Pearl Harbor DVD!! Speechless!! (1 Viewer)

[Martice]

I didn't see Pearl Harbor in the theater when it was first released but I will tell you this in as few words as possible. UNBELIEVABLE!!! From scene 22 and on it's absolutely breathtaking. Not only does the first attack really work every speaker that you have in your system, it also reveals if your sub is up to snuff with not just multiple deep bass and LFE explosions but multiple TONE bass and LFE. Bass you can hear and bass that you can only feel rocks the room to such a level of realisim that I found myself not breathing at times. I still haven't watched the movie for the plot but I can tell you that the action sequences alone are worth the price of this disk.

Between the Pod Race in TPM, Titan A.E. and Pearl Harbor, I'm sure my sub hates my guts!!

Just wait until you guys hear this disk and to all of you who have subs that can go to the lower regions and handle it for sustained amounts of time, you will absolutely fall in love with this disk!!!!

GUARANTEED!!!!

 

[John Geelan]

Damn, that stinks!
I wasn't really planning to buy this disc because I saw it at the Movies and overall the movie stank. But the Attack sequence was worth the price of admission.
Now I may have to pick it up at BestBuy to hear the Attack on my HT.
ahh.. whats another $18 bucks.
JohnG

 

[Rutledge]

How was the video quality? Did some of the planes look kind of fake like they did in the theater?

Did you notice that during the aerial bombing sequence of the harbor, there were Aegis class frigates at anchor?

I don't think they had those in 1941.

 

[Martice]

I thought you could tell where some parts of the action sequences were computer generated but overall it wasn't annoying or painfully obvious. Infact it was good enough that it didn't distract you at all and still allowed you to get lost in the scenes as they unfolded.

I think the use of some of the special effects were ground breaking like when they followed one of the Japaneese Zero bombs all the way down to one of the US battleships. I also enjoyed the following explosion of that ship as it seemed to lift the ship out of the water, as my sub lifted me accordingly.

 

[Bill J]

I can't believe you actually liked the attack sequence. It was awful. The real attack was violent and bloddy and the movie did not show that. Today you cannot make a PG-13 war film, you just can't, because it's very disrespectful to those who gave their lives. In order to honor those who died, me must tell their story truthfully. We must tell it with great detail, and that gives us an idea about what they went through.

Pearl Harbor was one of the worst films I have ever seen, because of the love story and the disrespectful attack.

If you like to watch Pearl Harbor becuase of its audio and video quality, go ahead, but I will never sit through that again.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The blood and violence is supposed to be back in with the director's cut coming out in May. They needed a PG-13 and couldn't get it with the footage in. According to David Prior that one will now be _4_ discs.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I can't believe you actually liked the attack sequence. It was awful. The real attack was violent and bloddy and the movie did not show that. Today you cannot make a PG-13 war film, you just can't, because it's very disrespectful to those who gave their lives. In order to honor those who died, me must tell their story truthfully. We must tell it with great detail, and that gives us an idea about what they went through.

how much blood was in Tora! Tora! Tora!? was that a disrespectful film?
and how much blood do we need to see in order for there to be sufficient detail? do we need to see the actual deaths of every single person who died that day, with every drop of blood accounted for? or how about half? or how about they just let the audience fill in the blanks on their own?
i find it odd to think that Pearl Harbor was disrespectful by not exploiting death enough. it doesn't make much sense to me to think that in-your-face gore, however accurate, would be more respectful to those who lost their lives. sometimes a closed casket is more respectful to the dead.
DJ

 

[Bill J]

I'm sorry but I think you may have misread my original post.

and how much blood do we need to see in order for there to be sufficient detail? do we need to see the actual deaths of every single person who died that day, with every drop of blood accounted for? or how about half? or how about they just let the audience fill in the blanks on their own?

When veterans saw Saving Private Ryan back in '98, they cried when they saw it, it brought them back to June 6, 1944. Veterans were proud to have served for their country and they thanked Spielberg. Spielberg received honors for his work. Maybe its me, but I did not hear of Michael Bay receiving anything or veterans thanking him.

Such a horrible event should be told truthfully and be similar to Saving Private Ryan. Saving Private Ryan was what is was really like.

As someone once said about Pearl Harbor: "it's war-lite"

The dead deserve a proper tribute, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

and why does a proper tribute necessarily mean showing gore? if the only reason Spielberg got accolades for Saving Private Ryan was because the film was gory, that's not really saying much for him. i'm simply unclear why you seem to think there is a certain treshold level at which gore must be present in a war film for it to be respectful and truthful. again: how much gore is necessarily exactly? how many detailed deaths do we need to see before it is enough? tens? hundreds? i see nothing "untruthful" by letting the audience's mind fill in the blanks of gore that the filmmakers leave open.
i'll say it again: sometimes a closed casket is more respectful.
DJ

 

[Bill J]

Again I think you are thinking too fast and not thinking this through.

In the past, 1970s for example, audiences would not go see a violent war movie. That's why The Longest Day and Tora! Tora! Tora! are rated G. Later on, after that period, movies started to become more violent. A Clockwork Orange for example. Audiences began to adjust. That was what it was about, the audiences. More violent intense war films were made. Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jaacket, and Platoon are the best examples. I would also like to mention Das Boot, an outstanding film, filled with realism.

Not everyone film needs to be like Saving Private Ryan. A lot of films have captured the realism of the time period. I'm just saying that films, such as Pearl Harbor should have been, that are based on historically tragic events should be told as they happened.

I have also heard naval historians say that the film was almost entirely innacurate.

I'm going to expand on the whole film now. You can tell that it is a typical summer movie easily. And one thing that always bothered me was that it never gave a good explanation why we were attacked. Maybe my memory is wrong on that one, but don't you think that should be explained?

The story of the soldiers still trapped in the ships should be told in a way where we know what they went throgh to every last detail possible. Its not all about showing every single dead body, its about the horror, madness, and fear they went through. Pearl Harbor does not capture any of those qualities.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

i think your argument is a much more effective one if you make it without relying on a need for more gore. it is one thing to say that Pearl Harbor simply failed to properly capture the event; it's quite another to suggest that adding more gore is the solution. the artistic choice to show or not show detailed gore when dealing with a violent topic is an important one. i think it simply irrational to say that in order for a film about war to achieve the desired effect on the audience, additional gore is necessarily a good thing. sometimes letting the audience fill in the blanks themselves is equally as effective. you may prefer gore, but to automatically discount any film that eschews gore as being defective seems to me to be wholly invalid. the effectiveness and the gore don't have a necessary relationship that requires the latter in order to provide the former.
and to argue that gore is necessarily respectful while a lack of it is necessarily disrespectful seems me completely lack logic. respect can certainly come from being discreet. are war memorial statues disrespectful for not being gory?
DJ

 

[Bill J]

My overall point was that the attack was not as intense and violent as the actual event.

Good war movies have been made that have not been filled with gore, The Deer Hunter and Tigerland-very underrated, but the main thing about those is that neither of them are about a major event that changed history.

Pearl Harbor gives no reason for the attack and just doesn't capture the event.

About the older war movies, if it wasn't a big deal then to make a violent war movie, like you said, then why is is it one now. I heard the Spielberg wouldn't even let his own son, who was 12 or so see Saving Private Ryan. Twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan were historically based, and those were the 20 minutes that needed realism, and it delivered.

Again I would like to say that naval historians have said that the film was almost entirely innacurate.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was historically based, but the movie is fake. When I first heard that there was going to be a Pearl Harbor movie, I thought that the single most important thing the film has to do is be historically accurate. I was very upset when I heard it was a love story. You should have seen me when I heard it was PG-13.

I would like to mention that I don't need violence to enjoy a movie. I honestly don't. The Deer Hunter is one of my favorite films. I just feel that the dead should be spoken for, and we need to do that be telling thei story as it really was. How would they feel if their story was told by a Ben Affleck love story made by Michael Bay.

I'm not going to respond again until tomorrow, its really late here.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

a love story that takes place partially during the attack on Pearl Harbor is automatically historically inaccurate? the servicemen who were stationed in Pearl Harbor had no loved ones? they had no love stories waiting to be told?
DJ

 

[Rutledge]

Bill j,

Not sure if i want to get into this discussion but here goes.

I don't like violence in movies anymore. It doesn't need to be shown graphically to get the message across. The story is more important than the special effects. Something that george Lucas and Michael Bay and others have not caught onto yet.

I think about all the movies that i would have enjoyed more if they had not shown a bullet going into somebodies head or

a head flying off. "The Patriot" is one that comes to mind.

How about showing somebody pointing a gun, then pulling the trigger and hearing or seeing the person fall?

 

[Sean Oneil]

I think it is all in how the violence is portrayed on screen. I takes a mature filmmaker to do hard violence that has some impact and does not come across as just grandiose. I think that maybe some people get turned off to violence after witnessing it firsthand, or in the cinema to an extreme degree... this is normal. However, I also believe that extreme violence is sometimes called for in a film, as in cases of recreating or demonstrating the horrors of war.

Especially if the film is based on actual historic events wherein such brutal acts of violence did in fact take place. Sometimes merely 'implying' brutality is not enough to make a compelling statement. The brutal war scenes in "Saving Private Ryan" scared the hell out of a lot of people, and perhaps made many of them look at war in a different light. Perhaps a lot of 'Gen X' and 'Gen Y' was made aware of how horrible war really is, and what their forefathers really had to go through to gain them their freedom. Perhaps due to seeing such realistic depictions of chaotic and bloody war, they also had a deeper desire to aviod war at all costs. I think this is what Mr. Speilberg was trying to accomplish by painting those scenes of extreme violence into the conciousness of those who saw his film.

Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, had no such impact.

I think that is the problem that many people have with this film. If you are going to make a 'popcorn war movie' you should not base it upon actual historic events, else you do all those who fought and died a dis-service.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm very reluctant to jump into the fray, but here goes...
I think that the attack on Pearl Harbor as portrayed in the film is VERY horrific and terrifying in it's intesity. However I do believe that their should have been blood. This is where the film can't seem to make up it's mind I think, they portray battleships being blown in half by torpedoes, planes strayfing hangers and airfields, but they also show people getting shot up by planes, this is where I have a problem. Micheal Bay has no problem with showing us what violence does to machines and objects, but he shy's away at showing what violence does to the human body.
So Micheal, make up your mind, are you trying to show us what Pearl Harbor was like that morning or aren't you? I mean you give us realistic explosions, but you don't give us realistic death. You can't have one without the other.
I really think he sold out by deciding to make this film PG-13, undoubtably this decision was made by that adrenelin junkie producer of is Jerry Bruckheimer to bring in a larger demographic for the summer slugfest.
I am holding out hope that he will correct this situation with the R rated director's cut.
Bottom line, the guns on those zero's would have ripped a person to shreds, if you want to show us Pearl Harbor as it REALLY WAS, we need to see that, as terrible as it might be.
I don't condone violence in films either nessasarily, but within the context of the established look and feel of this film, it is warrented, and needed, in this case.

 

[Martice]

I see the point on both sides so my response will sway throught out this post.

First off, Pearl Harbor is a geographical location that just so happened to be bombed and sadly wound up being the final resting place for many service men & women. We must remember that there was life before the attacks on Pearl Harbor and I think that's what the director was trying to "pull off". This movie was in the vein of Posiden Adventure, Airport, and Earth Quake of the 70's although some say that he took the idea from Titanic which means that Titanic then based it's story style from the movies mentioned above.

Where he failed (according to some) in this attempt was that he had a weak & predictable story line that never managed to capture the mood and emotion of what happened before the horrifying events. In short and according to some here, the movie had a bad story line so that left Michael Bay with one option and that was to come with an attack scene that was so compelling that it made the movie worth the cost of admission.

Well for me, I haven't watched the entire movie yet, just the action sequences from chapters 21 & on and I must say once again that from an audio & video performance point of view, the movie delivers big time in a Walt Disney type of way. It's like, I could see later on, a ride called Pearl Harbor at one of the theme parks. This is where I think some of you may find displeasure with this film. It was almost insulting to see such a horrible DAY come across as a technological thrill ride more than an accurate historical statement worthy of praise from generations young and old. Did any one scene bring me to tears? Not even close. Was it supposed to? Not necessarily. Did I even look to this film to enlighten me in any way regarding this terrible day? Not required because I always have the Discovery & the History Channel for accuracy and facts(no gore with documentaries).

I think the movie would have become an instant classic if it did bring more authenticity to the table regarding the attack sequences on that day. However, this is Hollywood and not everyone will tell the same story as the next person despite seeing the same thing but I'm sure that someone is out there saying regarding the movie "hey, that's how we met" and "we lost a friend like that" or "he reminded me of my Captain or even "the planes flew over us just like that".

Regarding realism, sure the movie could've had a more serious and factual presentation regarding Pearl Harbor but from my point of view, where the director failed is that his initial story line didn't hold it's weight and lure the audience in to the point where they would forgive a not so gory but for lack of better words, fun, thrilling and jaw dropping special effects showcase that made the disc worth the cost of purchase.

I will see the movie from start to finish today but even if the movie sucks, the score, the special effects and picture quality to me represents technology at it's best and in it's self is an acheivement to enjoy and behold.

I do have one major complaint though... Where were the damn Kamikazee Divers!!! I just knew that you would see a couple of them somewhere in the attack scene and I hope that they put them in to the DC version or I'll be pissed!! I want my Kamikazaees NOW!!!!

 

[Patrick Sun]

It was basically a juggling act for Michael Bay:

Keep the budget under $135 million (any cost over-runs come out of his own pocket) and produce a PG-13 rated film to maximize its commercial box office take.

For those who haven't seen the entire film, it does try to tell the story of 2 soldiers in love with 1 woman with the backdrop of the attack on Pearl Harbor looming large behind them and in front of them. It's not the best screenplay for such a love story.

For those begging for more gore for the attack, well, that's your prerogative to beg for it, but in the context of the story, any MORE graphic gore/bloodshed isn't really needed to propel the story forward.

If you are thinking you'll be treated to a succinct play-by-play of watching the tumblers of history fall into place which allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to occur, you should seek out another film.

 

[Bob Saylor]

Let's hope the D.C. will be what we would like it to be. If there is a made up love story added to build up to the attack so be it. Hollywood has always taken liberties with history. John Wayne's "Alamo" is a good example. The Pearl Harbor movie theater attack was OK but I too would like to see a more memorable account.

Gory? Just as the first twenty minutes of SPR has shown what horrors awaited those involved in beach head landings, I'd like it to be shown what it was like for those innocent, unsuspecting people at Pearl to be suddenly thrust into a terrible, bloody conflict. I don't want this just for the blood and gore. Somehow it just isn't as impactful if it cleaned up.

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Martice:

I do not believe that the Japanese employed the use of kamikazee pilots until later in the war. Based on everything I have read and seen about the bombing, all pilots were supposed to return to their ships (unless, of course, they were shot down or experienced engine trouble).