Pearl Harbour?

-ADREN-

Reviews ... thoughs... any good?

nesf

This morning on my way out, i heard a critic on Today FM actually rip it to little itty bitty pieces. He couldn't decide where to start slaggin' the film off.

Sounds like it's going to be popular in the US

TwoShedsJackson

Seeing as it was filmed at the real Pearl Harbour, apparently there's a glaring error in some shots where an AEGIS Cruiser (a 1980's era vessel) can be seen in the background, complete with Tomahawks, SAMs, 150mm cannons etc.

Not very 1940's

smoke.me.a.kipper

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Seeing as it was filmed at the real Pearl Harbour, apparently there's a glaring error in some shots where an AEGIS Cruiser (a 1980's era vessel) can be seen in the background, complete with Tomahawks, SAMs, 150mm cannons etc.

Not very 1940's </font>

ffs with all the cgi there using in the film you'd think taking out a few ships and planes would be easy. i mean they did it with starwars!

btw, i actually didn't notice them!

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Skorzeny:
Its prolly going to be another "Argh, America is brilliant" film`s, in which the Japanese will be nasty litle sh!ts,
</font>

Hehe.You'd think so wouldn't you? However, we can't forget that the Japanese market is very important to the US film industry, so what you get is a sweetened up fascist Japan .

In one scene,a Jap pilot leans out of his c0ckpit to wave at an american child below him to take cover,as he is about to bomb the sh*t outta the area.Imagine that.Far from being perhaps the cruelest and most sadistic race in times of war we learn they were great humanitarians.So what if they worked thousands of POW's to death,starved many more,and tortured practically every captive they held.Hollywood has decided they were A-ok

Hollywood(and everyone else, Neil Jordan perhaps?),if you can't do history like it was please, don't do it at all.Some chance


[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 31-05-2001).]

Shinji

Aha, so you figure that the fact that the Japanese (like every other side during the war) did some pretty terrible stuff (Nanking et al) means that every single Japanese mothers son involved (Japan had conscription remember) was a complete and utter bástard?

Right. And of course, you're entitled to lecture on historical accuracy... Because the stereotypes are ALWAYS right.

Oh, and the film looks rubbish

Lex_Diamonds

In times of war you can't single out any one side as being barbaric or cruel, after all, what is war if it is not those exact things.

Anyway, its true about those Japanese POW camps
*cough*Men Behind the Sun*cough*

However, japan now rocks as do the people and I want to go NOW NOW NOW!!

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
Aha, so you figure that the fact that the Japanese (like every other side during the war) did some pretty terrible stuff (Nanking et al) means that every single Japanese mothers son involved (Japan had conscription remember) was a complete and utter bástard?
</font>

No side was as bad as the Japanese to prisoners of war,or civilians.Aside from the Nazis towards Jewish or other minorities obviously.Lets be clear on that. Coming from a culture where being captured is viewed as shameful was the main reason for their disgraceful treatment of POW's.Torturing or mistreatment of POW's was pretty much mandatory, so with this in mind is it unreasonable to hope for a typical prediction of a Japanese soldier? Sorry, I don't think so.Contrast this with the Germans in Saving private Ryan, those b*stards! You let them go out of pure kindness and then they come back and kill you! Evil sh*ts.As one film critic put it, it seems the only viable bad guys these days in Hollywood are 'aliens and Nazis'.Was every Jap soldier an evil man? No of course not.I'm well aware of that, but the a-rse kissing towards the Japanese all for profit is sickening. What I'm worried about is that this film will be taken to be gospel by very many kids,leading to a pack of ill-informed, misguided,ignorant little historical revisionists.

Films,whether concerned with purely entertainment or not, should realise and be aware of their responsibilities, IMO.They have a duty to the truth. Maybe I should make a film about an Omagh bomber who was actually a nice guy, who told a mother and child to leave the town centre before a warning was given. A nice slanted view.I'm sure it would be lapped up. Or perhaps Shinj,I could make an equally bizarre movie, concerning a Palestinian who was fit to self-govern?

SickBoy

Bugler seems to have some very good points.

Rapier-q3

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAA
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!`

[Edit]:Broken up so I can read the posts without scrolling - Draco

[This message has been edited by Draco (edited 01-06-2001).]

Shinji

So it's the *responsibility* of film to make out that all the Japanese were evil, then?

Because of course, the Japanese air force men were EXACTLY the same as the prison camp guards. I mean, they're all slitty eyed nutcases waving swords and shouting "Banzai" at the end of the day, right Bugler?

Same as ALL the Germans were evil... And ALL the English soldiers posted over here in 800 years of occupation were evil... And, in fact, every single person in Vietnam was evil, as were all of the millions of people in the Red Army who followed Stalin's orders... And films should bloody well face up to their responsibilities and depict all these people as evil! Because it wouldn't do for kids to have to judge the actions of nations on the actual history, and the characters of men on their own personal actions; that would just be too damned hard.

Don't forget, kids, stereotypes are great!

Victor

When you judge someone, judge them by their peers.

When you judge "Pearl Harbour", be prepared

---

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

1)The film is a piece of Jerry Bruckenheimer SH*T! As are all of his films- makes me ashamed that I share citizenship of a nation with this loser.

2)Shinji and bugler both have valid points. It is worth remembering that several Japanese airmen trained in the West...and thus the concept of the gentleman flyer was very much a part of the Empire's air-force.

3)I think bugler is absolutely right when he points to the profit-making goal of the scene pointed out. It certainly was in aid of profit...certainly not some history revisionist crusade spearheaded by Jerry Bruckenheimer! And any kid who watches this film and takes away a historical message deserves to be brainwashed like the little p3on he is. If the kid's not intelligent enough to realize the film is entertainment, rather than some puritannical historical message, then he will most probably be undergoing brainwashing experiences for the rest of his/her life.

4)I agree with Shinji in that there is no such thing as a nation of evil people, murderers, savages, you name it. The majority of German soldiers weren't fighting for sadistic purposes- they fought because of their duty as soldiers and the feeling they were part of Germany's return to greatness. So was it with Japan- just because the sammurai and kibatsai cultures are alien to us doesn't make them an "evil race".

It is worth noting that the victors write history bugler- I think it more than likely that the "heroic western powers" did more than their best to erase any incidents of compassion on the part of the Japanese from their minds and hence the history books. After all, it makes good political sense...what better way to pidgeon-hole blame?

5) To reiterate- it's a FILM! And a Bruckenheimer one at that...no one's going to cry any tears if a few(ok, most) American kids are brainwashed by the not-so-subtle posturing of Hollywood trash. Only those Americans who have distanced themselves from this apalling Hollywood culture can claim some dignity from all of this (/me winks)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Dago Gracia Regina Fide Defensor=

bugler

Shinji, read my post.

I say

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Was every Jap soldier an evil man? No of course not.I'm well aware of that</font>

Then you come back with

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Same as ALL the Germans were evil... And ALL the English soldiers posted over here in 800 years of occupation were evil... And, in fact, every single person in Vietnam was evil, as were all of the millions of people in the Red Army who followed Stalin's orders... And films should bloody well face up to their responsibilities and depict all these people as evil! </font>

Some disparity there maybe?

You also said

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Because it wouldn't do for kids to have to judge the actions of nations on the actual history, and the characters of men on their own personal actions; that would just be too damned hard.</font>

The only assumption I can draw from this is that you think Pearl Harbour the film is actual history.Well sorry but I disagree.I'd be delighted if kids judged history on actual fact and not films.Are we arguing the same point now? In war TBH I don't see how you can judge individual actions.If you are part of a regime/organisation you must take collective responsibility for its actions.War by definition is too large scale and broad to allow us to judge individual men fairly,thats a hard fact.I think we all know that not all soldiers of a certain malevolent regime were evil.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So it's the *responsibility* of film to make out that all the Japanese were evil, then?</font>

Did I say that? When I speak of film-makers responsibilities I am referring to the fact that alot of young(and not so young) people take alot of what is portrayed to them in media and morph it into truth.I'd say that the mass media has the same responsibility, they must be aware of what they are portraying.There are alot of such peons around Bob, i know from various forums,not least DoD's.Their world war two 'knowledge' was gleaned from SPR alone.

I had more,I lost my post twice while posting tonight . Might have more to add tommorrow.

Skorzeny

Its prolly going to be another "Argh, America is brilliant" film`s, in which the Japanese will be nasty litle sh!ts, and the Americans will be blonde, blue-eyed, Muscle-bound genii(now wot "super-race" does that sound like? ).

OK im done ranting now.

Personally im gonna wait 4 the vid, though the effects might be worth watching

smoke.me.a.kipper

yes, the effects are dazzeling. the story leaves a lot to be desired though. as expected, it's a very, VERY i love jonny USA type of a film..

Swifty

140 fúckin million to make , the effects would want to be good.

-ADREN-

well ill c it today meh self.. Dont know if it will be worth it but any how..

Belisarius

I'll also be going to it tomorrow , it seems however to be like tora tora tora , with the intresting twist that the Japs get theyre Ass "Whooped" to use a indigeonous collequialism , And more girls with tits thier tits out *for the lads ?*

---

Shrewgar!

Winning Hand

I havent seen it nor do I intend to but http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/250090p1.html has a review which points out ommissions which, had they been included would of painted the japanese as less evil than the film portrays.

Roll on Operation:Swordfish

Hobbes

"A two hour movie squeezed into three hours about a fateful day when Japan launced a surprise attack on an American love triangle" (sic)

Magwitch

The origional Pearl Harbour film was excellent, a true historical war movie in the vein of "A Bridge to Far" or "The Desert Fox".

It painted a picture of the Japs that was truer that any current Hollywood hoo-haaa. I will skip the new one, even on video.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

plastic membrane

Gotta say, apart from the 40 minute bit where everything is blown up, most of the film is pants. Not just pants, but soiled yankee undergarments.

But, sucker that i am for a blockbuster, i nearly forgave the tragically bad love story, abominable dialogue, and Ben Afflecks CGI'd jaw just for the "everything blows up" sequence. Great stuff, shame about everything else.

Just don't get me started on Flagwaving and Jingoistic American b ollocks. I'm sick of it...

TwoShedsJackson

Just got back from seeing and frankly it was insultingly bad. I'd say it was abysmal, but that does a disservice to abysmal things everywhere.

Nauseating - the acting was atrocious, Ben Affleck squaring his jaw against adversity and his best mate stealing his gal, appalling script (highlight: 'I'll never look at another sunset without thinking of you', Cuba Gooding Jr. and Alec Baldwin wasted in cameos, and the less said about the scene where FDR gets out of his wheelchair unaided, the better.

The attack sequence on Pearl Harbour was reasonably good, barely enough to rouse me from the near-comatose state I'd been reduced to by the first 90 minutes. Nevertheless it was not as incredible as has been made out - and the tacked on bit where the Americans go back and kick some Nip a$$ was puke-worthy.

An utter waste of four quid and three hours of my life - DO NOT GO AND SEE THIS UTTER $HITE!!!! Satan, thy name is Jerry Bruckheimer.

Paladin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Skorzeny:
Personally im gonna wait 4 the vid, though the effects might be worth watching</font>

HAHA. You watched it with me n dav a few days ago you loser

The film was absolute drivel.
Drivel!!!!
He is the most appallingly "american chick-flick-pandering action film" director I have ever had the misfortune of watching a film of. And I thought Armageddon was bad

I dont know what he is trying to do.
Pander to female audience with the love story.
Pander to the male audience with the action scenes.

In the end its all just a big fu<k up that should be burned.

Shiminay

The afore mentioned bits where all the stuff's getting blown up is worth a look, but there it ends.

Yayyy America!!! U S A! U S A! U S A! and other such tripe was the message I had coming out of the film.

No offence to our American readers, but fluck that!

---

All the best!
Dav
@B^)
We were all set for a game of Ice Hockey when Frank Williams says "Sorry lads, I've forgotten my skates!"
[honey i] violated [the kids]
Tribes 2 Goodness
The Dawn of the Beefy King approaches...

Winning Hand

Actually, Jerry Bruckheimer has a very good tv show on atm called CSI. Its all about forensic science in Las Vegas. Dunno if its out in Ireland but if you get the chance watch it.

---

I like my coffee like I like my women.......
In a plastic cup

I like my coffee like I like my women......
covered in bees

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I refuse to go and see this film.
And not just because Bruckenheimer made it- although that would be reason enough. It trumpets a false message throughout the film- I only need to see the trailer and reviews/interviews to see that.

The convenient rewriting of history also bugs me. Having study US History as a mandatory subject in school, the significance of the Japanese role in Pearl Harbor is brutishly disregarded in this film by all accounts. This sacrilege was confirmed in spades by the huge overplaying of the Dolittle raid- absolutely pathetic.

Tora Tora Tora! is a faaaar better film than this piece of tripe. Better shot, beautifully built up and a US/Japanese coproduction, it truly sends a message across. The message of Pearl Harbor seems to be "Go USA!" and..."The Japs weren't *that* evil in attacking Pearl Harbor...really". The politically correct war-film has arrived- and it sickens me to the core. Just as the Patriot conveniently ignored the position of black slaves, so does Pearl Harbor conveniently ignore the harshness of war on the human soul. All the characters are square-jawed and horribly stereotypical. Their acting is stolid without being inspiring, and the plot...well what plot?

My brother after seeing this film describes it as the worst piece of American film-making since Battlefield Earth- a damning indictment indeed. The best thing you can do for your friends is to warn them off this film like the proverbial plague. I see no message worth describing in it- and a film without a message is no film at all- it becomes a pathetic historical retelling with no substance.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=

Ri-ra

Make Jerry and Michael rich.
Go see the awful dialogue-- it really is funny. Alec Baldwin actually uses the line "look to your left, one of you will not come back" or somesuch nonsense.
Go see the planes that are too small.
Go see a Japanese rear-gunner wave a kid to safety.
Go see the spectacularly awful Kate Beckinsale.
Go see Cuba Gooding give his Oscar (tm, reg., (c)) speech one more time.
Go watch Ben Affleck's career crash and burn.

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">..."The Japs weren't *that* evil in attacking Pearl Harbor...really".</font>

I'll go with that. I'm sorry, but Americans are huge into browbeating about the evil "betrayal" at Pearl Harbour or whatever, and to my mind it's quite thick. It's called war. Pearl Harbour was a military target, and thus a legitimate one for the Japanese. The only real problem with the action, as I see it, was the diplomatic screw-up which led to the declaration of war not being handed to the US government until about an hour after the attack - and you can hardly blame Admiral Yamamoto for that one.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Shinji, I fear you grossly oversimplify the situation. Japan had been sueing for peace over an oil embargo that would certainly have halted their imperialistic plans for conquest. The United States didn't have to oppose the Japanese aggression- in fact, so long as the Japs left the Philippines alone, we probably wouldn't have done. The Japanese chose to secretly prepare for war while diplomatically pretending peace.

Even Hitler was more forthright in his war campaign. War is the product of diplomatic aggression by an extension of political goals by any means. It is incredibly deceitful to pretend non-aggression, and then strike at a target far-removed from Japanese conquest. Ironically, if we were to use your pragmatic reasoning as to tactical targets Shinji- then we could easily justify the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs as tactical strikes aimed at ending a destructive conflict.

For the record, I don't think the bombs should have been dropped, but that sort of pragmatic reasoning in the face of adversity is dangerous. War must be fought by the rules- a declaration of war is made well in advance of military operations- and most such declarations include a hostilities clause- stating a date for hostilities to begin. The pathetically drafted Japanese declaration, improperly formatted and in violation of 3 protocols of the Geneva convention(including a noteable lack of a list of grievances) is hardly an excuse for such a cowardly attack. Now the film may portray this event with sickening sentimentality, but that doesn't take away from the cowardice of the act.

Such deplorable actions certainly weren't limited to the Japanese- we knew they were going to surrender to the Russians before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped. It is widely acknowledged that the bombings were a pre-emptive warning to the Sino-Soviet bloc, and a guarantee of assuring unconditional surrender. Both acts were cowardly- the Japanese one especially so- attacking a nation that isn't at war is hardly something to be proud of. And the pragmatic view taken by some sickens me to the core. Those are the same sort of people who acknowledge the starving Iraqi people as "casualties of Saddam's war".

To throw aside centuries of diplomatic entendre was supremely arrogant, and the following attack cowardly indeed. Fortunately for the free world, the attack's main objective was not accomplished as a matter of chance. Otherwise East and Southeast Asia might very well today still be part of a Imperiofascist empire.

Admiral Yamamoto certainly wasn't at fault- he did his duty to his country by all accounts- but the manner in which it was conducted assuredly meant that Yamamoto knew that a declaration of war would not be submitted by the time of the attack. The Japanese assault was 2 hours behind schedule, and the declaration hadn't even been fully drafted at that stage.

I don't believe in justifying an aggressive act comitted in the absence of a formal declaration of war. It should be as consistently deplored as making war on unwary civilians- they wouldn't have much more of a chance of defending themselves than say, the crew of the USS Alabama.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=