who perished that horrible night in 1912. She makes them human and real, people we can care about. The three in PH provide no such connection nor insight, whatsoever. They appear to exist for nothing else than window dressing and schmaltz.Second, the obvious absence of any chemistry between them is at times tediously boring, at other times excruciatingly irritating. The dialog is trite and utterly beyond belief. Never does it touch you emotionally in the slightest.Finally, the story of the Japanese attack on Dec. 7, 1941 is best told as a documentary, because of the great amount of historic information it encompasses. Approaching it as a romantic drama focuses on the fictional story, rather than the actual history. It becomes a device to tweak tears and exploit them for box office dollar signs, rather than to give dignity to those that lost their lives that fateful day.The depiction of the actual attack itself was the one sequence deserving a complement in this movie. Perhaps it works because it was the only time the actual event was addressed. Special effects, stunts, action, and story were well coordinated and utilized to precision. Scenes of futile escape/rescue attempts are eloquent, even frightening.But then they boomerang right back to that pointless triangle, which either has you sleeping or yelling at the screen by this time. Tacked on to the story is an American retaliatory air-raid (which occurred much later), included for reasons only the writer and director know. A much better movie depicting the attack on Pearl Harbor is the docu-drama "Tora! Tora! Tora!" It clearly and concisely portrays the events leading up to and including the attack, told from the perspective of many witnesses, both American and Japanese. If you're interested in this event, rent that movie. Ignore the movie that offensively represents itself as "Pearl Harbor."
What a rubbish film
posted on 20 Aug 2009Quite frankly the worst film ever made. I would have been ashamed to have been associated with the film, let alone starred in it. 3 and a half hours of drivel. I've seen porn films with better scripts, the acting was wooden and you so easily lose the will to live while watching this. Avoid at all costs. Although, on the plus side, it did cure my insomnia.
A beautifull performance of one of the biggest things in the american history
posted on 20 Aug 2009I was sitting all alone on my room. Turned on the television, switched it to the videochannel and started the video. What did I expect from the movie? Well I can't really recal but I knew it was going to be a beautiful movie.The movie was boring at some points but that's okay. I think that the actors Josh, Ben, Kate, Alec and the others put down an excellent performence and really got you involved in the story. And i have to admit I have never ever cried so much while watching a movie.I you're planning on watching the movie. Sit down and relax with a bag of chips. One thing if you don't have any patience keep the remote control in your hand and keep your finger on the fast forward button.Oh another thing I did love pearl harbor and it's my favourite movie.
Yes, they're heroes....WE GET IT! But...Rafe?????
posted on 20 Aug 20092 June 2001Before I start complaining, I will say I didn't think it was a waste of time or money. I was entertained, though not "moved," and staring at Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett for three hours was not at all difficult! Josh Hartnett was new to me, and I think he did a great job in this film. But, this movie had some serious writing flaws. First of all, they broke a major rule in writing, "Show, don't tell." If one more character broke into a speech about what heroes and all-around good guys these people were, I would have run screaming from the theater. I KNOW they're heroes, I want to see them BE heroes, I don't want a bunch of other characters TELLING me they are heroes. Good grief. Another flaw in writing was to give the main character the soap opera name of "Rafe." Now, if there really WAS a Rafe McCawley who was a fighter pilot in this war, then I will take this back. But, assuming it is just an attempt to make Ben Affleck's character more of a "larger than life" hero, it was a poor choice. It was distracting, melodramatic, and unbelievable. They should have just named him Ben. Or, if they want a good macho-yet-normal-type name, how about...Pete Mitchell? After all, they took enough other points of this story from "Top Gun." About 15 or 20 minutes into the movie, there is a scene that had me biting my tongue so I wouldn't yell out "MAAAVVERICK!!!" And Alec Baldwin played Doolittle as if he had studied for the part by watching Tom Skerritt in "Top Gun." Some of his "these guys are heroes" speeches were the hardest to sit through without snickering. I was really hoping he would have instead broken into his "I AM God" speech from "Malice." Another writing weak point was the development of Kate Beckinsale's character. I liked her Evelyn much better than her "Emma," but Evelyn was a cliché. You could hear the writers saying, "Okay, we have lots of pretty girls in this movie, but we need to show that Evelyn is a cut above the rest. Hmmmm...." and so they use all the usual tricks, making her speak in a more cultivated voice, not making her boy-crazy, and making her be the only one who knew how to take any initiative under crisis. Roger Ebert has already given a good critique of her cheesy speeches, so I'll leave that out. Cuba Gooding, Jr., had a good role but again, too many speeches on heroism, and not enough screen time in general. Much like "Armageddon," the special effects were wonderful but the writing wasn't given nearly enough effort or attention. The ending is predictably convenient, or conveniently predictable. Take your pick.To summarize, although the acting was decent enough, the writing was not. I felt detached emotionally from the whole film, and sat there looking around the theater at other women my age who were crying, and I was quite surprised and a bit disappointed. I think if the movie HAD been more realistic and based on historical fact, it would have moved me a lot more, just like the real stories of the Titanic disaster affect me much more than "Jack and Rose" did. Instead of reflecting on the tragedy of the real Pearl Harbor, I found myself wishing I was sitting between Crow and Tom Servo from "MST3K." We'd have a great time picking on this one.
Don't go theatre for this one..
posted on 18 Aug 2009Well... I am not a type of person like to make comments on movies.But I DO NOT want you waste money and 3 hours for this highly advertised one.Before I went for this movie, I expected a typical blockbuster but I did not expect such a Total Nightmare. Simply, nothing seems to workin this movie. Simple and boring plot took away expectation my friends and I had. There is no intensity in the fighting scenes and main characters act as they never read their scripts before. Film maker spends too much money to make an uninteresting love story (some children may like it!) with VERY LONG TEDIOUS action. See other Interesting movies. I can say that ANY MOVIE playing at a theatre is way better than this cheesy love story...
Can't get much better than this...
posted on 18 Aug 2009Fantastic movie... historically close enough, too...There wasn't a dry eye in the theatre and this wasn't only because of the events depicting the attrocities performed by man in his 'fight for survial'... The actors were superb... Congratulations guys and gals...Ben Aflick had the women salivating... he wasn't an eyesore to me either... he outdid himself, his acting was great!If this is your regular Hollywood consumer trash then give me heaps more of it and that's coming from a woman who speaks 3 languages, teaches 2 of them and has an I.Q. of 180... Regardless of what many film critics may say, the film was worth seeing and then some... most 'Quality film' critics usually don't generally know what they're talking about anyway. They seem to think that behaving like overeducated English butlers makes their opinions valid and everything is hunky dory... but we the illiterate masses beg to differ, hey?Way to go Ben... all the best for the future...
a historical turkey
posted on 18 Aug 2009OK, just to start with: I am not going to count all the "events" in this movie which are historically wrong. Otherwise this review would go on forever. I am just going to say this: If you already have only a little knowledge about World War Two, you will notice that the movie "Pearl Harbor" doesn't isn't about World War Two. It's just another dumb, boring and overlong Hollywood action blockbuster.The filmmakers took basically the same plot as Cameron's "Titanic" and tried to make it look like "Saving Private Ryan": Starting with an uninteresting cheesy love story and showing off with lots of loud special effects, this junk just wouldn't end. How long was this movie, 3 hours? Seemed more like 7 hours to me.What a turkey!
Awful
posted on 18 Aug 2009This movie has as much to do with the attack Pearl Harbor and the raid on Tokyo as When Harry met Sally. The love story is not uneven, but is drowned in totally irrelevant scenes and branding of the American flag which in places makes this the most longwinded movie I have ever had to suffer through. And the achievements of the fighting men is mocked so terribly by falsification and stupid nationalistic arrogance that it can only compare to propaganda from Stalinist Soviet. What a way to treat the memory of that horrible event. Sad, is what it is.
Reasons why this film got criticized so much.
posted on 16 Aug 2009Why is this film so widely criticized? Here are the reasons I gathered. --May contain Spoilers --1. Too typical "Super Hero" type American action movie for a movie that's supposed to be serious and realistic. Even the main characters are fictional characters, they shouldn't be almost invincible. Too many examples, here are some of them. Rake didn't die or seriously injured crashing his fighter into the English Channel. With Danny, in Pearl Harbor, sitting in the convertible car while rushing to the air field, was direct hit by gun fire from Zeros, yet both guys were unscratched. Even the 7.62mm gun from Zeros can penetrate that car, not to mention if they ever used the 20mm cannon. In the air field, while scores of armies and pilots were shot dead by Zero's strafing bullets, these two guys were completely unharmed so were some of their buddies. During the "dog fight", they were flying way too dangerously low to the ground and close to buildings. One shot showing the fighter going through a tight alley between two buildings diagonally, impossible! At the end of the dog fights, they must have been dead exhausted from all the running around and flying, yet they can still give blood, and later assist on rescue of the capsized ship. At the end of the Doolittle Raid, they're out of fuel and ditching their planes, while Rake's crash landing was sort of realistic, the way Danny's plane crashed and impacted on the ground would no doubt be killing all on board. From the remains of Danny's plane they're showing, there was no way that anyone in that plane can still be in one piece. Yet Gooz and Danny were still alive, aside from moderate injuries.2. Too much historical, factual and technical errors, so much that you can call the producers insincere for making such a high budget film, which the primary purpose is to depict an important historical event, i.e. it's title "Pearl Harbor". The Goof list is a long one here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/goofs . The inconsistency of the positions of the battle ships during the battle scenes are completely unacceptable, since that's the most important aspect of the attack. It's an eye sore to see obviously modern Naval warships in the harbor, including 3 pack together side by side, being used as WWII warships that were blown up during the attack. If they're using CGI effects for recreating the battle ships, why not alter these to at least make them look more historically correct for WWII era type ships. Saving budget, no time, or just laziness? Same for the aircraft carriers, obviously are modern carriers, with the two rectangular protrusions in the front of fly deck, which are part of the steam catapult system for modern jet fighters! During the take off sequence of the Japanese planes from their carrier, a fly by showing an even more ridiculous sight -- an aircraft carrier having airplanes take off in the tail end of the ship (you can see the catapult in the front, while planes take off from the other end), completely in the wrong direction! No one, not even for WWII carriers, that you take off from the tail of the carrier, LOL! This is unforgivable mistake, but again it's so easy to correct with their CGI animation. I don't know if these lack of attentions to details are due to the fact that the director "Michael Bay (himself were trying to) quit the movie project four times over various disputes" (from IMDb Trivia of this film).3. This movie is no doubt trying to pack too much stuffs into one film. Romantic stories, jam packed with historical facts / events / speeches, which some of these are just brief add-ins, like all the Japanese planning scenes are no more than 5 minutes combined. Jam packed with tons super action heroes stuffs, and of course all the CGI / explosives special effects, which is the main selling point of this movie. Pearl Harbor not only, but also battle of Britain, Doolittle's Raid, and a bit of close quarter combat with Japs. Too much! Sometimes, trying to do too much can be a very bad thing. And this movie shows.It's OK to have some romance and hot chicks. It's OK to add a bit of fiction to a historical story. But it's not good if you're trying to do too much, with sacrifice to quality / details, and add in too much cheesy actions and dialogs. Especially, when you have a forerunner film like Tora Tora Tora to compare with, this film is simply inferior without compare.This film do worth 5 points though, for its stunning color and picture quality, beautiful ladies, and at least for the effort of filming such complex project and coordinating those dangerous stunts. And this movie did provide additional critical details, that Tora Tora Tora had missed, such as the wooden piece that makes the torpedo able to be used in shallow water, and the Japanese spy activities in the area.
Weak Attempt at Honor
posted on 14 Aug 2009This movie didn't start out with a whole lot of promise, but it was enough to keep my interest. It focuses mainly on being a love story and that is fine. I really enjoyed when one of our heroes went off to England to volunteer for the Eagle Squadron. I very much enjoyed the old dog fights over the English Channel. After some time our location becomes Pearl Harbor and we have the other hero falling in love with the girl after he assumes his friend is dead. This film also deems it necessary to say that the only reason Japan attacked the U.S. was to get more oil. As if when 3000 people are killed we will gladly just hand it over. I was also surprised to learn that Yamamoto's hands were tied when it came to the attack. If there were only some way to get the precious oil without bombing the ships, hospitals, and strafing the men on the water with machine gun fire. I must also ask where the Japanese/American calendar was purchased that was on the Japanese carrier. But these are small historic details that I must not be too picky about. The last hour of the movie is what really ruined it for me. It was way too long and boring. There must have been a better way to wrap up the story than dragging the movie out for another hour. Too much was made out of Doolittle's raid and the story did not focus on the love that had built at the beginning. Good acting by Dan Aykroyd, Ben Affleck, and the best performance belongs to Jon Voight. Overall, this movie was not terrible but it did not deserve to have a long, meaningless ending that did not fit the frame of the rest of the film. 4/10.
Sappy love story wrecks this movie!
posted on 12 Aug 2009I just saw Pearl Harbor and I have to say that I was extremely disappointed in what I saw! Though I have to admit that the special effects in the battle scene were stunning, it did little to compensate for the great disrespect it gave to the battle at Pearl Harbor.Pearl Harbor is one of those topics which deserves reverent care when the storyline is drawn up. For example, in the film Saving Private Ryan, all attempts are made to present war and the battle on D-Day in a realistic, true-to-history way without all the flowery Hollywood glamour all-too-often seen in war films. Where the film Pearl Harbor went wrong was when it presented a grave battle in American history as an interruption to a cheesy romance.I love Ben Affleck and Cuba Gooding Jr. and all the other cameo actors, and under another director, they would have probably given award-winning performances. But it is hard to get past a script laden with cliche lines which make you nausious by the 2 hour mark.I rated this film as a 3 on the IMDB voting scale. It would have been a 1 if not for the amazing effects during the battle scenes. In my opinion, this movie is a complete waste of time for any real movie lover, and especially for those into war films like myself. This is just another American John Wayne interpretation of history.
Insulting
posted on 04 Aug 2009It seems to me that Bruchheimer must have said something like this to himself: "People who see movies today are stupid, so just stick some stuff that worked in other movies in there. Who cares if it fits together. Who cares if the story is developed. Who cares if it's been seen a hundred times before. Who cares if we have to ram an emotion down the audience throat. The audience is stupid, and they won't catch on." I'm too frustrated to even write a review here! Rather than spend an hour or so collecting my thoughts on the film's empty love story (it's as if it was written with a "Movie Love Story Ad-Lib" with the appropriate names filled in the blanks), it's absolutely comical patriotism (I was waiting for someone to scream "I just baked an apple pie! I have to save the apple pie!!"), its unsympathetic heroes (that you all but forget about once stuff finally starts blowing up), the plot's lack of structure (it can't even figure out how to finally end), and the fact that what we actually see is nothing more that a disjointed jumble of scenes, lines, and even specific shots stolen from war and disaster films before it, I'm just going to attempt to convey the one emotion this film succeeded in making me feel--insulted! I don't know if I have ever seen a cheesier, more heavy handed film--at least not one that pretends to be some sort of epic. Why do we, as a film audience, have to tolerate this annual Bruchheimer summer garbage?
Excellent movie
posted on 04 Aug 2009I first hesitated very much to go and see this film, because of all the bad reviews I had read about it. The movie was described as stupid, boring and too long. But the action sequences were said to be great, so I decided at last to go and see it. Boy, am I glad I did! I think it is a great movie, not only for the spectacular action, but for the movie as a whole. The story is much like that of Titanic, a love story for about the first hour and a disaster for the next two hours. So-called "experts" have said that the love story of Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the actual Japanese attack and that the love story was therefore obsolete. But what had the love story between Rose and Jack in Titanic had to do with the sinking of the ship? And what did the love story between Scarlet O'Hara and Rhett Butler had to do with the American Civil War in Gone With The Wind? The Japanese in this movie are not depicted as cruel savages, who have great pleasure in killing Americans, but as people who think what they do is best for their country, and didn't want to go into war in the first place.This movie has comical moments, spectacular moments, impressive moments and touching moments, in other words, this movie has it all.If you haven't seen this movie yet, then do not listen to whining movie critics, but run to your local cinema or videostore and rent it, because this is a must-see movie.
This movie breeds hate.
posted on 31 Jul 2009A fascistoid, pretentious, cheesy republican movie. Big budget, nice FXs as usual.And also as usual, a dumb, shallow story. the only (sad) innovation is the message full of hate it contains. The actors do what they can with a terrible script (the lines are laughable at!), their best choice would have been not to work in such shameful production, but for sure they were very well paid. "Pearl Harbor" has achieved to be even worst that Titanic.Congratulations!
Bad Critics
posted on 31 Jul 2009I live in Louisville and my family just went and saw Pearl Harbor. I come from a family that has/had members in the Military (My Father was in the USNR). I was disgusted when I saw the Courier-Journals Rating for Pearl Harbor (2 1/2 stars). This movie did capture what happened there from what I've seen through documentaries and photos. It was an excellent movie not deserving of its rating.
Good overview
posted on 31 Jul 2009Don't expect a documentary - This is the Cliff Notes version with an embellishment (love story) to make it interesting. From what I know of history, the film portrayed the big points well. For example, there was radar at Pearl Harbor before the bombing, and they did see something coming, but they didn't know what to make of it - since radar was new. The 45 minutes of bombing about which Ebert complained served to convey the devastation and helplessness of the Americans - and the aftermath, if anything, was prettied up a bit for the movie but still very convincing.
Doomed to repeat it...
posted on 30 Aug 2009To paraphrase, "Those who have not seen good WWII movies, are doomed to remake them". And worse, others, who have even less knowledge of WWII, history or even good WWII movies, will come and watch them. I gave this my lowest score ever to a movie because it could have been an important film. It was not even an entertaining film, and certainly not a well made film. There are dozens of truly fine films on this very subject, most of them well written, acted, directed and some of them, truly memorable and even great, by most critical standards. If there is any positive statement that I could make about any aspect of "Pearl Harbor" it would be that perhaps it might introduce an element of history about which some very young or uneducated viewers might not have known. Hopefully, once introduced to the concept of WWII as actual history, it might engage some to learn more. There are many WWII films, made either during that time or contemporary that put this movie to shame, as if it shouldn't be ashamed of itself already for countless reasons, among which might be writing, directing, special effects, continuity, casting, acting and writhing PC, just to name a few. That is all that I have to say about "Pearl Harbor" (the movie).