I have not seen the movie Pearl Harbor since it first came out in theaters back in May. But after a recent experience, I could not help myself from writing a review.
Recently, in my history class, we were discussing about how Hollywood changes events in history to make movies more entertaining and commercial. One person brought up Pearl Harbor, asking if Hollywood messed up the history or not. If I weren't so in control of myself, I would have gone off on that person! I asked him that why should an important and violent event such as the bombing be toned down for a PG-13 rating and why we pay to see a three-hour love story that should have been a war movie. Being in a classroom full of MTV Generation morons who wouldn't know good movie making if it smacked them in the face, I was told by several people to shut up. But whose has the last laugh.
Pearl Harbor, admittedly, is entertaining. But should this awful event in our history be turned into a duel by the visual effects artists for the explosions? Considering the time period this movie was made in and the filmmaking techniques available today, this could have been as realistic and brutal as Saving Private Ryan. Also, since it was unrealistic towards the attack, it defeated another purpose of the producers; to encourage young people to study more about the attack. If that student in my class had read a book on the attack, he might not have asked if the movie was unrealistic. He would have already known.
There are several other problems with the movie. One of the big ones is the reasons why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In the movie, the only reason given was that the U.S cut off fuel supplies and trade. Japan decided to show the U.S not to mess with them. If one were to study up on the attack, they would realize that Japan was invading islands and lands in the pacific. Thus, the fuel that the U.S was providing would have been used for the wrong purposes. The Japanese, who launched the air strike and thus brought the United States into war don't even have a big role in the movie. Even the title place of the movie doesn't have a big part, being only the mere backdrop for two young lovers.
One might call me a hypocrite, for I trash a movie like Pearl Harbor for lack of combat accuracy and praise something like The Longest Day, which has some inaccuracies in its view of the D-Day landings. But one also has to know that these movies were made in two different time periods: The Longest Day came out in 1962, a time when censors had more control over film content and thus wouldn't permit Longest Day's producers to show a bloody D-Day landing (This was also the era of the war epic). Pearl Harbor, however, has been released in a time of more leant censors and could have been the definitive movie of December 7, 1941. Instead, it was only made as the ultimate M.M.M (MoneyMaking Machine). When will Hollywood learn to stop cashing in on the dead?
Recently, in my history class, we were discussing about how Hollywood changes events in history to make movies more entertaining and commercial. One person brought up Pearl Harbor, asking if Hollywood messed up the history or not. If I weren't so in control of myself, I would have gone off on that person! I asked him that why should an important and violent event such as the bombing be toned down for a PG-13 rating and why we pay to see a three-hour love story that should have been a war movie. Being in a classroom full of MTV Generation morons who wouldn't know good movie making if it smacked them in the face, I was told by several people to shut up. But whose has the last laugh.
Pearl Harbor, admittedly, is entertaining. But should this awful event in our history be turned into a duel by the visual effects artists for the explosions? Considering the time period this movie was made in and the filmmaking techniques available today, this could have been as realistic and brutal as Saving Private Ryan. Also, since it was unrealistic towards the attack, it defeated another purpose of the producers; to encourage young people to study more about the attack. If that student in my class had read a book on the attack, he might not have asked if the movie was unrealistic. He would have already known.
There are several other problems with the movie. One of the big ones is the reasons why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In the movie, the only reason given was that the U.S cut off fuel supplies and trade. Japan decided to show the U.S not to mess with them. If one were to study up on the attack, they would realize that Japan was invading islands and lands in the pacific. Thus, the fuel that the U.S was providing would have been used for the wrong purposes. The Japanese, who launched the air strike and thus brought the United States into war don't even have a big role in the movie. Even the title place of the movie doesn't have a big part, being only the mere backdrop for two young lovers.
One might call me a hypocrite, for I trash a movie like Pearl Harbor for lack of combat accuracy and praise something like The Longest Day, which has some inaccuracies in its view of the D-Day landings. But one also has to know that these movies were made in two different time periods: The Longest Day came out in 1962, a time when censors had more control over film content and thus wouldn't permit Longest Day's producers to show a bloody D-Day landing (This was also the era of the war epic). Pearl Harbor, however, has been released in a time of more leant censors and could have been the definitive movie of December 7, 1941. Instead, it was only made as the ultimate M.M.M (MoneyMaking Machine). When will Hollywood learn to stop cashing in on the dead?
