Sbenny.com is trusted by Name of the movie you are reviewing: Pearl Harbor
Link to the content you're reviewing on our site (optional): Pearl Harbor (2001)
The king Midas of Hollywood Michael Bay realizes with "Pearl Harbor" a film of amazing mastery from the technical point of view but which leaves dismayed by the exaggerated rhetoric and the banality of the plot. Nipped by critics with sometimes excessive violence, Pearl Harbor broke the box office all over the world while reducing a historical event of capital importance for the developments and the outcomes of the Second World War as an excuse to tell the umpteenth love story, action, heroism and good feelings made in the USA.
Review:
It is December 7, 1941 when Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's air fleet crashes into Pearl Harbor like a divine punishment: it is hell. The United States of America officially enters the war.
Pearl Harbor is a Michael Bay creature in all respects, a not so well-shaken cocktail in which the Californian director does not hesitate to use his favorite ingredients in massive doses: one-dimensional characters, honeyed patriotism, breathtaking sequences, dizzying editing and proud to be American morality to the nth degree. The 40 minutes of the attack on Pearl Harbor, however, are standing ovations and arouse admiration. Bay used seven Japanese Zero fighters at the time and rebuilt three hundred on the computer. The very long sequence was filmed by twelve cameras. Three hundred stuntmen employed, a hundred the extras. No expense was spared: the dramatic yet suggestive scenes of the sinking of Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia were filmed in the huge tanks of the Mexican studios Rosario. Fourteen million spent altogether. Numbers aside, the writing entrusted to Randal Wallace - a good screenwriter even if too often inclined to the rhetoric of sentiment - does not help the director: his is a superficial script with often soap opera dialogues. The judgment on the cast, stellar - from John Voigth to Alec Baldiwin, from Ben Affleck to Cuba Gooding Jr - stands on a little flattering "without infamy and without praise". Out of the chorus only Baldwing's voice: his lieutenant colonel Doolittle convincing and intense. The period reconstruction, not without historical errors, is accurate while rendering a bad service to the film as it is patinated, fake, artifact.
Michael Bay is undoubtedly a talented director, technically capable and evolved, self-centered, over the top and excessively in love with that star and stripes flag that he often and willingly waves in his films. However, the public loves him: histrionic, brash, excessive, just like his cinema. This is Michael Bay: take it or leave it.
Would you recommend this to other users? Yes... oh, yes!
Rating(1-5):
Link to the content you're reviewing on our site (optional): Pearl Harbor (2001)
The king Midas of Hollywood Michael Bay realizes with "Pearl Harbor" a film of amazing mastery from the technical point of view but which leaves dismayed by the exaggerated rhetoric and the banality of the plot. Nipped by critics with sometimes excessive violence, Pearl Harbor broke the box office all over the world while reducing a historical event of capital importance for the developments and the outcomes of the Second World War as an excuse to tell the umpteenth love story, action, heroism and good feelings made in the USA.
Review:
It is December 7, 1941 when Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's air fleet crashes into Pearl Harbor like a divine punishment: it is hell. The United States of America officially enters the war.
Pearl Harbor is a Michael Bay creature in all respects, a not so well-shaken cocktail in which the Californian director does not hesitate to use his favorite ingredients in massive doses: one-dimensional characters, honeyed patriotism, breathtaking sequences, dizzying editing and proud to be American morality to the nth degree. The 40 minutes of the attack on Pearl Harbor, however, are standing ovations and arouse admiration. Bay used seven Japanese Zero fighters at the time and rebuilt three hundred on the computer. The very long sequence was filmed by twelve cameras. Three hundred stuntmen employed, a hundred the extras. No expense was spared: the dramatic yet suggestive scenes of the sinking of Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia were filmed in the huge tanks of the Mexican studios Rosario. Fourteen million spent altogether. Numbers aside, the writing entrusted to Randal Wallace - a good screenwriter even if too often inclined to the rhetoric of sentiment - does not help the director: his is a superficial script with often soap opera dialogues. The judgment on the cast, stellar - from John Voigth to Alec Baldiwin, from Ben Affleck to Cuba Gooding Jr - stands on a little flattering "without infamy and without praise". Out of the chorus only Baldwing's voice: his lieutenant colonel Doolittle convincing and intense. The period reconstruction, not without historical errors, is accurate while rendering a bad service to the film as it is patinated, fake, artifact.
Michael Bay is undoubtedly a talented director, technically capable and evolved, self-centered, over the top and excessively in love with that star and stripes flag that he often and willingly waves in his films. However, the public loves him: histrionic, brash, excessive, just like his cinema. This is Michael Bay: take it or leave it.
Would you recommend this to other users? Yes... oh, yes!
Rating(1-5):
