Reviews

Screenwriter Randall Wallace did it again. In 1995, he sentimentalized, melodramatized and generally dumbed up the historical accounts about William Wallace and wrote a rather mediocre script for the movie "Braveheart." He did it again for "Pearl Harbor." He twisted and warped well-documented historical accounts and ended up with a weak script, which has an annoyingly predictable story line. Moreover, the film clumsily climaxed right in the middle and kept on dragging on and on after that.

The only saving grace of this movie was its battle scenes. Unlike many other phony Hollywood war movies, the technical consultants of the movie amazed me with a great attention to details. Many of the replicas of Japanese naval planes were constructed with minute details. Most of the Zeros, Vals and Kates were painted very accurately in light gray or greenish camouflage. Some of the machine guns on these planes were constructed surprisingly accurately. (There was a slight inaccuracy in painting some of the Zeros greenish. Historically, all the Zeros, which participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor, were painted light gray.) Even though they were reproductions, the uniforms of the Japanese pilots (i.e. brown flight suits) and Japanese aircraft carrier crewmen (i.e. white outfits for enlisted men and black outfits for officers) were relatively accurate.

A scene of a meeting of Japanese naval staff in which several large models of U.S. battleships were placed in a pool was surprisingly accurate historically. According to an account written by a former member of the Imperial Japanese Naval staff, such a meeting did indeed take place in late 1941 at a Japanese naval base. During this meeting top members of Japanese naval staff and several admirals did indeed debate about the tactics of Pearl Harbor attack while experimenting with several models of U.S. warships, which were placed in a large pool. However, I am not sure if Admiral Yamamoto himself participated in this meeting.

The attack scenes on Pearl Harbor were filmed excellently. Even though the scenes in this movie were not as good as those in the 1970 movie `Tora, Tora, Tora,' the computer-generated animations were very well done. Also, the panic, pain and carnage at Pearl Harbor were depicted very well.

Japanese-American actor Mako played Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto very well. Just like Mako, Yamamoto was a short unremarkable looking man. In fact, Mako looked like the real Yamamoto more than late Toshiro Mifune, who played him in a 1976 war movie `Midway' and 1968 movie `Isoroku Yamamoto.' Another Japanese-American actor Cary Tagawa played Captain Genda very competently.

WARNING!!! POSSIBLE SPOILER. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO READ THIS, GO TO THE POINT MARKED WITH ****** Unfortunately, there were many really disappointing things about this movie. The script of the film is very weak and clumsy. For instance, the movie climaxed with the attack on Pearl Harbor which happened right about the middle. The rest of the movie which led to the Doolittle's raid dragged on and on. Moreover, why did the movie end with Doolittle's raid? Even though this raid had some moral significance, this was a rather unsatisfactorily tame ending for this movie. Why didn't the director end this movie with the Battle of Midway, where the U.S. Navy did indeed spectacularly avenge the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor? The director did not have to portray the entire Battle of Midway. He only had to show the crucial scene in which U.S. dive bombers attack and destroy three Japanese aircraft carriers. That would have been a more satisfactory and spectacular ending to this movie.

The movie's central story line about the love of Capt. McCawley, his best friend Capt. Walker and the beautiful nurse Stewart was rather cliché and highly predictable. Similar story lines have been used by Hollywood dozens of times in the past. The story was so predictable that I could foresee the outcome hours before the ending. Couldn't Hollywood writers come up with something new? Also, why did McCawley and Walker, who were fighter pilots, participate in Doolittle's raid, an attack by medium bombers? I did not know that U.S. fighter pilots were cross-trained to fly bombers.

The scene of a meeting of top Japanese admirals and generals was so ridiculously portrayed that it became a laughing stock of some Japanese movie critics. With Japanese soldiers dressed in crisp uniform standing next to a banner with the slogan `Service to Our Country' exquisitely written in large Chinese characters, this scene looked convincing, but only superficially. Historically, no outdoor meeting like this ever took place. (In fact, top secret meetings anywhere in the world are rarely held outdoor due to security problems. Almost all top secret meetings are held indoor in secure meeting rooms.) Numerous meetings between top Japanese army and naval brasses did take place during 1940 and 1941. But they all took place at secure meeting rooms within the Army and Naval Ministry buildings in Tokyo.

Just like in many other Hollywood war movies, the enemy soldiers in this movie were total morons. Japanese soldiers captured McCawley and Walker but failed to search them for weapons--a very elementary battlefield procedure. While several Japanese soldiers were pointing their rifles at both McCawley and Walker, McCawley suddenly pulled out a Colt pistol and killed all the Japanese soldiers. Those mentally-retarded Japanese could not even hit McCawley once. In Hollywood movies, all Japanese and German soldiers are clumsy morons. If Japanese and Germans are so dumb, why did the U.S. lose so many men and women during WW II and spent almost four years to defeat them? I cannot figure out.

******* This movie is neither a great masterpiece nor a total flop. I agree with many people that `Tora, Tora, Tora' was a much better movie. `Pearl Harbor' was just a mediocre movie with good battle scenes and a very weak, cliché script.

I saw "Tokyo Story" for the first time back in the 1970's. I recently saw the film again and became interested in the life of its director Yasujiro Ozu. According to my brief research, Ozu is considered to be one of the greatest Japanese filmmaker of the 20th century. During the 1930's, he fought as a front-line soldier of the Japanese Imperial Army in China. After a discharge from the Army, he was re-conscripted in the 1940's by the Japanese Army to make propaganda films. He was a life-long bachelor who was apparently a hard-drinking but functioning alcoholic. Toward the end of his life, he had to drink several pints of sake just to start the day. Even though he was a hard working filmmaker, he was also a life-long party animal who partied really, really hard. He could be rather bad-tempered. When he was young, he got into trouble after punching a waiter at his studio's commissary. In spite of his drinking and bad-temper, Ozu was worshipped by many Japanese actors and actresses. He made many masterpieces, including "Tokyo Story," `Equinox Flower,' and "Floating Weeds," before his untimely death from cancer in 1963.

Even though Ozu admired the works of his more internationally known younger colleague Akira Kurosawa, in terms of filmmaking Ozu and Kurosawa were diametric opposites. While Kurosawa's style was considered to be very different from a typical Japanese filmmaking style, Ozu was considered to be the most Japanese of all Japanese movie directors. In spite his very Japanese filmmaking style, Ozu in many ways was similar to the Swedish genius Ingmar Bergman. Just like Bergman, Ozu rarely relied on overt violence in his movies and cherished scripts with greater delicacy and subtlety than Kurosawa. While Kurosawa made different kinds of movies (i.e. samurai movies, detective stories, war movies, social statement movies), Ozu was very limited in the kind of movies he made. Towards the end of his life, Ozu only made movies about the everyday lives of typical Japanese middle-class families. This is due to the difference in the way the two masters tried to depict humankind. While Kurosawa tried to study humankind by portraying different kinds of human being (i.e. samurais, criminals, police detectives, soldiers, paupers, corrupted politicians, semi-senile old men), Ozu in his artistic maturity confined himself to making films about average middle-class Japanese. In doing so, Ozu tried to find something universal to all human beings of different races and cultures in the lives of typical middle-class Japanese families.

"Tokyo Story" is a prime example of Ozu's mature style. To be honest, I was worried before I checked the comments about "Tokyo Story" on the IMDb site. I thought the modern movie audience, who grew up with Arnold Schwarznegger, Bruce Willis and Chuck Norris shoot-them-up movies, cannot appreciate or even comprehend this subtle work of art. To my pleasant surprise, numerous people saw this movie, and many of them had positive opinions about this sine qua non by the Japanese master Ozu. SLIGHT SPOILER HERE. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ, JUMP TO ***. In this movie, Ozu portrayed the life of a typical middle-class Japanese family consisting of aging parents and their adult children. The adult children act selfishly and callously toward their own parents while the daughter-in-law shows heart-warming tenderness. The complexity of parents-children relationship, a theme applicable to all races and cultures, is depicted with great mastery and subtlety.

*** As one IMDb commentator stated, this movie might be too quiet and slow for the MTV generation; however, this movie has a deep insight and masterful depiction of human nature which are often lacking in modern American movies. As a front line soldier during the Sino-Japanese conflict of the 1930's, Ozu must have seen first hand numerous carnage far worse than anything depicted in modern American action films. However, Ozu did not need Chuck Norris' Uzi or Schwarznegger's grenades to express what he wanted to say. With his famed minimalist camera technique, which is reminiscent of Japanese haiku poems, he fully stated what he wanted to say quietly and masterfully. `Tokyo Story' is indeed a timeless masterpiece.

The recently aired NBC special "Uprising" is a very well-made TV movie. The movie depicts the doomed 1943 revolt by Warsaw ghetto Jews against the Nazi war machine. During this uprising, desperate Jews of Warsaw ghetto hid in underground bunkers and many other hiding places and waged a determined but a hopeless armed struggle against the mighty Nazi war machine. Even though the Germans had an abundant supply of weapons and Jewish freedom fighters only had a meager arsenal of mostly pistols and home-made bombs, the Germans acted in a brutal but cowardly way while the Jewish fighters, both men and women, showed incredible courage. Faced with even the smallest resistance, many of the so-called crack fighting units of the Waffen SS cowered in fear often running around in panic. However, when these SS men captured the Jewish freedom fighters, they acted like perfectly sadistic bullies by mercilessly executing them and enjoying the killings. In one instance, just to amuse themselves, these "crack" SS men broke into a Jewish hospital and threw the sick and nurses into fire, broke open the skulls of Jewish babies by throwing them against the wall and disembowelled women in the gynecological ward.

SLIGHT SPOILER HERE!!! IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO READ, JUMP TO ***** Unlike many movies, in which the screenwriters use their meager talents to create fictional but boring story lines and characters, many of the most dramatic events and characters depicted in this TV movie were factual (although some events and characters were changed slightly to simplify the storytelling). The scene in which the Jewish fighters successfully knock out a German tank and kill dozens of Waffen SS men with their meager arsenal and home-made bombs is based on an actual event during the ghetto uprising. Another scene in which the SS men fire at Jewish women and children who are jumping out of a burning building while their commander General Jurgen Stroop is watching the whole scene with amusement is also based on an actual event described by Stroop himself during his incarceration for war crimes. (During his jailhouse confession, Stroop mockingly called these helpless Jewish women and children `Jewish paratroopers.')

Some of the battle scenes are very well filmed with historically accurate reproduction uniforms, authentic German rifles and machine guns, authentic German half-trucks, and a Soviet T-34 converted expertly to look like a real German Tiger I. Unlike many other movies, which use phony sound effects, the sounds of Mauser Kar 98K rifle--standard infantry rifle of the German Army--are very close to the real sound. (I know the sound of Mauser. I heard it several hundred times at several rifle ranges.)

Most of the cast members, including Hank Azaria, David Schwimmer, Cary Elwes and Leelee Sobiesky, played their respective roles effectively. However, the greatest acting accolade should go to Jon Voight for his portrayal of brutal but obsequious SS Brigadefuhrer Jurgen Stroop although Voight is slightly too old for this role (Stroop was forty-eight in 1943.).

Even though this movie is impressive, it definitely is not perfect. First, the Jewish freedom fighters look too healthy and well-nourished. The Jewish freedom fighters in Warsaw were subjected to several years of malnutrition. How could any of them look so muscular like Hank Azaria or well-fed like Leelee Sobiesky? Extant photographs of Warsaw ghetto residents show them to be malnourished and emaciated. Second, just like many other TV movies, "Uprising" is rather myopic. Because of its limited scope, "Uprising" could have given some viewers the wrong impression that the Warsaw ghetto uprising was a revolt by several dozens or several hundred fighters who occupied several city blocks. They may also think that German SS sent only several hundred soldiers and several cannons to fight the freedom fighters. In reality, during this revolt anywhere from 1000 to 1500 Jewish fighters occupied several square miles within Warsaw. Germans brought in several thousand Waffen SS soldiers and their auxiliaries, dozens of artillery pieces, several tanks, and air support to fight these fighters. Third, the TV movie was rather unclear about the response of Gentiles Poles to the ghetto revolt. The responses from various sectors of Gentile Poles were varied and more interesting--if one can call it "interesting"--than any fictional tales. Risking their own lives, some Catholic Poles slipped weapons and food to the Jewish freedom fighters in the ghetto. Many Catholic Poles continuously harassed and delayed the SS units, which were summoned to suppress the ghetto revolt. Some Catholic Poles even slipped into the ghetto from the Aryan side and fought alongside the Jewish fighters. Other Poles were totally nonchalant about the fate of the Jews during the revolt. These Poles just looked the other way. However, there were many Poles who were gleeful about the Germans ridding Poland of Jews. Some ultranationalist Poles even actively participated in massacring Jewish fighters and non-combatants during the revolt. Depicting the varied responses of Gentile Poles would have made this TV movie even more interesting.

***** Even though NBC wrongly claimed that this was the first movie about the Warsaw ghetto uprising (there was a 1982 TV movie `The Wall,' which also was about the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising), this movie is definitely not a rehash of the 1982 TV movie. I consider this TV movie to be unique and successful. Even though many movie directors have already made many movies and TV mini-series about the Holocaust and German atrocities, NBC should make more TV movies like this. The story of Warsaw ghetto uprising transcends beyond Jewish holocaust history. The courage of these Jews is an encouragement to all the oppressed people. Tales of these Jewish fighters will never let us forget about the courage of the oppressed and brutality of totalitarian regimes.

Mel Gibson's movie "Braveheart" is a nice crowd-pleaser. The producer, director and screenwriters of this film had in their hands a perfect opportunity to make a GREAT timeless masterpiece. The movie has a larger-than-life hero, heroic acts of numerous Scottish men, epic battles and an easy-to-hate foe. (What more do you expect?) However, they ganged up on this great idea and reduced it merely to an above average movie. I wonder what they were thinking.

When making so-called `historical' epics, many Hollywood writers have a tendency to rewrite, warp, sentimentalize, melodramatize and generally dumb up history. In the process, the story lines often deviate from the real history so much that the movie is not historical anymore. These screenwriters must think that an average moviegoer is too dumb to understand or appreciate the complexity and subtlety of history. Randall Wallace, the screenwriter of this movie, did exactly that: grossly rewrote history, deprive the script of subtlety and generally dumbed up the script.

SLIGHT SPOILER IN THIS PARAGRAPH!!! IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO READ IT, JUMP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Many people have heavily criticized this movie for its gross historical inaccuracies. I agree wholeheartedly. Many aspects of William Wallace's life are shrouded in mystery. Until recently, most historians relied almost exclusively on the biographical poems about Wallace by the15th century Scottish minstrel Blind Harry as the primary source. However, the movie's script grossly deviates even from what little modern historians know about William Wallace. These are some examples: 1) Why was the Battle of Stirling Bridge portrayed without a bridge? A small bridge played a crucial role in this English defeat. 2) Why was Wallace's atrocities committed in Northern England totally omitted from this movie? Wallace and his men committed numerous acts of atrocities--including rape, pillage and massacre--after invading Northern England. 3) The movie omits the crucial role William Wallace's brothers played in William becoming one of the leaders of Scottish liberation movement. 4) The movie unfairly portrays Robert Bruce as a back stabber even though there is no extant historical evidence to indicate that Robert Bruce betrayed William Wallace. There are many other examples of historical inaccuracies but are too numerous to be listed here.

As many people have already commented, this movie lacks subtlety just like many other Hollywood movies. Unlike the complexity of real life, most issues in this movie are conveniently all black and white. For example, most characters are divided into all-bad villains and all-good heroes. Just like the Imperial forces in "Star Wars," the English are the totally evil villains while the Scots were bunch of fierce but virtuous freedom fighters. Edward Longshank, the English king, is portrayed as an evil and greedy tyrant similar to Darth Vader while Sir William Wallace is portrayed as a somewhat naive but virtuous freedom fighter similar to Luke Skywalker. The extant record shows that real history is not simple black and white like this. Historically Edward Longshank was indeed a greedy and ambitious ruler, but he did show many instances of magnanimity and generosity. As stated earlier, William Wallace was a flawed man. He was a fierce freedom fighter but committed numerous acts of atrocities.

The scriptwriters must have thought that all moviegoers have to be reminded again and again ad nauseum that "freedom is beautiful" and "invasion and occupation of foreign nations are bad." I think we all got the message after the first or second time. But the movie seems to go on and on pounding into our heads the same message with the repeated portrayals of English brutality and victimization of the Scottish population. If the screenwriters want to keep on stating the message after the first or second time, they should have done it more subtly from the third or fourth time.

There are some aspects of the movie which salvaged it from being a total failure. Mel Gibson did an admirable job of playing William Wallace. Even though he is about one foot too short to play William Wallace (Wallace was reputed to be almost seven feet tall ), Gibson tried and somewhat succeeded in recreating the charisma of this Scottish freedom fighter. It is too bad that Gibson created an indelible image in the mind of some of the moviegoers that he is a shoot-them-up, blow-them-away action star by playing Mad Max three times in the `Mad Max' series and Sgt. Martin Riggs four times in the "Lethal Weapon" series. However, he is a much, much more competent actor than action stars like Stallone, Schwarznegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris. In terms of acting talent he is closer to late Lord Lawrence Olivier than to these four amateurs who have the temerity to call themselves "actor." Some people have commented that Mel Gibson focused too much attention on himself in this movie. He did focus lots of attention on himself, but he is the star of this movie for crying out loud! I think Mel Gibson focused attention on himself only to the extent of what is expected of the star of a movie. However, the greatest acting accolade should go to Patrick McGoohan for his portrayal of the evil tyrant Edward Longshank. He skillfully portrayed this evil but determined ruler. This accomplished thespian's acting skill just awed me. Only McGoohan's vast acting talent, which added depth to the character, salvaged Edward Longshank from being a one-dimensional 14th century version of Darth Vader.

The novice director Mel Gibson did a very competent job of choreographing the battle scenes. Unlike most of the 1950's and 1960's Hollywood epic movies, Gibson portrayed the battle scenes with realistic gore and brutality, the way battle scenes should be portrayed.

This is a good movie which greatly pleased the audience. To be honest, I like this movie. However, if the movie was made with a better characterization of various characters, subtlety of expression and better historical accuracies, it could have been a GREAT movie.