Pearl Harbor is a film detailing the events of the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, sparking the United States' involvement in World War II. This film closely follows two Navy pilots, played by Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, before and during the attack and shortly after the war that followed. Pearl Harbor was led by Michael Bay and liberated in 2001. The attack on Pearl Harbor was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "...a day that will live in infamy." The events following Pearl Harbor changed our nation forever. Could Hollywood really capture this story and impact in a cinematic film produced fifty years later? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Let's start with a later generation's first impression of the film. Two noted critics reviewed the film shortly after its release in 2001. Peter Rainer of The New York Times gave a mostly glowing rating and review, saying, "Pearl Harbor aspires to Titanic-sized feeling and realism of war is hell, but sacrifices both to an arsenal of bombastic special effects” (Rainer) He goes on to say that “Pearl Harbor is an incredibly numbing experience” (Rainer focuses more on). the effects and visual impact of the film, but he approves of the story and really liked the film The other reviewer is Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post Stephen's first impression of the film is: "Pearl Harbor does. relive the 1940s war film. "Moves to evoke the day of infamy" (Hunter) focuses more on the story and is very approving Michael Bay does his best to depict the events that take place. are produced on the day that will live in infamy when Japan made a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, sparking the United States' involvement in the World War. Two. Michael uses stunning visual effects and millions and millions of dollars to recreate the scenes so horribly created fifty years ago. In my opinion, the story was depicted to the best of a filmmaker's abilities and Rainer and Hunter agree in their reviews that the story could not have been shown better. Michael really brings the experience to the viewers. Michael recreates many scenes based on documentary facts such as initial attack time, number of ships and response time of stationed forces, public reaction and much more. One of my favorite scenes, and probably the most historically accurate, was just the first scene of the attack. How the Japanese had flown so early that people on the ground thought they were American test flights and radar readers thought they were birds. The real impact of the situation was only felt when the bombs started falling and sailors, pilots, medics, etc. began to fall. rushed to get ready. Michael also added scenes he created himself to tell the story of the pilots' lives outside of combat. I think these scenes help it tell the whole story of what was happening at that time. Michael's point of view during the film, that of the two pilots, is very precise. Most of what Michael shows are simply the most important points of the attack, with the exception of one or two dog fights that the pilots get involved in. These points that Michael describes, after doing some research, can easily be proven to be factual. I believe in every scene in the film except for the scenes depicting the private lives of the pilots; help.