I'm certainly glad it's not my responsibility to make picky people happy.
Wait a second, that *IS* my job.
Crap.
Scratch that, what I meant to say is, that I'm certainly glad it's not my job to please a hungry crowd of people eager to lay down money on a blockbuster movie. People are funny, and who the hell knows what will please them anymore. This thought nagged me throughout all three hours of the Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay World War II epic, "Pearl Harbor". I mean, Pauly Shore's first film was received well enough for producers to give the green light on a second Pauly Shore film, which led to a third film, and then to a fourth, and so on, and so on, not to mention that Jean-Claude Van Damme keeps getting work, yet critics and movie-goers alike all pretty much dumped on "Pearl Harbor" as one of the biggest duds of the year.
Well first off, don't listen to what critics have to say. No, none of them. Not even me. With that said, keep reading....
As for the movie-goers, well they vote with their dollars, so I suppose we must listen to what they have to say, even though they are easily led sheep and complete ninnies.
And they all pretty much said that Pearl Harbor wasn't worth it's weight in used kitty litter, and to that I can only say this......
Hogwash.
Pearl Harbor is in no way a perfect movie, but then again, few movies, with the exception of "Roadhouse", are. Still, year after year, films that are far from perfect will rake in huge dollars at the box office, and occasionally sweep up at the Academy Awards. Now I'm not saying that PEARL HARBOR or anyone associated with it deserves an Academy Award, but when you think about what the movie crowds of today will accept into their hearts, it certainly bewilders me that this film fared so poorly during the summer movie season. One of the reasons is that a number of years ago another movie that was entertaining but FAR from perfect, "Independence Day" did so well at the box office, and if you've seen both films, you know that "Independence Day" and "Pearl Harbor" have almost interchangeable plots.
Follow me if you would, and keep your hands inside the ride at all times.......
In Pearl Harbor/Independence Day, people go about their trivial lives, worrying about tiny details that really don't matter much, completely oblivious to the fact that the entire audience knows that "sumthin' bad gonna happen". And so, as they frolic in the sunlight and dream their little dreamy dreams, ONE MAN, in the case of Dan Ackroyd/Jeff Goldblum, tries to warn everyone to take cover, that bad things are on the way. But the people don't listen, and keep whirling and twirling in the warm sunlight of complacency, until the BAD GUYS, in the form of The Japanese/The Aliens, show up and show that a little destruction goes a long way. Suddenly everyone wonders why they never saw it coming, and the United States/Human Race is pushed to the brink of annihilation. With no other course of action, a rag-tag bunch of military misfits are thrown together for a mission that is "surely suicide" to go and blast Japan/The Alien Mothership into submission, and so they put cigars in their pockets for the victory smoke, and fly off to victory, where some will live and some will die, but in the end, the GOOD GUYS, as a whole, will surely win.
Oh hell, both films even start out with a crop-duster scene, for God's sake!
So, this plotline, which worked so damn well in the flawed but publically embraced film "Independence Day", doesn't work in "Pearl Harbor"? I say it does work.
Now some people claim that the fictitious love story that ties together all of the historic scenes of Pearl Harbor are hokey and cliché, and all too predictable. Well yes, they are, but that leads me to another movie comparison- "Titanic".
"Titanic"- the movie that made us fall in love with and quickly dismiss Leonardo DiCaprio as annoying and Kate Winslett as forgetable (even if she did shows us her breasts). "Titanic"- monolithic sweeper of the Academy Awards. "Titanic"- a significant historical event drawn out to three hours and filled with big budget special effects, and all tied together with a predicable and hokey love story that a seventh grader with a sinus headache could have come up with. Yet "Titanic" stayed afloat at the box office longer than "Pearl Harbor" did (understatement).
What, may I ask, is your problem, people?!?!
But no more comparisons, except to say that if you take the scope and somewhat historical nature of "Titanic", and combine it in a blender with the entire plotline from "Independence Day", and puree it all for three hours, you've pretty much got yourself "Pearl Harbor" in a nutshell.
The cast of "Pearl Harbor" is decent, but not overblown for an "epic". Ben Affleck is cast well as "hotshot pilot #1 in love with the beautiful and scrumptious nurse, Evelyn", and Josh Hartnett works well as "hotshot pilot #2 in love with the stunning and gorgeous nurse, Evelyn". Kate Beckinsale stars as Evelyn, and if you hadn't guessed, she's completely hot, and whoever discovered her has struck crumpet in a big way (I'm a guy, and I've got active glands, so leave me alone). Since it's a W.W.II picture they have the obligatory Tom Sizemore role filled by Tom Sizemore (clever casting, if you ask me), and Mako (need a talented Asian actor for any role? Better get Mako) stars as the head honcho of the Japanese Military. Also, a special tip of my hat must go to Jon Voight for doing an outstanding job as playing President Roosevelt, and not making him come across like so many Voight characters, hammy and forced. Did you see "Anaconda"? I rest my case.
Round off the cast with Cuba Gooding Jr. playing a black sailor (he really looked the part) and Alec Baldwin, and you've got yourself a full blown epic. The only person I kept expecting to see but did not was Matt Damon, but I blame Ben Affleck for that. These guys are attached at the hip more than Clint Eastwood and Sondra Locke were. I looked for Damon floating in the water during the massive destruction scene, but if he was there I didn't spot him. I wouldn't worry about it, I'm sure Ben Affleck came through for him.
Speaking of destruction and explosions, it wouldn't be a Jerry Bruckheimer film without them, and this movie serves up some of the biggest I have ever seen in any film. The destruction of Pearl Harbor is amazingly intense and stunningly filmed, and is the high moment of this film (remember Titanic?). For those 40 minutes alone this film should be on everyone's rental list.
And so, let us recap......
You didn't like PEARL HARBOR because it had some of the best special effects ever created but was wrapped all up in a sappy, love-story package, yet you went out and bought a copy of "Titanic"?
You didn't like PEARL HARBOR because it had stereotypical "cookie-cutter" characters and a plot that was completely "by the books", with an ending that someone in a coma could have figured out, yet you think "Independence Day" is a stand-up-and- cheer, feel-good movie about coming back from a deadly blow against insurmountable odds?
You didn't like PEARL HARBOR............ yet you saw more than *ONE* Van Damme film, and you admit to thinking that Pauly Shore is kinda funny?
God I hate you.
My final word is that PEARL HARBOR is a pretty damned entertaining movie, and I stand behind that. It's nothing new, yet it's nothing to be ashamed of. Rent it, and damn the torpedoes.
Until next time, the Balcony is condemned.
Oh and by the way, I was only kidding about "Roadhouse" being a perfect film. Come on people, you should know me by now.
Dr. Torgo