PDA

View Full Version : Pearl Harbour (the film)


Golden Monkey
8th Jun 2001, 17:32
Anyone seen this film?

Does it continue the recent tradition of gross re-writing of History by Hollywood as indicated by the press? Does it contain the most cliched jingoistic cheese ever? Is the 40 minutes of shiny implausible CGI aeroplane mayhem worth sitting through the hour before, and after?

Just intruigued . . . .

Slasher
9th Jun 2001, 05:28
GM do what Ill do: Dont waste your money going to see the film. Its bound to be a load of bullsh!t. Buy the CD/DVD when it comes out and record/burn only the good flying sequences and leaving out all the Hollywood crap.

TR4A
9th Jun 2001, 05:42
The movie is mostly historically correct. The flying scenes are the best part. The computer images are unbelievable. Great movie. See it on the big screen. It is a little over 3 hours long.

Tartan Gannet
9th Jun 2001, 11:27
Ill wait till it comes out on DVD then I can skip all the slushy boring love story crap and cut to the action. As one interested in Naval history and WW2 Battleships I want to see how accurately these are portrayed and their fate on the day.

Jim lovell
9th Jun 2001, 11:40
All up i think the film was quite good. Although the love story is a little drawn out i think the flying scenes(especially the bombing of pearl Harbour)are well worth waiting for because once the action starts it just keeps on going. As fr as being historically correct i think it's not too bad. The Doolittle raid was 100% accurate and the Pearl Harbour scene seemed accurate. All the aircraft involved(A6M/P40) looked excellent and realistic!

sprocket
9th Jun 2001, 12:02
So, without seeing the movie, would I be right in saying that the jist of the movie is somewhat like the Titanic movie?
eg; "Two people fall in love, then a boat sinks?"

121decimal5
9th Jun 2001, 13:22
Several boats actually!

Golden Monkey
9th Jun 2001, 17:03
Thanks for the responses, I think I'll heed the advice and await the DVD release. Sprocket, excellent summary, thanks :)

Capt Claret
9th Jun 2001, 18:25
A contradictory set of views here,
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum12/HTML/005460.html

from a month ago.

An American historian (I think) is quoted as panning the movies historical accuracy.

------------------
bottums up !

[This message has been edited by Capt Claret (edited 09 June 2001).]

Luke SkyToddler
10th Jun 2001, 02:00
A flawed masterpiece. If only it had half an hour less gooey hollywood romantic shtick, half an hour more of dogfighting, and a few less clothes on Kate Beckinsale, and it would have been one of the all time greats.

Slasher
10th Jun 2001, 08:39
I dread the day when the [email protected] remake the Battle Of Britain. In the original classic which Ive rerun countless times Chris Plummer and Suzey York just give only enough romance to keep it reasonable. In a remake theyd play that theme to death.
PS: Only complaint about the BoB was Hitlers Reichstag address after Berlin got wacked. He didnt actualy say all that.

PURPLE PITOT
10th Jun 2001, 13:48
Historically Correct?!!!
In the actual raid the japs only lost 1 (ONE!) aeroplane, and i believe that was a landing accident!!!!!

121decimal5
10th Jun 2001, 14:21
Hollywood re-make of Battle of Britain?

Is that the one where all those American pilots save the British from those dastardly Nazis?

Jim lovell
10th Jun 2001, 18:37
Purple the japs lost a lot more than 1 airplane- more like 29. Most got shot down by American AAA and 7 got shot down by the 2 P40 Kittyhawks that managed to get airborne! That's no bullhit was on a documentary.

WebPilot
12th Jun 2001, 00:29
Is it a Yank pilots save the BoB?

Yes. It's *****. Even if you ignore the God Bless America slant, it's too long, treats the raid as a comic book adventure, and as schmaltzy as only Hollywood can do.

Horrible film, save your cash.

The worst bit is almost certainly where the US pilot has been sent to join the Eagle Squadron (sent?) and has shot down an ME with a Biggle style cry of "Take that you Hun" or somesuch (pure Blackadder). As he sits outside a typical British pub, the Squadron Leader comes up and makes some crass "God Help the Jerries if they're all like you where you come from"


Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww.......... ...

ScopeDope
12th Jun 2001, 16:02
I don't mean to be an anorak but did Jap dive bomber's really roll inverted and pull towards target back then ?

And the speed of the P40's going past the tower looked more like a Tornado zipping past at 500 knots.

moschops
12th Jun 2001, 17:16
Given that Americans tend to use Poles as the punchline in jokes, I can't see the Yanks being willing to recreate accurately the extraordinary contribution made by the Polish pilots in the BoB.

Projection_boy
12th Jun 2001, 21:30
I am a projectionist for UCI, and with regards to the "pear harbour" film, our cinema have been having lots of problems with it, and quite serious ones at that!. So be warned if you do go and see pearl haobour, especilaly in hot & humid weather, as the film print is likley to catch fire and melt half way throught the film. Then you will be waiting around for the film to be spliced and joined back together.

With our singel copy of pearl harbous, we have had to take lots of the film out, so at one point in the film there is a quite noticeable jump, on both the sound and picture. I cannot remeber exactly where this is, but its about 1/3 of the way throught the film. Lots of other cinemas have had lots of serious problems with "Pearl Harbour" - mainly because with trailers and adverts and them films head and tail it is about 3hours 40m,mins long, which is an awfull big print, and especially with all this humid and hot weather, the print picks up an amazing amount of static electricity and when it passes over the immensly hot halogen lamp to project the image onto the screen it can cause the film to melt. And there is nothing that can be done about it. SO BE WARNED WHEN DECIDING TO SEE "PEARL HARBOUR"

Gerund
12th Jun 2001, 21:42
I've had this problem with women.

WebPilot
13th Jun 2001, 02:09
"Given that Americans tend to use Poles as the punchline in jokes, I can't see the Yanks being willing to recreate accurately the extraordinary contribution made by the Polish pilots in the BoB".

Although bizarrely, the 'Eagle Sq' aircraft in the crap Pearl Harbour film are shown with the 'RF' code of 303 - a Polish unit!

Jim lovell
13th Jun 2001, 08:32
The P40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk was an inferior fighter compared to a/c like the P51 and the F4U Corsair. It nevertheless was a popular fighter during the early stages of WW2- it was powered by a 1200 hp V-12 engine and top speed was 343 mph(552 km/h). The P40 were not good at dogfighting zeros- however the p40 could accelerate rapidly in a dive and escape zero.

Flying Voodoo
14th Jun 2001, 14:32
I thought it was too drawn out. But I didnt mind since I had nice company with me !!


iTS aLL gOOD.... ;) ;) ;)

tallyhowhat
15th Jun 2001, 01:59
Oooops! Just like thinking the war started in 1941, think I joined this one too late. Thought I was being highly original, and started a thread on this over in the military forum.

I'll get me coat...

OzExpat
15th Jun 2001, 08:29
tallyhowhat... I'll get it fer ya! :)

I'd like to help you out ... which way did you come in?

------------------
Dispela olgeta samting i pekpek bilong bulmakau!

Norfolk and airspeed
15th Jun 2001, 12:48
Does the film point out that the U.S. declared war on Germany four days after the attack on Perl Harbour, and that was only after Germany had declared war on the U.S? The British government declared war on Japan the day after the Perl Harbour attack, which was the same day the U.S. Government did.

Late again...

HugMonster
16th Jun 2001, 22:07
Saw it this avo - what a load of bolleaux! Some good flying sequences, but that's about all.

Suit
19th Jun 2001, 17:05
Norfolk and airspeed,

You don't know your history mate! Britain declared war on the Japanese following the Japanese attack on Hong Kong, which started hours after the attack on Pearl Harbour. The attack on the US fleet was the opening of a campaign across the Pacific and the Far East, it was not an isolated event as is so often portrayed.

Why should the US have decalred war on Germany before Germany declared war on them? They were attacked by the Japanese, NOT the Germans.

There is a historical school of thought that the world could have been a VERY different place if Hitler had not declared war on the States when he did. After all, he had no need to and merely brought the US into the war against him, silly man!

Not quite so late.................



------------------
If the suit fits.........

Suit
19th Jun 2001, 17:21
Norfolk and airspeed,

Untrue and unfair!

You need to brush up on your history mate!
Britain declared war on the Japanese because of the Japanese attack on Hong Kong which took place hours after the start of the Pearl Harbour attack.
The attack on the US fleet was just the curtain raiser on a simiultaneous campaign that kicked off across the Pacific and the Far East. It was not an isolated event as is so often portrayed.

And just WHY should the US have declared war on Germany? They were attacked by the Japanese NOT the Germans.

The US declared was on Germany and Italy AFTER they had declared war on her. There is a historical school of thought that claims that the outcome of WW2 could have been very different if Hitler HAD NOT declared war on the US. The Germans had nothing to gain by it and all to lose. On the other hand the British had it all to gain by declaring war on the Japanese even if Hong Kong had not been attacked.

Not quite late then....................

------------------
If the suit fits.........

Ali Barber
24th Jun 2001, 19:36
When I watched Animal House, I can distinctly remember the quote "were we downhearted when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour". That should resolve the argument.