| Pearl Harbor (2 Disc Steelbook Collector's Edition) [2001] | ![Pearl Harbor (2 Disc Steelbook Collector's Edition) [2001]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CA3z7lRmL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Michael Bay
Actors: Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, Jon Voight, Alec Baldwin, Tom Sizemore
Studio: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainm
Category: DVD
List Price: £17.99
Buy New: £7.17
You Save: £10.82 (60%)
Buy New from £7.17
Avg. Customer Rating:   (1 reviews)
Sales Rank: 3759
Format: Pal
Rating: Suitable for 12 years and over
Media: DVD
Running Time: 176 minutes
Number Of Items: 2
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 8717418152239
ASIN: B0015RASZY
Release Date: June 9, 2008
Theatrical Release Date: 2001
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.co.uk
To call Pearl Harbor a throwback to old-time war movies is something of an understatement. Director Michael Bay's epic take on the bombing that brought the United States into World War II hijacks every war movie situation and cliche (some affectionate, some stale) you've ever seen and gives them a shiny, glossy spin until the whole movie practically gleams. Planes glisten, water sparkles, trees beckon--and Bay's re-creation of the bombing itself, a 30-minute sequence that's tightly choreographed and amazingly photographed, sets the action movie bar up quite a few notches. And in updating the classic war film, Bay and screenwriter Randall Wallace (Braveheart) use that old plot standby, the love triangle. This time, it's between two pilots (Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett) and a nurse (Kate Beckinsale) who find themselves stationed at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, during what they thought would be a nice, sunny tour of duty. Then, of course, history intervened. For the first 90 minutes of the movie, Affleck and Beckinsale find a nice, appealing chemistry that plays on his strengths as a movie star and hers as a serious actress--he gives her glamour, she gives him smarts. Their truncated romance--the beginning of which is told in flashback so we can get right to the point where he has to leave her to go to England--works, thanks to their charm. They're no Kate and Leo from Titanic (a strategy the film strives hard toward), but they're pretty darned adorable in their own right. Hartnett, as the not entirely unwelcome third wheel, squints bravely but makes only a slight dent in the film. Everyone else in Pearl Harbor--from Cuba Gooding Jr.'s brave navy seaman to Jon Voight's able impersonation of FDR--is pretty much a glorified walk-on, taking a backseat to the pyrotechnics and action sequences that keep the three-hour film in fairly constant motion. But when that action does take hold, Pearl Harbor is quite a thrilling ride. --Mark Englehart
|
| Customer Reviews:
Watch "Tora! Tora! Tora!" Instead December 4, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I dislike this film considerably, though my own peeves have nothing to do with the acting, the special effects, the set, and so on. I'm basically upset at the simplicity of this film. It asks very few questions about why the attack on Pearl Harbour took place. But Pearl Harbour was the event that drew the United States into the Second World War. It is on a par with Hitler's invasion of Poland, so you'd think that a film with this title would treat the event with the seriousness it deserves. Not so.
Just in case you think my complaints are purely hypothetical, there have been some excellent revisionist histories published in the more than half century since the bombing took place. With the passage of time and the cooling of tempers, legitimate questions have been raised on both sides of the Pacific. Why was the United States so unprepared? Was the military deliberately left uninformed by the U.S. government, in order to draw a hitherto reluctant nation into war? Why do we take it for granted that Hawaii is part of the United States (it wasn't a state until 1959), and what's the Japanese take on that? Could it be that the United States has a history of imperialism just as imperial Japan did?
Basically, I take issue with this film for the same reason that I take issue with 'Titanic' (1997). The romance theme isn't bad, but why have romance at all? Aren't the historical events enough in themselves? Isn't it rather insulting to put a fictional boy-meets-girl romance slap bang in the centre of an affair that affected the lives of thousands, if not millions? What purpose does it serve apart from distracting us from an utterly momentous event? 'Tora! Tora! Tora!' (1970) is an older film, but far more sophisticated in comparison. Thirty years have passed, and I'm left feeling that the opportunity for a deeper, more comprehensive viewing experience has been utterly wasted.
Onto the battle scene. This is spectacular and gripping, and will have everyone on the edge of their seats. But it exists in a total vacuum. We know that it's 'the Japanese' doing it, but they might as well be Martians. Sorry, but I think they deserve much better treatment than this film has afforded them. Why are they doing it? How did they get the idea? How long did it take to plan? What were the precise objectives? For that matter, who are they? What do they believe in? Did any of them have girlfriends and sweethearts waiting for them in Japan? Or is it only Americans who have that privilege?
For anyone who considers that these 'theoretical' questions are asking too much of mainstream, blockbuster-type extravaganzas I refer you to Clint Eastwood's two groundbreaking films, 'Flags of Our Fathers' (2006) and 'Letters from Iwo Jima' (2006), which admittedly focus on a different time and place in the Pacific War but have raised the bar much higher in terms of what we should expect (especially from directors who take on historically sensitive projects). Eastwood's is a less partisan approach, and so refreshing after this saccharine-sweet love fest.
|
|
|
