All of Southern California is in shock this morning. Sure, earthquakes, fires, floods, power black-outs those are all just everyday occurrences around here. To get people to look up from their lattes, its got to be something truly amazing. Like a flat-out glowing, praise-filled review of Pearl Harbor from The Los Angeles Times. Now the LA Times usually doesnt say a whole lot negative about a film they take in far too much money from Hollywood to offer real criticisms; but they seldom go all out for a film either. But when I read, The films immense cast and crew
blend artistry and technology to create a blockbuster entertainment that has passion, valor and tremendous action, I knew that a major realignment of the stars had taken place over Melrose Avenue.
Well, thats not exactly true. My first thought was that I hadnt heard that TWO movies titled Pearl Harbor were coming out - the writer had obviously seen a different movie than I had. Then my second thought was to call a friend in Disney Accounts Payable to find out exactly how big the check was that Disney just mailed out. But those are just my cynical, negative, been-around-here-to-long sides of my personality peeking through. The LA Times article was by far the most favorable review of the movie that Ive seen so far. If youd like to read it for yourself, its at
LA Times Link. The paper also has a great article about last weeks premier party in Hawaii and the media circus around it.
Someone commented on the impact of reviews. While reviews generally dont affect the opening weekend much, they can help or hurt the films run after that. People who really want to see a movie tend to see it during the first two weeks of its run. After that, its a matter of reviews and word of mouth. The studios try to use the reviews as word of mouth recommendations thats why you see all of the quotes in ads (everybody trusts Rodger Ebert, dont they?). Poorly reviewed films also tend to get moved to smaller theaters and pulled earlier in a self fulfilling prophecy kinda way.
Its been known for a long time that Peal Harbor was going to be an event movie. And since its an historical event, it makes it easy for others to cash in. Television is all about the ratings and if theres a chance that people might become interested in a subject because of a film, someone will exploit it whether they work for Disney or not. Gee, The Discovery Channel is still running at least one show on the Titanic every week. Personally, I think Americans are far, far too ignorant of history and the sciences and anything that can help spark an interest is worthwhile.
As for my personal prediction, I think Pearl Harbor will do well enough to keep it out the Cleopatra and Heavens Gate realm of disasters, but nowhere near what Eisner was demanding from the film. Mostly because I think the word of mouth will be just okay - not good, not bad just okay. The film will certainly attract the teenage male audience, but it takes a looooong time before stuff blows up. The love story is very weak, and I cant judge whether Josh Harnett removes his shirt even to capture the teenage female audience (this group made Titanic the huge hit). For us adults, people who go to see only a couple of films in the theater every year are probably going to skip this one and wait for it on home video. Ill report back on Tuesday with the results from the weekend.
One last item several IMAX theaters in Southern California are showing a special 35mm print of Pearl Harbor thats been reformatted for the larger screen. I hadnt heard about this and Ill try to check this out over the weekend.
