This movie has been thoroughly panned by the critics. I however, did not think it was that bad. In fact, I liked it.
This is not a remake of “Tora! Tora! Tora!” nor does it attempt to be. However, it may be that is suffering from the inevitable comparisons given the subject matter.
“Tora” was a benchmark, for many more reasons than I can go into here. What is important to remember, however, is that it was an examination of the military events leading up to the Japanese bombing of the United States Naval facility. “Tora” is a classic piece of military drama and plays out something like a chess game – back and forth between the Japanese and the Americans – the real question being who knew what when.
“Pearl Harbor” takes a different tact. Yes, there is some of depiction of the American backroom boys trying to figure out what is going on, and the Japanese tacticians at work in the months and days leading up the attack, but this serves as context, not focus. The real story in this film is how the attack affected ordinary, individual people. In order to give a glimpse of the far-reaching ordinary ramifications, one main, and three auxiliary stories are told. The so-called “love story” therefore, does not detract from the “real” story – it is the point.
It was an odd time in American history. Here we have a military that is not yet the machine it would become during and after World War II, but is nonetheless preparing for a war it is officially avoiding. There is a sense of both frustration and apprehension among its members. The movie deals with these in the first hour with the portrayal of the Eagle Squadron – a British airborne unit that was accepting American volunteers. More than a plot device, it gives context to what was happening “half a world away” in Hawaii, as does the depiction of an assignment to Pearl as virtual military R&R with boxing bets and sunburns being the most serious things to worry about.
That being said, I therefore, also have to disagree with assertions that the acting in Pearl Harbor is “mediocre” and the entire film only exists as an excuse to (in the words of one critic) “blow things up real, real good.” What is it about our current attitude that if an actor isn’t chewing up the scenery the performance is mediocre? The film boasts several strong and solid performances, not the least of which is Dan Ackroyd’s Washington advisor becoming convinced of what is happening. He leads a cast of wonderful supporting actors who frame the story of Ralph and Danny, the best friends who’s story this really is, and Evelyn, the Navy nurse they meet in New York before being assigned.
In fact, the only performance I had trouble with was Jon Voight as FDR, and that was mainly an aural issue. Voight does not sound like Roosevelt. Because of the Fireside chats and subsequent portrayals of the wartime president we have a fairly clear sound in our heads of his voice – and like Churchill, it was a defining characteristic. Voight sounded like Voight and I found that vaguely distracting.
Overall, I’m glad I saw Pearl Harbor. It was three hours well spent.
May 30, 2001
Director: Michael Bay
Writer: Randall Wallace
Starring Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale
Classification: AA
Rating: ***1/2