PDA

View Full Version : Pearl Harbor



Exhaust Port
08-05-2002, 01:10 PM
This topic was touched upon in another thread but rather than cludder that up I've created a new thread:


Originally posted by RooJay
I don't recall any of the promotional materials for this movie state that it was anywhere near an attempt at education. In my opinion, Pearl Harbor is simply a major, traumatic event that takes place during this movie (in spite of the title). I don't think it dishonors the memory of anyone involved with the actual event. In fact, I'd hope that it would help raise public interest and cause people to seek out the true story. The movie Tora, Tora, Tora might make for a good starting point for that.

This is my biggest problem with movies like this. Pearl Harbor was about the attack on Pearl Harbor. With that being said, how can someone rewrite it? Change the facts and it's no longer the attack on Pearl Harbor. Why not make a movie about the Doolittle Raid and rename Doolittle? If I had relatives who were participants who were decorated for their actions I wouldn't want a movie to take their story and assign it to some made up character.

Only one American pilot of 7 survived the Battle of Britain. His name was PO J K Haviland of 151 Squadron. No where is his name to be found.


Ok...ok, here's the thing: what I said was that there were only two pilots (I have done a fair amount of research on the subject, and I honestly have never heard of this hird pilot being able to lift off during the attack. Was he already in the air?) that managed to get off the ground DURING the battle. This is absolutely true. The two of them managed to shoot down somewhere between 6 and 8 enemy fighters combined; the actual numbers these two pilots shot down have never been confirmed. I'm sure there were many planes that managed to get off the ground later that day, but there were only two during the battle that managed to lift off. I'm also certain there were other planes already in the air (like the bombers you mentioned, though they didn't arrive until well into the battle, and had very little effect on the battle itself.

Recheck that research. 4 of the total pilots to get off the ground got off during the first wave. Remember their were 2 total that day, 183 Japanese aircraft the first wave and 170 the second. All 4 were in P-36 Hawks. The USAF has an exhibit honoring one of those P-36 pilots, Lt. Phillip Rasmussen, who was given a Silver Star for his actions that day.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey26.htm

Additional pilots got airbourne after the first wave as well as during the second wave including some flying P-40 Warhawks.


Likewise, any other military aircraft that were already airborn; no other type of plane was able to shoot down any enemy craft, and the japanese Zeroes would have flown circles around them.

Not every plane the Japanese flies is a Zero. A majority of the aircraft that day flown by the Japanese were bombers, torpedo and dive bombers. All of those types are poor air-to-air combat aircraft and were fair game for even the aweful American P-36.


23 of the 75 airmen involved in the Doolittle raid recieved Distinguished Flying Crosses. Rather than include those brave men in the movie they've been replaced by fictional characters. Why?

It would be fine to use the attack of Pearl Harbor as a backdrop for a fictional story. Saving Private Ryan used the Normandy Invasion as a backdrop for a fictional story quite successfully in my opionion. Spielberg didn't rewrite the story of known/decorated soldiers to tell his story. If you decide to make a movie about such specific actions in any historical event then you must try to honor those that were involved. Black Hawk Down is a perfect example of translating a historic event to the big screen. Band of Brothers is a perfect example of translating a historic event to the small screen.

QLD
08-05-2002, 01:40 PM
Most of my issues aren't with the historical accuracy really.

My issue is with Jerry Bruckheimer being a sucky sucky director who makes sucky sucky movies.

The retarded love story in that movie made me slap my forehead about 20 times during the movie. And a side story is great, and a nice love story created interest in the characters, but OH MY CHRIST!, there is a frickin' WAR GOING ON! Can I see some of it please?

I would have rather seen a lot more behind the scenes stuff with the president and Dan Ackroyd. I hated almost all of the charcters, especially Alec Baldiwn. "We're gonan bomb it" No, the bomb started a long time ago Alec.

Anyway, I hate this movie ALMOST as much as I hate Armageddon

JON9000
08-05-2002, 02:57 PM
I think Michael Bay was the director and Bruckheimer was the producer. No matter, this was the same team that brought us moronic masterpieces such as The Rock and Armageddon. I just feel like these movies pander. If only David Lean were alive and working. Pearl Harbor should never have been made. It was nothing more than ID4 combined with Titanic. Schlockfests, all.

icatch9
08-05-2002, 03:51 PM
I agree, this is not a very historic rendition of the events. However it does show in good acord what the bombing was like. How taken by surprise the US was, and how brutal the attacks where on the people of Pearl Harbor. The fact may not be exact, and the names are not even close. Still, it's based on actual events and never truely ment to be a fact for fact movie. Torra Torra Torra was and it was a very boreing movie, even for the 70's. They had to make this movie more interesting, becasue the Bombing raid happened on one day and only for a short amount of time (in the grand sceem of a movie). So, it could hardly revolve only around that. They could of just re-made Torra x 3 if they wanted to do that. Clearly this movie was made to be a "blockbuster" movie. So, it had to have that "Hollywood" spin on it. I liked Privit Ryan 10xs better, but Pearl Harbor opened the eyes of many people.

You mention Black Hawk Down, a wounderful movie. Still, not 100% accurate. I know they worked close with people who where there and a lot of what happened, happened in the movie. Still, some things where changed to make it a more interesting movie. War is horrible and hell on earth, but it's not that entertaining. A 100% accurate war movie is called a documentary. These arn't made in Hollywood.

On a side note. My dad has probally seen 95% of all war movies ever. I may be exagerating, but you get the point. Anyway, he told me even befor he saw Pear Harbor, that any time there is a female character in a war movie that is a main character the movie is always bad. This is nothing against women at all, it's against a love story mixed in a war story. Think about it. Privite Ryan = Good movie = no women. Black Hawk Down = Good Movie = no women. Full Metal Jacket = Good Movie = no women. Mevis Belle = Good Movie = no women. Flight of the Intruder = Good Movie = No Women. Pearl Harbo = So-So movie = women.

It's simple. Keep those girls out of the war pictures.

Mandalorian Candidat
08-05-2002, 04:49 PM
Funny that this topic would get posted. I just won the Director's Cut version of PH last week on a radio promo so I watch the whole extended version (3+ hrs.) on Sat. night. I have to say that the whole prestory sucked hard. The only parts I enjoyed were the actual battle scenes because they seemed so real (I've never been in combat before, but those scenes looked like how war might be to me.) and the Dolittle raid portion.

I agree 100% with QLD. I try to avoid anything movie-wise that's produced by Bruckheimer because the pacing is just wacky. I loathed Armageddon and Con Air due to this. I only saw this one because it was free.

I am somewhat sympathetic about the outcome of the movie, aside from the excreble love story, because it's not a typical war movie. You're centering on a battle that didn't last comparitively long and that ended poorly for the good guys. It's tough to make a movie with a positive ending on a subject such as this one.

While I liked the part with the Doolittle raid, it seemed awkward because it was so removed from the Pearl Harbor event. I wish they would have just shown the build up to the attack minus the skirt-chasing and ended with the actual pilots getting their planes off the ground and then shooting down the enemy. There was so much extra that was distracting so I didn't find it to be as good as BHD or SPR.

I hope Bruckheimer sticks to making mindless action crap and stays away from historical events.

QLD
08-05-2002, 05:14 PM
You know what scared the crap out of me this summer?

That Chris Rock and Anthony Hopkins movie.....

In the previews, it says, A Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Schumacher production......

I saw that, and was like.....why don't they just say a Charles Manson and Ted Bundy production, because those guys truly kill movies.

DarthBrandon
08-05-2002, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
You know what scared the crap out of me this summer?

That Chris Rock and Anthony Hopkins movie.....

In the previews, it says, A Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Schumacher production......

I saw that, and was like.....why don't they just say a Charles Manson and Ted Bundy production, because those guys truly kill movies.


If they kill movies, then why do they generate so much money at the box office and on DVD/VHS. The Pearl Harbor that Jerry Bruckheimer made was not meant to be historically correct, it's an action movie, if anybody thought otherwise, then they are gravely mistaken.:)

I agree however that women have no place in war or action movies, the same goes for Titanic, the stupid rushed love story ruined the movie for me, the same way it did Pearl Harbor.

In my opinion the movie should have focused on Pearl, the governments, the war, and the people around the world. I didn't like the fact that they had this very predictable love triangle between those characters. If anything she could have been left out of the movie all together or both friends who were in love with her, could have been decided at the end, when there was one man left standing. Instead of all this mushy stuff, the fighting and bickering between one another, while a war is going on. When one of them dies then the other should have been rewarded with the girl as a replacement for his best friend and to serve as a somewhat happy ending to an unhappy time in history.:)

Jerry Bruckheimer films are just action movies and nothing more, if your looking for something more, then pick another movie like I would. I only watch his types of films when I'm feeling in that mood.:)

JON9000
08-05-2002, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by brandon



If they kill movies, then why do they generate so much money at the box office and on DVD/VHS. The Pearl Harbor that Jerry Bruckheimer made was not meant to be historically correct, it's an action movie, if anybody thought otherwise, then they are gravely mistaken.:)


The problem is that many still remember the attack, the tragic loss of life, and the events it set in motion. To create a lightweight, cheesy, commercial send up of the actual event borders on disrespect for those that lost their lives.

To draw an analogy, would anyone like a movie like this-

some CIA analyst is running around Washington screaming about an impending attack that he picked up over the internet. His cries to the Pentagon go unheeded. Scenes are intercut, some showing Middle Eastern men cursing America and Highjacking the planes, others showing a New York cop and firefighter arguing over some girl. We would get to hear and see the screams of those on board as they realize the impact is coming. Then we would have heroic music playing as our heroes run into the building and save people. The buildings fall, and our heroes put away their differences and join the spec forces to kick some Al-Qaeda butt in Afghanistan. One dies, the other gets the girl.

If any of this sounds darn insensitive, it should. That is basically what happened with the travesty that was Pearl Harbor: A Jerry Bruckheimer Production of a Michael Bay Film. :cry:

QLD
08-05-2002, 06:34 PM
Well, even if I look at it solely as an action movie, it still falls way short of being good. Especially with the screen time devoted to that hokey love story.

As bad as Pearl Harbor was, Armageddon is it's daddy. That movie is truly king turd of poo island.

DarthBrandon
08-05-2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by JON9000


The problem is that many still remember the attack, the tragic loss of life, and the events it set in motion. To create a lightweight, cheesy, commercial send up of the actual event borders on disrespect for those that lost their lives.

To draw an analogy, would anyone like a movie like this-

some CIA analyst is running around Washington screaming about an impending attack that he picked up over the internet. His cries to the Pentagon go unheeded. Scenes are intercut, some showing Middle Eastern men cursing America and Highjacking the planes, others showing a New York cop and firefighter arguing over some girl. We would get to hear and see the screams of those on board as they realize the impact is coming. Then we would have heroic music playing as our heroes run into the building and save people. The buildings fall, and our heroes put away their differences and join the spec forces to kick some Al-Qaeda butt in Afghanistan. One dies, the other gets the girl.

If any of this sounds darn insensitive, it should. That is basically what happened with the travesty that was Pearl Harbor: A Jerry Bruckheimer Production of a Michael Bay Film. :cry:

If you read the entire post then that's basically what I said, to quote just the first part is a bit unfair don't you think. I never took Pearl Harbor as a historically correct film, because it wasn't even close. My point was that people bought into it even though it didnít do anybody that was involved, living or passed on any justice. I never defended him in any way, I only stated something that was true, most of his films are blockbusters, regardless if they are good movies or not. Read the last two parts before you jump down my throat about it. Peace out.:)


Originally posted by Brandon
I agree however that women have no place in war or action movies, the same goes for Titanic, the stupid rushed love story ruined the movie for me, the same way it did Pearl Harbor.

In my opinion the movie should have focused on Pearl, the governments, the war, and the people around the world. I didn't like the fact that they had this very predictable love triangle between those characters. If anything she could have been left out of the movie all together or both friends who were in love with her, could have been decided at the end, when there was one man left standing. Instead of all this mushy stuff, the fighting and bickering between one another, while a war is going on. When one of them dies then the other should have been rewarded with the girl as a replacement for his best friend and to serve as a somewhat happy ending to an unhappy time in history.

Jerry Bruckheimer films are just action movies and nothing more, if your looking for something more, then pick another movie like I would. I only watch his types of films when I'm feeling in that mood.

The in my opinion says it all. :)

JON9000
08-05-2002, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by brandon


If you read the entire post then that's basically what I said, to quote just the first part is a bit unfair don't you think. I never took Pearl Harbor as a historically correct film, because it wasn't even close. My point was that people bought into it even though it didnít do anybody that was involved, living or passed on any justice. I never defended him in any way, I only stated something that was true, most of his films are blockbusters, regardless if they are good movies or not. Read the last two parts before you jump down my throat about it. Peace out.:)



The in my opinion says it all. :)

Didn't mean to misrepresent your opinion with the short quote- I should have stated that I was more or less backing you up. My illustration was meant for those who might be thinking- "hey, what's wrong with making Titanic style drama out of historic events where lots of people die?"

Actually, I think Titanic did go the extra mile in treating those that died with a great deal of dignity- unlike Pearl Harbor!

DarthBrandon
08-05-2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by JON9000


Didn't mean to misrepresent your opinion with the short quote- I should have stated that I was more or less backing you up. My illustration was meant for those who might be thinking- "hey, what's wrong with making Titanic style drama out of historic events where lots of people die?"

Actually, I think Titanic did go the extra mile in treating those that died with a great deal of dignity- unlike Pearl Harbor!

Oops, I got double posted somehow, that's weird. :crazed:

DarthBrandon
08-05-2002, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by JON9000


Didn't mean to misrepresent your opinion with the short quote- I should have stated that I was more or less backing you up. My illustration was meant for those who might be thinking- "hey, what's wrong with making Titanic style drama out of historic events where lots of people die?"

Actually, I think Titanic did go the extra mile in treating those that died with a great deal of dignity- unlike Pearl Harbor!

No problem, I thought Titanic focused too much on the rushed love story, rather than the people on board the ship.

bigbarada
08-05-2002, 10:17 PM
I think Pearl Harbor's major, fatal flaw was that it tried too hard to be just like Titanic.

I don't even know why the Doolittle raid was added to the end. I can't imagine what it must have been like to watch this one in the theaters. I can't even watch it all the way through while sitting in my living room.

However, if anyone just MUST buy this movie for the admittedly awesome special effects, then go out and pick up the R-Rated version. Must more blood, gore, dismemberment, disembowelment and decapitation for your money.:)

DarthBrandon
08-06-2002, 12:05 AM
I only bought the DVD for the battle scenes only and that's it. If anything was close to being accurate it was those scenes.:) I didn't care too much for the Doolittle scenes at all, it kind of dragged on from that part.:zzz:

Exhaust Port
08-06-2002, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by icatch9
I agree, this is not a very historic rendition of the events. However it does show in good acord what the bombing was like. How taken by surprise the US was, and how brutal the attacks where on the people of Pearl Harbor

I agree totally, this is what drew me and many other people to this movie. We were all amazed with the style of Saving Private Ryan that made war so real to us. We hoped that this movie would give us that same insight to the attack of Pearl Harbor. Special Effects have gotten to a point that allows for a large scale recreation of epic events such as this attack. I was impressed with the sweeping images of the Japanese fighters/bombers making their attacks.

Sadly as the attack sequence progressed it seemed to try to "out do" the last scene. By the end of the battle we had fighter planes flying between single story buildings playing chicken with each other in order to destroy the following enemy aircraft. Pa Leaz! It seems every Japanese aircraft was plagued with a weak wing spar and snapped in 2 before striking the ground. Apparently just burning and falling into the sea wasn't an option. I would like to see someone attempt this topic again and get it right.

Mandalorian Candidat, if you have seen the original and now the Director's Cut did you notice any significant changes? I'm just curious what the Director decided to change.

Tycho
12-26-2003, 02:35 PM
Well, Pearl Harbor is one of my favorite movies of all time.

I love the music, so epic, heroic, romantic, yet tragic in the same verse.

I also love the romance in the movie. It gave the characters something to live for: hope.

Before Pearl Harbor, America was not at war. People joined the military for adventure, money for college, a career of honor serving one's country. They did not conceive of being called into duty against Hitler or the Emperor.
They wanted to live out their lives and feel fulfilled:

Rayf wanted to be the best pilot and to have an adventure. He volunteered for the Royal Air Force to defend London for that reason. But before he left he found a new dream he wanted more than anything to fulfill: making a life and love last with Evelyn.

Danny was just finding himself. He wanted to be a great pilot, but I think a large part of what he wanted was for Rayf to be proud of him. They were best friends, and probably close to the same age, but Danny looked up to Rayf as a big brother. He was shy with girls and didn't know for sure what he wanted, but he and Evelyn shared their close bond with Rayf and their hurt from his (presumed) loss.

It gave Rayf a reason to survive his crash off of England.

It gave Danny a cause to keep his new found love, but repair the damage done to his relationship with Rayf.

They had to survive and come together to get through the tragedy of Pearl Harbor.

Their fictional characters made me empathize their dreams with mine. It made me care about them so much, and wonder how things were going to work out if the constant bombardment would ever stop.

As an American, it made me enraged and want to fight as I saw the Japanese strike our hospitals, our fire engines and paramedics who were trying to save lives, as well as shoot up life boats and rescue ships trying to save dying men - and others who were trapped and drowning in ships they were sealed into as watery tombs. When Dorris Miller got a hold of that machine gun and started desperately hammering away at the Japanese planes, I felt elation in the face of horror - and glory as he made his kill. Just as when Danny and Rayf shot down their zeros.

The Doolittle Raid gave me a sense of some revenge, and so helped me find a way to expunge the feeling of hopelessness I felt as our hopsitals and crewman barracks were mercilessly attacked. The Japs didnt' need to blast our hospitals to cripple our Navy's ability to fleet ships. Their cruel attack made me feel Hiroshima and Nakasaki were justified if I just felt with my heart and concerned myself with no further thought into it (and even when I do, I'm pretty sure we were right to drop the bombs - they got civilians, but they did target and hit military installations).

In any case, I watch this film often, and the characters of Raft and Danny remind me of my own friendship with my best pal I've gone on many adventures with. His name's Dan actually, but he'd remind you more of Rayf - the big brother always looking out for you and your partner in crime.

I totally disagree with all of your assessments on women and their romantic roles in war movies. It gives the characters something to return from. Most war movies that don't have that hope, should end like Glory -the heroes dying for their ideals. It's all they have left. I'm also surprised you don't understand this, when Star Wars is heading directly into this pattern with the Anakin - Padme relationship.

If it was not historically patterned, the Baby Boom would never have happened. Think about it logically.

To really empathize with a character and hope they survive, you have to know their dreams and relate to them as well. What does the character want beyond victory? Why have victory in the first place if you don't have dreams about what you'll do with it if you get it?

That's all.

-Tycho

Tycho
08-15-2006, 03:38 AM
I still love this movie and think Kate Beckinsale looks so darn delicious in this film that - Wow!

The dog-fighting scenes were really great too!

CaptainSolo1138
08-15-2006, 07:35 AM
Funny that this thread should get bumped since I was thinking of rewatching it last night. I haven't, but coincidental nonetheless.

It might not be the most historically accurate piece, but it's good entertainment.

Blue2th
08-15-2006, 08:23 AM
I liked this movie alot too, but I think Tora Tora Tora is better for historical accuracy. Hollywood had to jazz up the story to make it watchable these days. Otherwize we may as well have watched TTT. I personally liked the Battle of Britain and Doolittle parts of the movie. Any chance to see those cool warplanes in action. Though some of the planes used were mock-ups (the Zeros, Kates and Vals) or later models because the correct ones don't exist outside of a museum (P-40's) Almost every plane in the movie Pearl Harbor was wrong. Just like it was in that old movie Midway. The general public doesn't know that, and it's ok as long as they get close to being accurate. I love war movies with planes:love:

CaptainSolo1138
08-15-2006, 08:51 AM
Yesterday I was reading about how during the filming of "Saving Private Ryan", no Tiger tanks existed (one has been completely restored since) so they had to use Yugoslavian T34s. The wheel configs are different and without all the add-ons from Dreamworks, it's like comparing a Ferrari and a Ford Focus.

I remember reading a particularly scathing review of Pearl Harbor when it first came out which pointed out that none of the planes were correct and that it detracted from the overall experience.

The last time I checked, nobody had perfected the TIE Fighter.

Rocketboy
08-15-2006, 10:03 AM
I think has 15-20 minutes of awesomeness, surrounded by 2 hours+ of crap.

JimJamBonds
08-15-2006, 10:07 AM
I think has 15-20 minutes of awesomeness, surrounded by 2 hours+ of crap.

Wooo wooo woooooo hold on there, its not as if the filmakers had much material to work with. A sneak attack on Pearl launching America into WWII, is that really enough to make a movie??? I think not! Thus the love triangle. :rolleyes:

Tycho
08-15-2006, 10:35 AM
Well, forgive me for being into the love triangle. For one, I'm way into Kate Beckinsale. For another, hitting on beautiful girls I'd sometimes have less than a prayer's hope of getting is a very familiar past time for me (and sometimes you do succeed). So the love story, and as I said, a reason for the pilots to want to get back alive, fit well into the movie, and that did make it more interesting to me.


Almost every plane in the movie Pearl Harbor was wrong. Just like it was in that old movie Midway. The general public doesn't know that, and it's ok as long as they get close to being accurate. I love war movies with planes:love:

Midway is another movie I'm looking to buy and watch sometime later this week. It was a great film too.

Rocketboy
08-15-2006, 10:35 AM
Wooo wooo woooooo hold on there, its not as if the filmakers had much material to work with. A sneak attack on Pearl launching America into WWII, is that really enough to make a movie??? I think not! I think it could have been. It had the potential to be on the same level as Saving Private Ryan.

Thus the love triangle. :rolleyes:And the love story in Pearl Harbor was almost as bad as AOTC.

Blue2th
08-15-2006, 06:28 PM
Yesterday I was reading about how during the filming of "Saving Private Ryan", no Tiger tanks existed (one has been completely restored since) so they had to use Yugoslavian T34s. The wheel configs are different and without all the add-ons from Dreamworks, it's like comparing a Ferrari and a Ford Focus.

I remember reading a particularly scathing review of Pearl Harbor when it first came out which pointed out that none of the planes were correct and that it detracted from the overall experience.

The last time I checked, nobody had perfected the TIE Fighter.
I was wondering where they got that Tiger Tank! They had alot of cool armor in that town, like the German Rabbit- the motocycle with treads. And that 20 mm cannon they shredded the americans with................ As far as Pearl Harbor is concerned, they got pretty close. I mean there are almost no Japanese aircraft flying from WWII. They used the same aircraft from Tora Tora Tora. These were converted Northrop AT-6's a WWII trainer. Made to look like the Kate Torpedo Bomber, Val Dive Bomber, And of course the Zero. They managed to find two real P-40's which were at PH. Though they were the P-40N instead of the P-40B Tomahawk. The B-25 Bombers for the Doolittle raid were the correct versions. All in all that's pretty damn close.

JimJamBonds
08-15-2006, 11:35 PM
There was talk of making a mini series called "The Pacific War" by El Spielbergo, THanks and many others who helped make Band of Brothers. There was some preproduction work done but it seems the movie is dead.

Tycho
08-15-2006, 11:59 PM
That's too bad. Band of Brothers literally defines the the European Theater of the war more than any other movie or series. A definitive Pacific Theater series would do just as well - cumulating with Hiroshima perhaps.

They need a better title however.

Blue2th
08-16-2006, 12:41 AM
Well, forgive me for being into the love triangle. For one, I'm way into Kate Beckinsale.
I just saw her in Underworld Evolutions. Sweet thing! She does a nude love scene. Tastefully of course. You don't get to see alot of her in that part but still! She can bite me anytime. :love: She's my perfect Vampire, but that's another thread. :grin:

Phantom-like Menace
08-16-2006, 01:19 AM
I was full of anticipation before this movie came out. Braveheart is one of my favorite films, and since Randall Wallace was also writing Pearl Harbor, I figured it would be awesome. Add to that the fact that I love history, especiall WWII, especially the Pacific Theater, and this was supposed to be my movie.

Then I watched the movie.

I can ignore historical inaccuracies. Look at Braveheart. The Battle of Stirling Bridge minus the bridge? Pearl Harbor held no interest for me whatsoever. I'm sure it didn't help that Spielberg had made Saving Private Ryan a couple of years earlier and the beginning of Saving Private Ryan looked like the invasion of Normandy while Pearl Harbor looked like a mere FAA disaster with a bomb falling on U.S.S. Arizona to remind you it was supposed to be the Pearl Harbor attack. I tend to remember Pearl Harbor almost exclusively for four things: Kate Beckinsale, Jaime King, Ewen Bremner, and an odd role by Dan Akroyd, odd because it was completely serious.

Why does Bremner stand out for me? I'm not sure. I tend to think of him at the same time I think of Tommy Flanagan, so it might just be that I'm gravitating toward my Scottish heritage. And I always note when either of them show up unexpectedly in movies, such as Alien Vs. Predator which had both of them. Hmm, and Tommy Flanagan was in Braveheart. My mind must have these two just stuck in some kind of crazy web of connections.

Tycho
08-16-2006, 01:27 AM
The Pearl Harbor attack (in the movie) was not under-done!

They showed the planes riddling the hospital and barracks with bullets, and shooting the rescue workers in the water besides bombing the Navy ships. As an American, that always makes my blood boil and want to grab a gun and fight the Japanese like Dorris Miller did. That scene where he shot down that plane with the machine guns empathizes with all I felt during the attack -and once Danny and Rayf are airborne (and chasing instead of being chased) I cheer! These are heroes.

I'm sorry, I can hear the theme music from the movie in my head as their P-40's chase down their Zeros and force them flaming into the sea.

There is great combat footage in Pearl Harbor.

2-1B
08-17-2006, 12:12 PM
I've still never seen Pearl Harbor in its entirety and I don't plan to any time soon.

Armageddon, however, is still a guilty pleasure of mine. lol Owen Wilson cracks me up. lol lol lol


I agree however that women have no place in war or action movies

Or the newsroom. (Brian Fantana reference from Anchorman :D )