BS: Pearl Harbor

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: GUEST,Berque
Date: 27 May 01 - 07:51 PM

I'll end up going to see it 'cuz I like seeing special effects, big explosions ... that sort of thing. However, I have no illusions about "historical accuracy". There is more and more information coming out of the declassified record (thru the freedom of information act) that FDR knew of the coming attack. He in fact may have provoked it thru a series of foreign policy initiatives designed specifically to draw a military response (oil embargoes, that sort of thing). I'll not go into too much detail, as it would take up too much time and space. For more info, see a recently released book called "Deadly Deceit", or websites like antiwar.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 27 May 01 - 07:13 PM

Roger Ebert's twice-mentioned review. For anyone who cares:)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: wildlone
Date: 27 May 01 - 05:57 PM

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
I have seen quite a few hysterical [sorry historical] films and you can always find inacurate parts, ie the using of exploding cannonballs in Cromwell.
Sharpe would never have even got to a chosen man let alone Sgt
I now just read the books that were written about the events by the people that took part in them, you might find that the accounts may differ but at least the events happened.
I have to admit that the attack on Pearl Harbour and the speed of the Japanese advance was great planning.
dave

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 May 01 - 03:51 PM

I register my protest by reading a history book, or talking to people who actually fought in the war. Any movie said to be based on a "true story" is inevitably full of lies. It is not the big overt lies that poison, it is the cumulative effect of all the small ones.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: DougR
Date: 27 May 01 - 03:44 PM

Peter T, I can understand your frustration with screenwriters and producers bending history. The true story is usually more interesting than anything those folks can conjure up.

I assume you register your protest by not going to movies that are advertised to be based on history. Is that so?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 May 01 - 03:38 PM

This film will be disapointing (walk-out fare) to those who were living then or were involved in the conflict. It will have more appeal to younger generations who don't care about history and need a love story to hold their interest. It IS showing in most major centers across the USA and Canada. Tora etc. also plays hell with history.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: The Walrus
Date: 27 May 01 - 02:30 PM

What has me worried is that I can only think of two British actors who might (and then only just) pass for Japanese, So where did Disney get the villans for this film?

Regards

(A puzzled) Walrus

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: toadfrog
Date: 27 May 01 - 02:19 PM

Gee, Little Hawk, I was agreeing with you so heartily, until you got to the last 4 paragraphs denouncing This Modern Youth. Everything it is necessary to say about Modern Youth was alteady said by Brandt in "Ship of Fools," in or about 1450. Civilization has been going to the doggs for at least 550 years; clearly hopeless by now to buck the trend.

But you know, it is really nice to see a film that tries to portray the past accurately. "Malcom X" does that. But Disney seems bent on becoming a synonym for falsehood.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 May 01 - 02:00 PM

Rick... yer missing out on a lot of the genre called "Historical FICTION"!!

It can be fun, but one must realise that the operative word is 'fiction'... ya want history, watch documentaries

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 May 01 - 01:32 PM

Well, if you are going to grow up, get on with it. 200 years is a bit long. America seems to be arrested in a permanent state of narcissistic juvenilism, if not going even further into pre-adolescence -- just what we need, more propaganda about preparing for sneak attacks from the enemies of freedom. I hear the Americans win the Battle of Britain again too. (I thought Robert Taylor did that a long time ago. It does get really tiresome).
yours, Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: paddymac
Date: 27 May 01 - 12:48 PM

Thanks, Amos, for your proper response to LittleHawk. I am in complete concurrence with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: DougR
Date: 27 May 01 - 12:20 PM

L.H., I'm a bit surprised to see you touting films of the 40's, 50's, 60's if you are so turned off to "flag waving." Ever seen: "Sands of Iwo Jima," "Battle Cry," "Battle Ground," "Midway," "Tora, Tora, Tora?" And many more "war" movies made during those years ...particularly the 40's while the war was going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 27 May 01 - 11:16 AM

I f Hollywood can put Kracatoa EAST of Java then I'm sure a little time change won't worry them. The film isn't out here yet so I'll wait and see.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 01 - 11:02 AM

Beg to differ, Little Hawk. This civillization, like most adolescents, is stinky, awkward, self indulgent, noisy, crass, and full of infinite promise. It deserves to mature, blossom and discover how right its Fathers were. I for one know many people who would say they have found their soul, rather than lost it, in contrast with (for example) the '20s or the '50s.

Even if we do cram two hours of drck into a three hour flick.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 May 01 - 10:57 AM

Bugger! I'm just too damn cynical to sit through "Pop History revisionism", consequently "Nixon, JFK, Titanic, Gladiator", and certainly "Pearl Harbour" will go unwatched. Made the mistake of seeing "Bound For Glory" and "Leadbelly" though....ughhh! Nah, much more fun to read books about stuff I care about.

On the other hand.... Go out and rent "Don't Look Back", "Waiting For Guffman" and "Best in Show"....hilarious and REAL LIFE!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 01 - 10:55 AM

I have always been fascinated by both the Titanic and the Pearl Harbour raid. Accordingly, I went to see "Titanic", and enjoyed it reasonably well, although I most definitely was NOT there to see a love story. However, the love story was presented in a reasonably okay fashion...I'd give it a 6 out of 10, I guess. The girl was actually a rather interesting character.

I am not sure I can stomach going to see "Pearl Harbour". It sounds like the most godawful piece of flag-waving tripe since the Reagan era and Rambo.

I hate seeing Hollywood screw around with history. I hate seeing people from other historical eras talking like the smart-mouthed *ssholes in present TV sitcoms, and behaving in ways utterly uncharacteristic of the time.

I wonder if anyone advises anyone else to "get a life" during the course of this film?

If you watch actual films from the 40's, the 50's, or even the 60's you will see that American culture at that time still had a certain sense of dignity...a certain amount of class...a measure of maturity.

Not like the garbage-mentality behaviour that you see routinely in popular entertainment now.

American civilization, like latter day Rome, has lost its soul, and that is nowhere more evident than in big budget Hollywood films.

This is not a civilization that deserves to endure, let alone to dominate the world, and the world will not mourn when its time has passed.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: WKG
Date: 27 May 01 - 09:20 AM

I liked the opening line of Roger Ebert's 1.5 star review, to the effect that it was a two hour movie crammed into three hours!

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: paddymac
Date: 27 May 01 - 08:47 AM

I saw it yesterday and found it to be an entertaining and enjoyable film which I would recommend. It's basically a love story, with a big fight in the middle. I suspect that the title was chosen more for marketing reasons than anything else. There some historical "factoids" scattered thru the film, but I don't think any reasonable person would consider that it was ever intended as a history lesson.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Ditchdweller
Date: 27 May 01 - 06:04 AM

I do not know about the Western shores of the Big Pond, but on this side it appears that Tora Tora Tora!!! is being issued on DVD the same time as Disney's effort is being put on release!

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: SeanM
Date: 27 May 01 - 01:21 AM

Actually, I have second hand reviews from friends that went to see it...

It's not good. Best that I got was "Titanic with more ships being sunk". Personally, my experience watching "Titanic" was spent sincerely wishing I could temporarily remove my eyeballs until the horror on the screen was done, so I'll be avoiding it.

Everything else backs up the reviews cited above. One point brought up by Roger Ebert (and echoed by two personal reviews) was that for a movie about the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour, the Japanese are barely in it. And when they ARE in it, rather than exulting in one hell of an effective sneak attack, they mope around saying things about how they've 'awoken the sleeping giant'.

The one good thing I can say is the advertising campaign. Out here in CA, it takes the form of reworked WWII Allied propaganda posters. Clever use of less than 'correct' materials for advertising.

The moment I heard Michael Bay (somewhere in the directing staff) say that they were proud of the comparisons to 'Titanic', they lost me though. I've got much better things to spend money on than a special effects rehash.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: GUEST
Date: 27 May 01 - 12:48 AM

Hmm..I doubt that the kids...and yes..they were kids..were concerened about fossil fuels....

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: toadfrog
Date: 27 May 01 - 12:36 AM

I guess we don't have eyewitnesses yet. What I heard was

1. An item on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which was scathing. Especially on the ground that the portrayal of Franklin Roosevelt was really and truly wimpy. Now, without further information, the fact that the WSJ editorial page pans a movie is a pretty good reason to go see the movie. On the other hand, I don't suspect them of excessive fondness for Roosevelt.

2. Comment on the op ed page of today's New York Times entitled "World War II for Fun and Profit," generally to the effect that the film is shot full of anachronisms, and that from watching the film, one could not tell what the war is about. This because a film which accurately gave the background would offend potential audiences in Japan. So to that extent, it apparently is not anti-Japanese, at least not to the extent of suggesting that Japan was wrong to bomb Pearl Harbor.

3. But for me, a much more serious problem than offending all those Japanese in Japan, is that according to NPR accounts, it is stirring up anti-Japanese,and generally anti-Asian sentiment in the United States. As if Asian-Americans weren't getting enough shit already.

And apart from all this, I know that films about historical periods I don't know about influence my attitudes toward history. So that I make a point of not seeing films like "Hoffa," "Nixon," and that one about the Kennedy assassination. Films that lie are damaging.

So I, for one am not going to go reward Disney at the box office. Unless someone points out where I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: GUEST,Guest..MR
Date: 27 May 01 - 12:35 AM

My sister loved the movie..but she also loved..Titantic..and Armageddon..

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 May 01 - 11:31 PM

Well hey Sorch.....Over there on the "Aine" thread, when her bathroom was all messed up with back-ups and the like, she says she got stronger, lost weight, learned barre chords, and got some "Perky Boobs." Maybe there's a plus side to all of this...........Check your hooters!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Sorcha
Date: 26 May 01 - 10:36 PM

No opinion yet as I haven't seen it,but I did read that it is very anti Jpanese, and not currently "Politically Correct".......whatever the hell that means.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my bathroom is torn all to hell--we can pee and bathe, but not shower. Used to be, the tub would hold water but not drain-----now it drains but won't hold water. This is a problem because we can only bathe, not shower. Stuff wash cloths in the plug hole.....

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 May 01 - 06:55 PM

I think once again the problem is learning history from Hollywood. If it spurs an interest to learn more and it has some semblance of accuracy, that;s fine. All too often though, the movie is way far off and the people who see it take it as gospel. I haven't seen this one, only the previews which seem very long on special effects.....never a good sign if you're looking for historical accuracy.

Yesterday morning, the local news interviewed a group of Pearl Harbor survivors after they had previewed this movie and their opinions were something less that stellar.....a lot less. Of course even though they were there, it doesn't mean they were everywhere there and in many cases their views can be as skewed as Hollywood's.

I did read a write up by one of the WWII historians (can't remember who now....CRS) and he was high on some parts and down on others. He made reference to some of the small details being right (ala "Private Ryan") while some of the stuff was "completely without any basis in fact."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia
Date: 26 May 01 - 06:07 PM

Because they thought no-one would believe a kid was playing baseball at 7.55am and ditto with the woman hanging out the washing, the directors have changed the time of the attack! Cynical historical manipulation. Veterans groups should be up in arms over this, no pun intended. Those damn Japanese watches never were much good.

Here in Oz wee have a satirical football show on the radio. It opens with; Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it isn't true.

JG / F.M.E.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Amergin
Date: 26 May 01 - 06:05 PM

I agree with Doug and Larry....I want to see it also.....and not very many movies that I can say that about...

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: DougR
Date: 26 May 01 - 05:40 PM

Larry, I have been too. I'll see it for the special effects, if nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: MarkS
Date: 26 May 01 - 05:27 PM

Last review I saw said "Three hours of dreck." This could be Ishtar but with bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: DonMeixner
Date: 26 May 01 - 04:36 PM

My son Geof tells me its a must see. Its long but well paced and the secondary love story is pretty good too. Geof is very hard on films and for him to be excoited about a movie is enough for me to see it.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 26 May 01 - 04:10 PM

The first preview I saw really impressed me, at first... Late last year, I suppose it was. I think it started with kids playing ball in a field, a woman hanging laundry to dry, etc. in this really odd-looking land, when airplanes appear, flying really low through the valleys and above the suburban-looking people. About that time I realised that this odd-looking land was Hawaii, that the planes were Japanese, and that this was about Pearl Harbour. I then lost interest. But the first 30 seconds were pretty cool...

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: InOBU
Date: 26 May 01 - 04:01 PM

One of the best bad reviews of it said, "it has been 60 years since the event, it now is six years and three hours!" Too bad, I was looking forward to it. Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Pearl Harbor
From: Amergin
Date: 26 May 01 - 03:57 PM

is it even out yet?

Subject: Pearl Harbor
From: toadfrog
Date: 26 May 01 - 03:53 PM

Has any one seen this film? Is it as truly yucky as it is said to be? It sounds like the rip-off of the millenium! As of now, I have no plans to see it!