Pearl Harbor (2001)

[excel1]

In a year that foreshadowed the trend of branded franchise box office domination that would come to dominate the industry, the most industry-hyped film was actually a 3 hour long World War 2 movie. Hannibal, The Mummy Returns, Tomb Raider, Jurassic Park 3, Planet of The Apes, Rush Hour 2, Scary Movie 2, American Pie 2, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings were all coming out in 2001 however in the prerelease build up, none captured the publics attention quite like the Memorial Day media monster that was Pearl Harbor. 

 

 

Fresh off the resounding success of 1996's The Rock and 1998's global box office champion Armageddon, Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer knew their next project would be a big deal. Other than Armageddon's big dollar gross, the dominant industry storylines of 1998 were unprecedented the success of TITANIC and along with the critical and commercial acclaim for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Retro nostalgia was back and in a tentpole-historical-epic way. Disney CEO Michael Eisner himself pitched Bay that Pearl Harbor would be a hybrid of TITANIC and SPR- action-packed military battles in paradise starring lots of hot young actors/actresses in the leading roles, patriotic overtones, an event so famous that it would practically sell itself- it sounded like the most surefire hit in town at the time. Additionally, Bay had stung by the critical ravaging that Armageddon had received, even if its box office proved it was beloved by audiences. He was eager for a project that would allow him to flex his artistic muscles to win critical acclaim in addition to generating massive dollars. Bay and Bruckheimer agreed to film based on a script from BRAVEHEART scribe Randall Wallace. Disney announced the film for a 2001 release along with the note that it was the most expensive film ever greenlit. A slew of young, expected to be stars - Armageddon star and Oscar winner Ben Affleck would lead the film, Kate Beckinsale beat out Charlize Theron and Gwyneth Paltrow for the female lead, while Halloween H20 star Josh Hartnett beat out Ashton Kutcher and Wes Bentley for the 2nd male lead. Cuba Gooding Jr would star as famous cook-turned-hero Dorrie Miller. Other famous industry veterans like Jon Voight, Alec Baldwin, and Dan Ackroyd joined in supporting roles. The years premiere release date - Memorial Day - was claimed. Many in the media began openly calling it "the next TITANIC", a claim that many should have viewed as ridiculous for many reasons but regardless, it stuck. 

 

It boasted one of the all-time great film trailer and marketing campaigns full of money shots & epic lines which actually made this look like a potentially award-caliber film. This is first known high-profile film to use the now replicated JOURNEY TO THE LINE theme by Hans Zimmer. If you watched the trailer, see it below - an incredible combination of action shots mixed with Zimmer's music and Voight recreating the famous FDR "Infamy" speech - it is a piece of art itself.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though its release marked a screen count record, its opening was marred by theater complaints that it's 3 hour run time limited the number of showtimes allowed given many theaters were still doing robust business from SHREK and MUMMY RETURNS. It's $75m opening 4 day weekend was massive but underwhelming given many had pegged it to top $100 million for the weekend. Over this time, a much bigger problem emerged - critics hated the film, and unlike ARMAGEDDON, it seemed a decent number of audience goers agreed. The action scenes received universal acclaim and many felt the friendship between Affleck and Hartnett's characters resonated, many found the romantic angle shockingly bad and its dominant storyline left viewed with a bad taste in their mouth. Add in the 3 run time and repeat business was very low. An industry insider noted in a mid-June report recapping Disney's disappointment that the film didn't turn out be quite the TITANIC clone they hoped for, " they can be proud that this one of the rare movies that everyone has heard about and seen. The problem for Disney is, for most people, once was enough".

 

The movie finished $198 million domestic and $450m globally, turning a nice profit. However, its final reputation is a decidedly mixed bag. The failure to meet insane expectations puts the film in the company of other 2000s epics such as King Kong, Superman Returns, and Planet of the Apes that are generally regarded as disappointments despite substantial grosses. Adjusted for inflation, PEARL's domestic gross is in the $350m ballpark and its global gross, factoring market development, is likely in the $900m to $1 billion range- truly mysterious numbers for a world war 2 film. The movie was also the highest selling DVD ever for a tune. The movies bigger cultural impact was also noticeable -  didn't slow Ben Affleck's burgeoning star at all and turned Josh Hartnett into a household name for a period of time. On the other hand, the next few Michael Bay projects - Bad Boys 2 and The Island - were not close to as media hyped. It would not be until 2007's Transformers that Bay would return to his crowd pleasing form.  

 

Now nearly 20 years old, the bombing scene have many millions of viewed on Youtube & the overall attack scene is viewed is one of the greatest action sequences of the millennium. Everything else beyond those scenes is essentially deemed unwatchable. 

Edited July 12, 2020 by excel1

[dudalb]

The Actual attack is well worth watching, the rest of the film sucks, frankly. Much of it is the worst thing a film can be:Boring.

It made money 450 Million on a 180 Million budget....but not the numbers that Eisner was expecting. It made a good profit for Disney, but Eisner was expecting a cash cow. I can't help but think that WOM hurt the film.

As somebody said, If you want a good drama about the US military in Hawaii in the days before the attack watch "From Here To Eternity".

If you want a good film about the attack, watch "Tora,Tora,Tora".

If you want to be bored, watch "Pearl Harbor".

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

Even the people who made Titanic didn't think it would become such a phenomenon. Not smart to spend that kind of money on Pearl Harbor, expecting to replicate even half of its success. There You'll Be was supposed to be the great love anthem a la My Heart Will Go On, but it's just so blah:

 

 

I was pleasantly surprised Pearl Harbor was released as a summer movie, given that the 60th anniversary was that December, though I suppose it was on DVD by then and got a sales boost that way. 

 

I just remember this movie being very slick/stylized, with everything seeming very modern, but the romance was so boring. It didn't need to be a love triangle. Overall, it's about as good as you can expect for Michael Bay tackling history + romance.

[excel1]

Dramawise, the friendship angle and patriotism stuff works pretty well. It's the romance/'Affleck dies and then comes back' storyline that is just shockingly bad. It's hard to believe this wasn't caught in there screenwriting phase. 

[DAJK]

I remember enjoying this in middle school. Might have to give it another watch though.

[snarkmachine]

i'm glad this movie exists if just for the best opening line of a review roger ebert ever wrote: "Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle."

[dudalb]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 3:20 AM, snarkmachine said:

i'm glad this movie exists if just for the best opening line of a review roger ebert ever wrote: "Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle."

All it does is remind you of how much better "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was.

[excel1]

Despite the hideous romance angle, this movie's run is fascinating -  primary the release and opening weekend stages - as this is really among the last of Hollywood's true "manufactured blockbusters". As far as I can tell, this is the last "original" film to open in the top 5 all time at time of release. 

 

1. Lost World: Jurassic Park - $72m

2. Mummy Returns - $68m
3. Episode 1 - $64m

4. Pearl Harbor - $59m 

 

Everything else that came after it & opened huge was based on some preexisting IP of some kind.  Troy was the same vain but obviously not close to as successful.  Inception was 9 years later. We don't get movies like this any more, certainly prime time summer months. 

 

The idea of an original, 3 hour film based on World War 2 opening to $200m+ in today's market is beyond nuts. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by excel1

[dudalb]

On 12/1/2020 at 11:14 AM, excel1 said:

Despite the hideous romance angle, this movie's run is fascinating -  primary the release and opening weekend stages - as this is really among the last of Hollywood's true "manufactured blockbusters". As far as I can tell, this is the last "original" film to open in the top 5 all time at time of release. 

 

1. Lost World: Jurassic Park - $72m

2. Mummy Returns - $68m
3. Episode 1 - $64m

4. Pearl Harbor - $59m 

 

Everything else that came after it & opened huge was based on some preexisting IP of some kind.  Troy was the same vain but obviously not close to as successful.  Inception was 9 years later. We don't get movies like this any more, certainly prime time summer months. 

 

The idea of an original, 3 hour film based on World War 2 opening to $200m+ in today's market is beyond nuts. 

I am a big World War 2 buff, and I hate this movie because most of it is boring.

Watch a double feature of "Tora Tora Tora" and "From Here To Eternity" instead.

[excel1]

On 12/6/2020 at 5:47 PM, dudalb said:

I am a big World War 2 buff, and I hate this movie because most of it is boring.

Watch a double feature of "Tora Tora Tora" and "From Here To Eternity" instead.

 

On 11/30/2020 at 7:33 PM, dudalb said:

All it does is remind you of how much better "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was.

 

Tora! Tora! Tora! has a massive energy and soul problem. The movie is so by-the-numbers that there is zero emotional connection to anyone outside of maybe the conflicted and well-portrayed Yamamoto. It is absolutely more historical accurate the Bay movie but color me shocked when I realized it wasn't even going to attempt building some type of emotional connection between anyone. Casual moviegoers will almost certainly prefer the Bay film to it. From Here To Eternity is the polar opposite and has nearly nothing to do with the attack other than it happens. 

 

I still look at this event/film and think there is so much untapped commercial and critical potential here. The only thing the Bay movie reached maximum potential with was marketing and opening weekend figures - truly one of the best ad campaigns of all time. But that's it. The right Director with a name ala Michael B. Jordon as Dorris Miller and a few other veterans? This could a gigantic hit. If Dunkirk can do $521m and 1917 can do $400m, a proper telling of the overall Pearl Harbor story - which would have to end with the rousing American reaction - would no doubt be a $1 billion challenger and awards contender. 

[dxmatrixdt]

On 7/11/2020 at 9:21 PM, excel1 said:

 

It boasted one of the all-time great film trailer and marketing campaigns full of money shots & epic lines which actually made this look like a potentially award-caliber film. This is first known high-profile film to use the now replicated JOURNEY TO THE LINE theme by Hans Zimmer. If you watched the trailer, see it below - an incredible combination of action shots mixed with Zimmer's music and Voight recreating the famous FDR "Infamy" speech - it is a piece of art itself.  

 

 

so I watched the trailer you linked and the Journey to the Line theme you mention sounded like the Pearl Harbor theme, so i listened to Journey to the Line, found out it was from The Thin Red Line, and it was the Pearl Harbor theme.  so i asked google about it and they couldn't help me.  i am not going to listen to both soundtracks, but Pearl Harbor has a full soundtrack that is like this theme?  isn't this true?  Hans Zimmer scores both films.  do you know if there is supposed to be differences?

Edited May 26, 2023 by dxmatrixdt

[excel1]

3 hours ago, dxmatrixdt said:

so I watched the trailer you linked and the Journey to the Line theme you mention sounded like the Pearl Harbor theme, so i listened to Journey to the Line, found out it was from The Thin Red Line, and it was the Pearl Harbor theme.  so i asked google about it and they couldn't help me.  i am not going to listen to both soundtracks, but Pearl Harbor has a full soundtrack that is like this theme?  isn't this true?  Hans Zimmer scores both films.  do you know if there is supposed to be differences?

 

Journey To The Line is 100% from The Thin Red Line. It was used in Pearl's iconic trailer and then subsequently used in many others following. Zimmer's Pearl score has some themes that are very similar but nothing quite as famous as Journey to The Line, though the haunting signature "Tennessee" theme for Pearl is somewhat similar and is also one of Zimmer's most famous and popular pieces, no doubt worthy of a much better film tbh.

[dudalb]

On 9/24/2020 at 11:00 AM, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Even the people who made Titanic didn't think it would become such a phenomenon. Not smart to spend that kind of money on Pearl Harbor, expecting to replicate even half of its success. There You'll Be was supposed to be the great love anthem a la My Heart Will Go On, but it's just so blah:

 

 

I was pleasantly surprised Pearl Harbor was released as a summer movie, given that the 60th anniversary was that December, though I suppose it was on DVD by then and got a sales boost that way. 

 

I just remember this movie being very slick/stylized, with everything seeming very modern, but the romance was so boring. It didn't need to be a love triangle. Overall, it's about as good as you can expect for Michael Bay tackling history + romance.

They were lucky not to go for a December, 2001 opening.

I think the US would not have been in the mood for a film about a surprise attack on the US after what happened on 9/11 2001.

[excel1]

25 minutes ago, dudalb said:

They were lucky not to go for a December, 2001 opening.

I think the US would not have been in the mood for a film about a surprise attack on the US after what happened on 9/11 2001.

 

It would have been very awkward. I can see some critics being more friendly to there film amongst the American patriotism wave that swept the us post 9/11, but largely...the heavy emphasis on (poorly done) romance in the first hour is in such a massive contrast to the epic money-shots galore advertising campaign, along with such a wasted story ending (see nothing of the legendary post Pearl American unification) the backlash may have been even more intense.

 

This movie is such a classic misfire it borders on funny. Similar to 2004s Troy, it goes full 'Hollywood' and pays for it. 

 

Consultant: "Should we highlight the divisions within America before the attack, or expand on the geopolitical environment causing such tension, or emphasize the constant false alarms on the islands bases before attack?"

Bay and Bruckheimer: "No, let's have Ben and Kate make out alongside a TITANIC lookalike ship to establish the right vibe. And then let's get Josh ULTRA dolled up and film him and Kate frolicking in the ocean and on a beach." 

 

Consultant:  "This post-attack battleship row set is incredible. We will have some legendary shots here."

Bay: "Yeah, I want to film Josh posing in slow-mo with the ships kinda visible behind him"

 

Consultant: "We should end with a true pull at the heart strings - maybe a montage of the American response to Pearl attack?"

Bay: "Better yet, let's kill the more popular male lead and then have the other cry over his body, because that's the real romantic relationship of the film, lets be serious. And then lets show the fake characters getting medals. And finish with the 2 survivors happily ever after raising the dead ones kid".

Edited June 15, 2023 by excel1

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

2 hours ago, dudalb said:

They were lucky not to go for a December, 2001 opening.

I think the US would not have been in the mood for a film about a surprise attack on the US after what happened on 9/11 2001.

I was really surprised (and relieved) at the time that the studio resisted glomming onto the 60th anniversary as a release date, but IIRC the timing worked so that the DVD was fresh that December.

 

9/11 was compared to the Pearl Harbor attack and there was a huge patriotic mood in the aftermath. Since the movie was based on World War II, it might have possibly gotten a pass as "history" and inspirational in a way: some form of "America's been attacked before and we won by standing together!" logic.

 

They would probably cut back the romance a bit and focus on the military aspects, which might have probably make Pearl Harbor a better movie. Black Hawk Down did do pretty well that holiday/winter season, and it was about a much less famous/popular war, with less star power. On the other hand, the major hits of the season were fantasy/escapist. It's an interesting What If? to consider.

Edited June 15, 2023 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[excel1]

6 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

I was really surprised (and relieved) at the time that the studio resisted glomming onto the 70th anniversary as a release date, but IIRC the timing worked so that the DVD was fresh that December.

 

9/11 attacks was compared to the Pearl Harbor attack and there was a huge patriotic mood in the aftermath. Since the movie was based on World War II, it might have possibly gotten a pass as "history" and inspirational in a way: some form of "America's been attacked before and we won by standing together!" logic. They would probably cut back the romance a bit and focus on the military aspects, which might have probably make Pearl Harbor a better movie. Black Hawk Down did do pretty well that holiday/winter season, and it was about a much less famous/popular war.

 

Really don't think that country would have reacted well to this film, as it was released, had it opened so close to 9/11. The country was still very angry in December, and movies such as Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Oceans 11 were used as escapism from the news. This film is barely even about Pearl Harbor...I think think it would have been a gigantic misfire, even larger than was in real life. Maybe had this movie been pushed to May of 2002 (would have needed 1 of Spider-man or Star Wars to move) when some of the anger had dissipated, it may have benefitted. 

 

Would not change the fact that Bruckheimer and Bay made a very different film than most people wanted. They wanted Pearl Harbor done 'Black Hawk Down' style, not like Titanic. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by excel1

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

11 hours ago, excel1 said:

 

Really don't think that country would have reacted well to this film, as it was released, had it opened so close to 9/11. The country was still very angry in December, and movies such as Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Oceans 11 were used as escapism from the news. This film is barely even about Pearl Harbor...I think think it would have been a gigantic misfire, even larger than was in real life. Maybe had this movie been pushed to May of 2002 (would have needed 1 of Spider-man or Star Wars to move) when some of the anger had dissipated, it may have benefitted. 

 

Would not change the fact that Bruckheimer and Bay made a very different film than most people wanted. They wanted Pearl Harbor done 'Black Hawk Down' style, not like Titanic. 

It's three hours with the romance. If it was scheduled as a December 2001 release, maybe Disney changes course about the sort of movie it should be: the country needs a rousing patriotic drama right now, not another Titanic.

 

They keep the hour-ish of battle scenes and eliminate the love triangle. A week or two of reshoots to cover the shift in character dynamics, ADR as needed, and now Pearl Harbor is a slimmed-down 110-120 minute military movie. Every ad/trailer would have used the FDR quotes and featured American flags everywhere. Faith Hill gets sent back to come up with lyrics about persevering through adversity, and the song gets pushed as THE patriotic anthem of the Fall/Winter season.

 

Also, in this alternate universe where Pearl Harbor was a December 2001 release, maybe New Line doesn't slot Fellowship of the Ring and its fantasy battles next to the big historical World War II movie. Maybe the entire release schedule for that season is different to begin with. It's all hypothetical, but some beloved movies have had chaotic productions or otherwise benefited from having to deviate from the original plans.

 

 

But as it is, the DVD sales were incredible:

 

The film was released on VHS and DVD on December 4, 2001.^[17][18] In its first week, it sold more than 7 million units and made more than $130 million in retail sales.^[17]

 

 

[excel1]

33 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

It's three hours with the romance. If it was scheduled as a December 2001 release, maybe Disney changes course about the sort of movie it should be: the country needs a rousing patriotic drama right now, not another Titanic.

 

They keep the hour-ish of battle scenes and eliminate the love triangle. A week or two of reshoots to cover the shift in character dynamics, ADR as needed, and now Pearl Harbor is a slimmed-down 110-120 minute military movie. Every ad/trailer would have used the FDR quotes and featured American flags everywhere. Faith Hill gets sent back to come up with lyrics about persevering through adversity, and the song gets pushed as THE patriotic anthem of the Fall/Winter season.

 

Also, in this alternate universe where Pearl Harbor was a December 2001 release, maybe New Line doesn't slot Fellowship of the Ring and its fantasy battles next to the big historical World War II movie. Maybe the entire release schedule for that season is different to begin with. It's all hypothetical, but some beloved movies have had chaotic productions or otherwise benefited from having to deviate from the original plans

 

But as it is, the DVD sales were incredible

 

 

They definitely could have made some changes to make this more effective, but IDK if one can save the love triangle. It's so bad. The battle of Britain and Doolittle Raid stuff is all overkill as well. The internet was full of feedback on how the film should have been done back in 2001.The easiest adjustment to what they already had would have been to have Hartnett and Beckinsale meet first but not act on feelings before Affleck comes in and takes over before opting to go to UK and "die". Affleck's wants to be the hero in the movie anyway, when he learns Beckinsale is pregnant, the ending should have have him sacrificing himself to save his friend and his future family. Would still be far to soap operas but it would be better than was provided. Bay legit. just wanted girls to cry so he killed the more likable and handsome male lead. 

 

A straight-up back to the drawing board take on the film should eliminate all of the stuff in UK and Doolittle Raid & focus on Oahu. Maybe copy the plot from an Officer & A Gentleman and have young rebel soldier Hartnett get toughened up on the realities of a world at a war by grizzled WW1 Veteran commander Alec Baldwin while he falls in love with Kate Beckinsale. Actually show the tension around the Hawaii in the build up, make the audience familiar with the various bases and ships, etc. Hartnett can be friends with the real life pilot heroes who would actually get the film spotlight this time. Put Hartnett and Baldwin on battleship row during the attack and follow Hartnett's survival to shore. Keep everything with Cuba Gooding Jr and Beckinsale nurse scenes as is.  End the film with the rousing American reaction to the attack and Hartnett maturing and embracing the military life as many young men did at the time. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by excel1

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

3 hours ago, excel1 said:

 

They definitely could have made some changes to make this more effective, but IDK if one can save the love triangle. It's so bad. The battle of Britain and Doolittle Raid stuff is all overkill as well. The internet was full of feedback on how the film should have been done back in 2001.The easiest adjustment to what they already had would have been to have Hartnett and Beckinsale meet first but not act on feelings before Affleck comes in and takes over before opting to go to UK and "die". Affleck's wants to be the hero in the movie anyway, when he learns Beckinsale is pregnant, the ending should have have him sacrificing himself to save his friend and his future family. Would still be far to soap operas but it would be better than was provided. Bay legit. just wanted girls to cry so he killed the more likable and handsome male lead. 

 

A straight-up back to the drawing board take on the film should eliminate all of the stuff in UK and Doolittle Raid & focus on Oahu. Maybe copy the plot from an Officer & A Gentleman and have young rebel soldier Hartnett get toughened up on the realities of a world at a war by grizzled WW1 Veteran commander Alec Baldwin while he falls in love with Kate Beckinsale. Actually show the tension around the Hawaii in the build up, make the audience familiar with the various bases and ships, etc. Hartnett can be friends with the real life pilot heroes who would actually get the film spotlight this time. Put Hartnett and Baldwin on battleship row during the attack and follow Hartnett's survival to shore. Keep everything with Cuba Gooding Jr and Beckinsale nurse scenes as is.  End the film with the rousing American reaction to the attack and Hartnett maturing and embracing the military life as many young men did at the time. 

I was thinking of the most economical way to restructure the movie, if they'd have had to change it due to a shift in the national mood. But a fundamentally different script from the start would have helped, too.

 

Obviously, Disney had visions of a Titanic-like epic, but 105-120 minutes is a perfectly fine length for a war drama and probably more Bay and Bruckheimer's speed. A shorter movie can get more showtimes and can make repeat views less daunting. Who knows if Titanic would have made $600 million as a summer release (the original plan)? It was beloved but there weren't lots of blockbusters releasing in January-March 1998.

 

 

[excel1]

6 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Obviously, Disney had visions of a Titanic-like epic, but 105-120 minutes is a perfectly fine length for a war drama and probably more Bay and Bruckheimer's speed. A shorter movie can get more showtimes and can make repeat views less daunting. 

 

The story could have been modeled with Jurassic Park type pacing and run time and been a very good, effective film. Pearl opening at 3 hours long with heavy competition absolutely hurt the films opening weekend gross as it was noted at the time.