JoeFrosh: Did Cuba Gooding Jr. have any reason to be in the movie except hollywood affirmative action or whatever? He wasn't connected to the plot at all, as far as I remember... Anyway, I thought the action was cool, though I actually didn't find the rest excessively long and boring. Still, if I had been the editor it would have been about a third as long.
AlexBobbs: I saw this movie despite the horrible reviews, and thought that, while not the big Oscar-winner everyone expected it to be, PearlHarbor is actually pretty good in most respects and excellent in some. Sure, the love story was pretty boring, but the relationships between the pilots was reasonably interesting, and the war stuff was exceptional. The war material actually got a lot more screentime than I expected; in addition to the 40-minute scene depicting the attack on PearlHarbor (which is spectacular and vivid, though noticeably lacking in blood) there is quite a bit of focus given to the air wars above Britain, FDR, the U.S. Military Intelligence, and the Japanese preparations. Speaking of which, I really liked how much attention was given to the Japanese side of the war. While not quite sympathetic, the film gave them a very human treatment and a lot of credit for being clever enough to pull off the attack. Overall, one of my better matinee experiences of this year, though I still could have done without the love story.
DanCicio: I was hesitant to see PearlHarbor because of the scathing reviews it had received. Then I realized that there's a reason I never listen to critics--they're much too critical. I'll give in to the fact that the love story was cheesy and not very relevant, but that's the only thing I had any problem with. The movie may have been long, but there was a lot happening. One scene in particular stands out in my mind: the treatment of the wounded during and after the attack. I won't go into detail at the expense of ruining the experience, but it was very moving and gave a vivid look at the effects of war. I must agree with Alex on the movie's treatment of the Japanese. It could easily have taken the, "They attacked us, and therefore are evil, dirty, underhanded excuses for human beings" approach, but instead PearlHarbor gave insight into the Japanese mindset and planning. Overall, I thought it was an excellent movie and would highly recommend it to anyone willing to overlook the somewhat unfitting love story.
RobAdams: Well, I saw the movie in spite of the reviews, and let me say: The reviews were right. This movie is a painfully long experience (3 hours), with about a half hour's worth of actual battle scenes. The rest was an incredibly trite love story involving, you guessed it, the airmen headed off to war full of bravery and bravado. I spent the whole movie gagging on fake southern accents. Read Roger Ebert's review, with which I agree wholeheartedly:
EmmaBoyer: I didn't hear any reviews and went because someone's parents were fairly set on taking the family (etc) to a movie. It was pure sap plus predictable explosions.
KimEspinoza thought that this movie was so boring, she could only handle watching the first half hour of this million hour long movie. Even that first half hour was painful.
WillShipley: Never seen Pearl Harbor, but a VERY good treatment of the events of December 7, 1941, though dated, is ToraToraTora?. (Though I did hear something about the Star Wars Imperial March playing as the Japanese load their planes with bombs in PearlHarbor. If this is correct,WhatTheHey?? Um... I didn't hear it, and I think I would have noticed-AlexBobbs)