I agree with this. In addition, the Michael Bay film once again shows that special effects don’t improve a story.
I’d like to see I Bombed Pearl Harbor someday.
You can put a romance into any kind of movie. Pearl Harbor just did it wrong.
The events of the movie should interfere with the romance. In Pearl Harbor, the romance interferes with the events.
“Tora! Tora! Tora!” reminds me of “Apollo 13,” in that both movies are about historical events where you know the outcome, and yet both are crafted so well that they still maintain an air of tension. Where they are different is that Apollo 13 is a wonderful, complete little story about people working together to overcome what seems to be the most ridiculous adversity, and they somehow do it, tying it all up at the end. In the case of Tora! Tora! Tora! it’s precisely the opposite; the tension is doubled by the fact that you’re watching two opponents, with warring subgroups within them, engaged in a series of events that you know will result in a horrifying outcome; one side is engaged in a series of acts of systemic incompetence, while the other seems caught up in a rush to start something they’ll never be able to finish. The movie ends perfectly, with Yamamoto’s (possibly apocryphal) quote that leaves the viewer in a state of tension, knowing the terrible events that just unfolded are merely the beginning of years of even more terrible events.
Apollo 13 is a study in how human beings can do brilliant and great things. Tora! Tora! Tora! is a study in how human beings can do monumentally stupid and awful things. And yet they both effectively solve the same cinematic problem.
I don’t think it’s a matter of putting in romance in the film, it’s a matter of making the a film in the romance genre. A romantic subplot was a staple of the old family friendly movies.
Pearl Harbor is a bad film for people who prefer their war films to have the dark and serious tone of Saving Private Ryan or Thin Red Line, instead of Michael Bay’s documentaries on the Cybertron Civil War.
It wouldn’t be impossible, but it still wouldn’t be a good idea. What I consider the best war movie, The Longest Day, had zero romance in it. Perhaps a skilled director and writer could add a romantic subplot, but why? You can throw a little war into a romance movie (Dr. Zhivago, GWTW), but boy it sure is hard to do the other way around.
The Japanese cut of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbour isn’t bad. It’s just one hour and ten minutes of bombing, with a big cheer at the end.
Well, you do it because you think the romance will add something to the movie. I mean, asking why you’d put romance into a war movie is exactly the same as asking why you’d put some war into a romance movie; if it helps in developing the characters or the theme, it’s a good idea.
Here’s the thing; if you take all the romance out of Pearl Harbor,** it’s still a terrible movie.** All you get is less eye candy. The romance is awful, but the movie is otherwise still an awful mess; it would still lack any sort of coheremnt dramatic arc, the air combat scenes would still be utterly ludicrous, the special effects would still be over the top, the Cuba Gooding Jr. part would still be the most offensive bit of token throw-in casting I’ve ever seen, the bit where FDR stands up in defiance would still be unintentionally hilarious, and it would still have Alec Baldwin in it. Blaming the romance for ruining Pearl Harbor is like a person floating in the water after the Titanic sank saying “You know, I don’t like the color of this life jacket.”
Last of the Mohicans.
…and the aforementioned From Here to Eternity.
Yep, really, Tora!, Tora!, Tora! get’s my vote. Kurosawa was supposed to direct the Japanese parts, but it didn’t work out.
I didn’t know * I Bombed Pearl Harbor* existed. Has anyone seen it?