Pearl Harbor

Chaos said:....as far as I know, that guy Doolittle was definitely a real person and they really did hit the USA... someone above mentioned they didn't.... but at the end of the day, they won the war, so they can afford to embellish a little... if I were in their shoes, I'd do the same. USA is the way..

That’s accurate; we're talking about the famous Doolittle Raid on Tokyo back in 1942 (when the US still held much of the Pacific Ocean)... (see: here)

Just plain irresponsible.

I mean, what else can you really say about a movie where one of the characters says right at the start, "I think World War II just kicked off"?

🤣

Richard Hernandez13 said:Purely irresponsible nonsense.

What else can you say about a movie where a character attacks someone at the start and claims, "I think World War II just started"?

😲 ....are you actually serious? 🙄 ..... 👎

Heh, even though the movie is technically labeled a drama, I spent half the runtime laughing my head off!

The way they handled those plane sequences and the sinking scenes was honestly top-tier work.

I honestly don't get how Affleck managed to pull that off. And his buddy? No way he survives if they’re surrounded by a million enemy soldiers.🤔

As for the movie itself—it’s barely watchable.
The whole love triangle thing is really just for the hopeless romantics out there.
To be honest, I feel like this is more of a romance flick than anything actually connected to Pearl Harbor. If I had to rename it, I’d call it something like: Between Two Friends😁,
or maybe Two Loves, or "How a Nurse Falls in Love When Her Friend Steals Her Girl."😁 😛

My rating: (for the title and how it relates to the plot, maybe a 2 or 3)
If you strip away the title: 3

👋

Peter Myers29 said:Video games are a completely different beast... When it comes to those Boeing B-17 fighters, they were definitely more maneuverable than the American fighters of that era (like the P-40 Warhawk shown in the film), but it came at a massive cost to safety. The Zero relied on a wooden structural frame covered in metal skin, and it had almost zero armor protection for the engine or the pilot....

A fighter's primary asset is its flight capability, not its armor plating. History showed this during the rest of WWII, as fighter development shifted toward speed and firepower rather than heavy protection;
Armor was being developed for bombers and interceptors. So, the Zero was actually ahead of its time...

And don't even get me started on the outdated F2A Buffalo, which was a main American fighter back then (though it isn't really featured in the movie because it doesn't look impressive enough); it might have been well-armored—assuming the designation implies interceptor use—but that didn't save it from fighter cannons, or even small-caliber ground fire and AA...

Against US bombers, those planes might have helped (especially the torpedo bombers, which were most vulnerable), but they were always screened by Zeros...
Add to all that the initial disadvantages the Americans faced mentioned in the previous post, plus the massive factor of inexperience compared to the pilots who already had combat experience in China and Indochina...

👎 ...The data, specifically American records (meaning reality was likely even grimmer), shows that Americans lost roughly ten times as many aircraft as the enemy did. The only thing that saved them from total fleet destruction was the lack of carriers that posed a threat to the enemy, which reportedly caused them to cancel a third wave of attacks...

😎 To draw a parallel and wrap this up: what the Soviets were to the Germans in WWII is what the Americans were to the enemy in the Pacific Ocean (at least early in the war); pure quantity over quality...

urbanhawk28 said:A fighter's true value lies in its agility rather than its armor. We saw this play out clearly during the development of combat aircraft throughout WWII; the design philosophy shifted toward prioritizing speed and raw firepower over heavy plating.
The armor was engineered specifically for bombers and ground attackers. In that regard, the Zero was ahead of its time.

Armor is a critical factor—it’s essentially the difference between a fighter disintegrating from a single 7.7mm round or actually walking away from several 20mm shell hits. There are even documented instances where fighters were downed at Pearl Harbor by small arms fire, like rifles or machine guns used by infantry. Take the P-47, for example; it was incredibly rugged, but it paid for that durability with maneuverability. Because of its size and heavy plating, it weighed in at around 7 tons. Meanwhile, the Zero had to be stationed on carriers, which meant it had to stay as light and agile as possible. You can find more details on the Zero over here...
Check out this breakdown of fighter aircraft: http://www.acepilots.com/planes/jap_fighters.html

urbanhawk28 said:Let’s skip the discussion about the outdated F2A Buffalo. It wasn't even featured prominently in the film—likely because it just doesn't look impressive enough on screen. While it might have had decent armor (the "A" designation suggests it was used as an attack aircraft), that didn't do much good when facing enemy fighter cannons or light anti-aircraft fire from the ground.

If I recall correctly, the F2A Buffalo was primarily a naval aircraft stationed on carriers—though, as I remember, they weren't present at Pearl Harbor during the attack. From what I know, it was quickly phased out in favor of the F4A Wildcat, the F4U Corsair, and eventually the F6 Hellcat.

urbanhawk28 said:Those planes might have been useful against the enemy bombers—especially the torpedo bombers, which were sitting ducks out there—but they were being guarded by Zeros.
To understand the scale of the struggle, you have to look at the sheer weight of the circumstances stacked against the Americans from the jump. It wasn't just a matter of equipment; it was a massive deficit in experience. Our pilots were essentially stepping onto the field with raw nerves and unproven skills, facing off against veteran flyers who already had years of combat under their belts from campaigns across China and Southeast Asia. They weren't just fighting an enemy; they were fighting a seasoned, battle-hardened machine while still trying to figure out how to fly in a war zone.

I might be off base here, but I find it hard to believe any pilot from central China would fly halfway around the world just to drop a single torpedo or bomb on Pearl Harbor. Besides, toward the end of the war, it was the veteran fighter pilots defending the USA, while the missions over the Pacific Ocean were mostly handed off to rookies and kamikazes.

urbanhawk28 said:👎 The data—American data, which suggests reality might have been even bleaker—indicates that we lost roughly ten times more aircraft than the USA did. If it weren't for the fact that their carriers were nowhere to be found, they might have wiped out our entire fleet. Apparently, the perceived threat from those carriers was enough to make them call off a third wave of attacks.

You can find the casualty reports for both sides regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor right here:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps.../18charts1.htm

On another note, I think we’ve drifted a bit too far into off-topic territory. This thread is meant to be about the movie, not a deep dive into military history or technical specs... And frankly, I’d rather not see this devolve into an endless argument.
🙄

I threw Platoon into this video, and man, I loved it. If you haven't seen it yet and you're looking for a war movie that doesn't drown you in quasi-patriotic nonsense, do yourself a favor and watch it.

What kind of dark Pearl Harbor 🙂

Peter Myers29 said:Armor is definitely a crucial factor—it’s essentially the difference between a fighter disintegrating from a single 7.7mm round versus surviving several hits from 20mm shells.

Armor is more of an aerial thing... developed for fighters tasked with taking on heavily armed bombers, like the Boeing B-17 and similar models (think late WWII era when they had access to more powerful engines);

For dogfighting, which is what the movie actually shows, armor doesn't really serve much of a purpose compared to just dumping a massive caliber at close range... maybe it helps a pilot survive a bit longer if the cockpit catches fire.
Besides, the Zero had an air-cooled engine, making it naturally more resilient to damage, so extra engine armor wasn't even a huge priority.

Peter Myers29 said:Anyway, I think we've drifted pretty far off-topic here. This thread is supposed to be about the movie, not military history or technical specs... and I don't want this to turn into some endless argument....
[/B]

Well, most people have already realized the movie isn't much of anything, except for that blonde...

urbanhawk28 said:Armor is really an situational factor. It was developed for fighters tasked with taking on heavily armed bombers, like the Boeing B-17 and similar types (think late WWII American interceptors once they got access to more powerful engines);

For a dogfight—the kind shown in the movie—armor, at least in my view, doesn't offer much advantage compared to just landing a heavy caliber hit from close range. It might marginally increase a pilot's survival rate when escaping a burning cockpit.
Besides, the Zero used an air-cooled engine, which was naturally more resilient to damage, making additional engine armor somewhat redundant.

So, based on your argument, you're suggesting fighters were purpose-built for specific roles—specialized interceptors for fighting other fighters, specialized hunters for bombers—and then they'd just deploy whichever type suited the target? I have to say, that logic doesn't quite hold up for me. Take the Americans, for example; they relied heavily on the Hurricane and Spitfire to hold the line and shoot down just about everything sent their way. The reality is that while aircraft underwent constant improvements, engine power increased right alongside armor plating. To claim that armor isn't a vital characteristic is frankly absurd. Fighters in WWI were incredibly agile, but because they were built primarily of canvas, most pilots were killed by direct bullet hits rather than engine or wing failure, simply because there was no armor to protect them.

Classic American propaganda.
The effects feel dated.
Throwing in a dull love story doesn't just make the movie feel more mainstream; it barely saves it from being terrible.
The propaganda is way too obvious and heavy-handed.
They forced a romance into a pseudo-war setting where it just doesn't fit.
All those romantic subplots feel like some cheesy soap opera, and honestly, the whole movie stays at that level.
The characters look like they stepped straight out of a Rose garden.

If they had just edited this down to focus strictly on the attack preparations and the actual combat, we’d actually have a damn good war movie on our hands. As it stands? It’s just filler. It drags on forever and feels incredibly dull.

It’s honestly just trash—a complete departure from what actually happened on the ground. When movies are produced in direct collaboration with the military, they end up sanitizing the grit, cutting out anything that doesn't fit their preferred narrative.

Take a look at "Messenger Wind," for example. There was a scene in the original script where a sailor pulls the teeth from a corpse, but they completely scrubbed it from the final cut. Why? Because once you accept the military's backing, you're essentially letting them hand you their entire machine and dictate exactly how the story is told.

If you want to see a war movie that actually feels authentic, you have to look at something like "Apocalypse Now." Since it wasn't produced under the thumb of military oversight, it manages to stay truthful to the chaos.

...Good grief, who dug this thread up? 😁 I was actually just trying to explain my logic regarding this movie to a friend earlier—you know, one of those films that only pops into your head during a late-night existential crisis or when it randomly shows up on TV mid-afternoon: I absolutely loathe it. It’s just mindless—total bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, no matter how you slice it. And yet, somehow, I end up watching it every single time it’s on 🙄

...I hate you, Ewen Bremner! 😵

The most biting critique of "Pearl Harbor" can be found right in "Team America"—the entire song is a dedicated takedown of that film! 😁

This was my first time catching a movie at the AMC theater in Chicago since they finished the renovations and installed the new surround sound system... Honestly, between the plane noises flying past my head and the actual plot, I was absolutely shredded by this thing... I mean, how does Michael Bay manage to make such a total disaster of a film?