Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Pearl Harbor (2001) frames Japan's attack on Hawaii with a melodramatic love triangle that drives much of the film's emotional weight.

The story centres on two lifelong friends, Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker, both pilots raised together in rural America and bound by loyalty and shared ambition. When they arrive at Pearl Harbor in 1941, Rafe quickly falls in love with Evelyn Johnson, a naval nurse. Their romance is intense and idealised, presented as a brief moment of happiness before the war intrudes. Rafe volunteers to fight with the RAF in England and is soon reported killed in action. Evelyn, devastated but trying to carry on with her life, gradually grows closer to Danny, who has remained at Pearl Harbor.

Danny and Evelyn's relationship develops slowly and uneasily, shaped by grief and guilt. Both feel they are betraying Rafe's memory, yet they also find comfort and genuine affection in one another. By the time they fully commit, Evelyn is pregnant, and the pair begin to imagine a future together, still shadowed by the absent third presence in their relationship.

The triangle is violently reopened when Rafe unexpectedly returns, having survived his mission. His reunion with Evelyn turns bitter when he realises she has moved on with Danny. The friendship between the two men fractures into anger and resentment, and Evelyn is caught between her past love and her present reality. Their personal conflict comes to a head just as the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, forcing Rafe and Danny to put aside their rivalry in order to survive and fight back.

After the attack, the triangle briefly gives way to duty. Rafe and Danny volunteer for the Doolittle Raid, where Danny is killed, effectively resolving the triangle through tragedy rather than choice. In the aftermath, Evelyn mourns Danny while reconciling with Rafe, who accepts responsibility for the future, including Danny's child. The film ultimately treats the love triangle as a symbol of innocence lost, using romance and rivalry to personalise the larger catastrophe of Pearl Harbor and the emotional costs of war.

Success Rate:  + 1.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Faculty (4 Stars)

This is a film I haven't watched for a long time. I remember renting it from Lovefilm when I lived in Mansel Road, so it must have been 2008 or earlier. Lovefilm was a company which allowed DVDs to be rented by mail. There was no rental period, I could keep a DVD as long as I wanted, but I was only allowed to have three DVDs at a time, so it was in my own interest to watch and return as quickly as possible to get the next film. As it was, I used to make a copy of any films I liked. I made a copy of "The Faculty", which I still have today, but I never watched the copy. Silly me. Lovefilm was bought by Amazon in 2008 and continued its rental business for a few years.

My memories of the film were vague before finally watching it again today. I remembered that it was written by Kevin Williamson, but I'd forgotten that it was directed by Robert Rodriguez.

The film takes place in a small town in Ohio, mostly in Herrington High School. A small creature is found which on the sports field that the Biology teacher can't identify. At first he thinks it's dead, but when he drops it into an aquarium it revives and starts to swim. It even duplicates itself.

That's just the start. The creature is a symbiotic parasite. It enters the body of its victims and takes control. It's not just a random occurrence. The creatures want to take over the whole world, starting with the teachers, then the students, then the rest of the town. It's never explained where the parasites come from. Only six students resist the invasion. They have a secret weapon. The high school student Zeke is a drug dealer, selling powder that he makes in his home laboratory. This powder kills the parasites. So the main hero is a drug dealer?

My close friends already know my taste in girls. If I were in school, would I have dated the beautiful cheerleader played by Jordana Brewster?

No way! I would have preferred Stokeley, the goth girl played by Clea DuVall. She's an outsider. Everyone assumes she's a lesbian, but I wouldn't have been put off by the rumours. I would have tried my hardest to date her. I've always had a weakness for goth girls, even though there's nothing goth about me. It's the black clothing and the moody looks that attract me. The only thing I don't like about goth girls is their piercings, but Stokeley was metal free. As girls should be. One of my slogans is "A girl should never have metal in any place that I want to kiss, lick or suck".

The film isn't perfect. I never thought I'd say this, but it could have been improved by adding jump scares. Also, the effect the parasites have on their victims is inconsistent. Some people become rigid and have a weird stare, whereas others act normally and blend in with their friends.

I wish film makers would pay attention to details. Look at the front page of the school newspaper, the Hornet Weekly. You can click the picture to enlarge it. The first paragraph is a summary of the characters, a reasonable article apart from misspelling "whose". But then the text is repeated in the second paragraph. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 2.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #24

I'm actually watching a Disney Plus film on a Wednesday. That's new! It's only a Wednesday film on a technicality. I started to watch it with my grandson Oliver last Friday, but we interrupted it because he had to go to bed. Today we finally finished it.

I actually wanted to watch "X-Men First Class" on Friday, and we could have finished it, because it's a shorter film. I already had the disc in my Blu-ray player when Oliver said he wanted to watch "Pearl Harbor". Evidently he'd already seen it on television with his parents, but he wanted to watch it again. I'm always happy when he says something like that. Watching a film more than once is a sign that you're a true film fan. My personal definition is that a film is a good film if I want to watch it at least three times. As you can see in my alphabetical list of posts, there are several films that I've watched a lot more often. I admit that there's a certain excitement watching a film for the first time, but most films have subtleties that can only be picked up on repeated viewing.

I'm surprised that Oliver likes the film so much. I can understand that he likes the action scenes, but it's also a love story. It's a sign of maturity that he can also enjoy romantic scenes. He's eight years old now. Two years ago he would have been bored and told me to fast forward.

Critics have slammed "Pearl Harbor" because of the love story. They say the film should have concentrated on the attack itself. I disagree. In fact, I strongly disagree. The love story gives the viewer an emotional connection. When Japan attacks, we don't just know the main characters, we feel their suffering and we cry with them in the face of adversity. This is how to make a good film. Sometimes the critics just don't know what they're talking about.

But "Harbor" is spelt wrong. Or maybe it isn't. "Pearl Harbor" is a place name, so it has to be spelt the way it's written on maps and street signs. But as a common noun, "harbour" is the only correct spelling.

I only found out today that there's a director's cut of the film. Unfortunately, it was only released on DVD, and it's long out of print. I'm not willing to pay a high price for a second hand DVD on Ebay. I wouldn't even pay a high price for a brand new DVD.

Success Rate:  + 1.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Oppenheimer (5 Stars)

I'll watch any film made by Christopher Nolan, despite my disappointment with his last (almost) true film, "Dunkirk". Before going to see "Oppenheimer" I was tempted to read up on Robert Oppenheimer. I'd heard his name and I knew he had something to do with the first atom bomb, but I knew nothing about his life. Eventually I decided to watch the film first and inform myself later.

Imagine my shock when the film started as a courtroom drama. Almost a courtroom drama. It's repeatedly emphasised that it wasn't a court, it was a senate committee. The difference is subtle. If found guilty, Robert Oppenheimer wouldn't be sentenced to prison, but he'd lose his security clearance and his ability to work for the government.

The film shows three phases in his life: before the Second World War, during the war and after the war. They're easy to tell apart from the cinematography, with the post war scenes being shown in black and white. A slight criticism is that I only roughly know when they happen. I would have appreciated the dates, or at least the years, being flashed on the screen.

So far I've only skimmed the Wikipedia page on Oppenheimer. It's late at night. I'll read more about him tomorrow. All I'll do is give a very brief summary of his life. It's not spoilers, because people with more knowledge than me would have known it already.

Before the war Robert Oppenheimer was an internationally renowned expert in quantum mechanics. He wasn't a Communist, but he kept an open mind, and he attended informal meetings of Communists. During the war he was made the leader of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb. After the war he was an adviser to the American government on the further development of atomic bombs, but his past history with the Communist party was dug up to discredit him, until he lost his security clearance and was no longer allowed as an adviser.

It's a powerful film. It's not exactly a pacifist film, although it could be interpreted that way. Oppenheimer built the bomb, and he was proud of his work, because it saved millions of lives. In 1945 America was planning to invade Japan, but every Japanese child from the age of 12 upwards had been given a rifle. It was estimated that at least nine million Japanese civilians would die in the invasion. In comparison, less than 300,000 died as a result of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, in the following years Oppenheimer had a What-Have-I-Done feeling, and he tried to persuade America not to make even bigger bombs.

Despite being shown in English, the film was almost sold out in Gloria, a cinema that has two large screens. The other screen showed "Barbie", also almost sold out. This made me happy. It's Gloria's most successful day since the Corona pandemic started in 2020. Cinema isn't dead, it just needs the right films.

Black Hawk Down (3 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #20

This is a 2001 film directed by Ridley Scott about a mission by the US army in Somalia in 1993. It's based on true events, though simplified in parts for the big screen. The Somalian rebel leader Aidid was deliberately starving the population in order to become more powerful. The Americans had tried in vain to capture or kill him. On 3rd October 1993 an operation was launched to capture two of the most senior men in his group.

Was the operation successful or not? That depends how you look at it. The two Somalians were captured, so the mission was technically a success. On the other hand, 19 American soldiers were killed and 73 were wounded, the highest number of casualties in a single day since the Vietnam War.

The slogan on the poster is "Leave no man behind". It's something that the American armed forces are proud of. But is it a good military strategy? Based on the evidence of this film I'd say No. The problems begin when an American private falls out of a helicopter. A team is sent to rescue him, which leads to a Black Hawk helicopter being shot down. More troops are sent to rescue the soldiers from the helicopter crash, but many of them are cut off from their comrades and need to be rescued.

What I'm trying to say is that if the private had been left to die, the day's casualties would have been one dead and zero wounded. "Leave no man behind" is a proud slogan to chant among servicemen, but does it make sense? Was it worth sacrificing 19 lives to save one man? If I'd been the man lying on the ground I'd have yelled at my comrades to leave me to die.

As my regular readers know by now, I've been on holiday for the last four weeks. I'm in England with my daughter Fiona and her family, and I'm staying until 12th December. It's my first visit since the pandemic, so I wanted to make it a longer visit. This has an effect on my viewing habits. Fiona doesn't have a DVD player and relies on Netflix for entertainment. This is frustrating to me, but I'll talk about her and her family in this post.

Fiona watches Netflix every day. She doesn't watch films, she watches reality shows and true crime series. I have to admit, if that's what someone wants to watch, Netflix is sufficient. Good luck to her.

My grandson Samuel (two years old) also watches Netflix every day, closely supervised by his parents. He watches "Masha and the Bear" and "Cocomelon". Sometimes I put on other children's series for the sake of variety. He enjoys these for a while, but then he says "Bear, Bear", so I put "Masha and the Bear" on again. Okay, Netflix is all a small child needs.

But what about my son-in-law, Mehdi? With the exception of "The Walking Dead", he only watches films. He watches a film every day, more at the weekend. He likes mostly action and horror movies. I've been observing his habits closely. Every day he clicks through Netflix's new movies and recommendations. Sometimes he immediately spots a film that he'd like. Sometimes nothing attracts his attention, so he either re-watches a film he's already seen or he picks a film that he might like. He's at Netflix's mercy. He can only watch what's being thrown at him.

A few days ago I watched "Forest of Love" with Mehdi. He loved it, and he said he wanted to watch more films made by Sion Sono. Oops! There aren't any more of his films on Netflix. In my opinion, Mehdi has the inclinations to be a real film fan. Not everyone watches seven or more films a week. He's suffering from having to rely on Netflix, but he doesn't realise that he's suffering, because he's never owned a DVD player. He doesn't know what he's missing.

I'm not saying Netflix is bad. It's good for my daughter. It's good for my grandson. But it's bad for anyone who's a serious film fan, except as an additional extra to a DVD or Blu-ray player.

Success Rate:  - 0.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Sin City (5 Stars)

I watched "Sin City" years ago, but for some reason I thought I didn't like it. All I could remember is seeing Elijah Wood jumping around, nothing else. That was enough reason to watch it again. Wow! I was mesmerised. I can't write much about the film because of being short of time, but I'll promise to return to it and write more next time. Whenever that is. I don't break my promises, I just need a long time to keep them.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

This is a film which fills me with awe every time I watch it. The romance between Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale) in the foreboding years before America joined the war bring tears to my eyes. The friendship between Rafe and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett) is poignant. The action scenes are breathtaking. The contrast with the quiet scenes makes the action stand out even more. This is a perfect film in many ways.

Danny and Rafe are two boys who grow up on neighbouring farms. They both learn to fly young for crop dusting. They both join the US Air Force. Rafe is dyslexic, which almost prevents him from becoming a pilot, but sweet talking the examining nurse gets him through.

The boys drink together, party together and fly together. That changes in 1940 when Rafe volunteers to join the Royal Air Force in England. Danny remains in Pearl Harbor. Before leaving a romantic attachment develops between Rafe and Evelyn, the nurse who examined him. They remain in contact, writing every day until Rafe is shot down in an air battle over the English Channel.

I shan't give away any spoilers, even though I suspect most of my readers have already seen the film. It was a box office success when it was released, and it's often shown on television. It's a good example of a film that weaves fictional characters into real events.

"Pearl Harbor" might have been a commercial success, but it's hated by the critics. They praise the action sequences, but they ridicule the romance. Why? What's wrong with the critics? Don't they understand films? I'm glad I'm not a real critic. I know how to enjoy films.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Here on Earth (3 Stars)

This is the ninth film starring Leelee Sobieski, made in 2000 when she was 16. It's one of her weakest films for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with her excellent acting, the only reason to watch the film. The love triangle is totally unrealistic. The changes of heart by the main characters in the course of the film are difficult to fathom. Josh Hartnett, usually an actor I appreciate, comes across as bland and empty. But worst of all, for me at least, is that the film involves cancer.

But let's get back to what the plot is about, so you can decide for yourself whether you want to watch it. Leelee Sobieski plays Samantha, a waitress in her mother's diner in a small town in Conneticut. She's been dating farm boy Jasper as long as she can remember. Neither of them has a future to speak of. It's that sort of place. People grow up, leave school, get married, have kids and die.

Nearby there's a different world, a parallel society. There's an exclusive boys' school, Rallston, just outside of town. That's where rich parents send their children to get the best education money can buy, putting them on the fast track to university and a career in politics, law, medicine, banking or anything else that makes a lot of money.

The kids from the school look down on the townspeople. The kids from the town despise the boys from the school. Two different worlds. So sparks fly when Kelley, the Rallston valedictorian, makes a play for Samantha. Even worse, after the diner is wrecked in a car race between Jasper and Kelley, the two boys are forced by the local no-nonsense judge to work together to rebuild the diner. Kelley moves into a spare room in the house of Samantha's parents. We just know what will happen next.

If that had been the whole plot, I might have enjoyed the film more. But we find out that Samantha has cancer. I'm no doctor, but the way the cancer is portrayed in the film sounds strange to me. Samantha used to run hurdles, but had to quit after injuring her knee in a race. Then she developed cancer in her knee. Can that really happen? Cancer as the result of a knee injury? But the cancer spreads from there. In a hospital scene Samantha's father asks, "How can the cancer spread from her knee to her liver?" I'm asking myself the same question.

Now I'll move onto a subject that's important to me. As I've mentioned in other reviews, Leelee Sobieski said in an interview in 2012 that 90% of acting involves sexual stuff that she doesn't want to do. Along with her new responsibilities as a mother, this was a reason why she quit acting. What's this sexual stuff that she's talking about? I'm not aware of sexual stuff happening in 90% of her films. From memory I'd say that it's less than 10%, and even that 10% is very tame. Since I'm re-watching all of her films I'll keep count as I go along. The first vaguely sexual stuff was in her eighth film, "Eyes Wide Shut", in which we see her for a few minutes running through a costume shop in her underwear. That's hardly worth mentioning. In "Here on Earth" she shares a few passionate kisses with Chris Klein as Kelley.

We also see the two of them waking up in bed together. Is that so dreadful? A pair of naked shoulders poking out from beneath bed sheets? Is this a reason for an actress of her phenomenal talent, probably the best actress who has ever lived, to give up?

As you can tell by browsing my film reviews, I'm no prude. I have nothing against sex scenes in films. However, if Leelee doesn't want to do sex scenes that's fine with me. It's her choice, if she thinks it's incompatible with her married life. However, there are plenty of non-sex roles to choose from. She could appear in films directed by Steven Spielberg. No sex at all, not even suggested sex. Or she could appear in horror films. They rarely contain sex.

Let me start keeping a tally of Leelee's "sexual stuff", so I don't have to look it up every time.

• 9 films
• 1 with passionate kisses
• 1 with off-scene sex

I'll update the list as I continue.

It's worth referring to Roger Ebert's review of this film. It was him who first inspired me to start writing this blog. I make no attempt to imitate his style, but whatever he wrote impressed me. Something I like about him is that unlike other reviewers he was never afraid to change his mind, to tell his readers that he'd reevaluated a film. In his review of "Here on Earth" we think alike. Overall he's disappointed with the film, but he praises Leelee Sobieski as an actress.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

30 Days of Night (3½ Stars)

This film is based on a simple premise, so simple that I'm surprised it wasn't dealt with long ago. Vampires are awake at night and sleep during the day. (Unless, of course, they happen to be in "Twilight"). So what if vampires are in the Arctic circle, where the sun doesn't rise for weeks during the winter?

The film takes place in Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost town in the United States. On the first day of the Arctic night, a period that lasts 30 days without sunlight, a vampire coven arrives in town. They have no intention of settling in and laying low. They want to kill every man, woman and child in the town. The film develops into a survival story. The married couple Eben and Stelle Oleson, played by Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, lead a group of survivors attempting to hold out until the sun rises. As the film progresses the group shrinks as their members are caught and killed.

This was a highly successful film, making a profit of $70 million when it was released in 2007. I don't see why. It's a good film, but I wouldn't praise it too highly. The acting is first rate, but the plot is weak. From beginning to end it's just a question of who will die next. The vampires are decidedly unglamorous, little more than wild animals. I enjoy vampire films, but I like to get to know the vampires, their thoughts and their motivations. There is nothing at all in these vampires for me to empathise with.

Here on Earth (2 Stars)

Jasper (Josh Hartnett) and Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) live in a small town. They've been lovers since they were children. He works on his father's farm, she works in her mother's restaurant. It's one of those towns where you're born, live your whole life, and die. Just outside town there's an expensive private school. The school is for boys only, so they go into the town to pick up girls, but in general they're despised by the locals. Kelley (Chris Klein) gets into a fight with Jasper, and a bout of road rage leads to Kelley's car crashing into Samantha's restaurant and destroying it. The judge sentences the two boys to "community service", saying they have to take part in the rebuilding of the restaurant. But Samantha is fascinated by the rich out-of-town boy, and a romance develops.

If that were all that happens the film would have been okay. I could have accepted it as a light-hearted romantic drama. But tragedy strikes. Things get steadily worse, and though the viewers hope for a happy ending none comes. The film is depressing. On top of that is the unconvincing performance from the two male leads. I wasn't previously acquainted with Chris Klein, but he seems bland and uninteresting. I've never liked Josh Hartnett as an actor, except for maybe "Pearl Harbor". Leelee Sobieski is a brilliant actress and easily outshines the rest of the cast, but she can't make up for the depressingly morbid plot.

The trailer can be viewed here, and it makes the film look like a happy romp. But it isn't. I can't recommend it.

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Forget all the bad reviews this film got for its supposed triteness and superficiality. It's a gripping story from beginning to end. It has everything: romance, action, tragedy, hope in the face of defeat. If I remember correctly, today was the third time I watched this film, and it had me sitting on the edge of my seat as much as it did the first time. I grew up hating war films because my father sat watching them for years on television. But I recognise quality when I see it. This film is a classic.

"Pearl Harbor" has been compared with "Titanic", as if that were a bad thing. Both films follow the same format. A love triangle evolves against the background of a big catastrophe. Contrasting large scale events with the personal interest of a few individuals is good story-telling.

Here on Earth (3½ Stars)

Look! I've finally started giving half stars. It's a help when I can't decide between two ratings.

This is a pleasant teen romance weepy. The plot is predictable, but it's just... pleasant. I wish I could think of a better word. My main problem with the film is that something seems to be missing. There's no logical explanation why Samantha falls in love with Kelley instead of Jasper.

Leelee Sobieski turns in an outstanding performance, she really needs to stop wasting her talent in minor films. (Or minor roles in big films, like "Public Enemies"). As I've said again and again, she's the best actress alive today, and after ten years as an "insider tip" it's time for her to receive the recognition she deserves.