Historically inaccurate ('Tora, Tora, Tora' was spot on), weak
war/fight scenes, unbelivable crossover (how come a navy pilot
flying single engine plane is seen next on B-25 Mitchell for Raid
on Japan??), give me a break if you want to put this on the list,
might as well say "M.A.S.H." or "The Last Remake of Beau Geste " (
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Remake_of_Beau_Geste)
Graphically, the images of actually mothballed Knox-class frigates,
Ticonderoga Cruisers and Spruance-class destroyers, with the box
launchers for anti-submarine rockets, known as ASROCs, visible.
That technology was not available until the 1960s superimposed with
images with flames was dis-ingenous at best, "pathetic" is more
closer in sentiment.
Good movies carry a story, what was "Pearl Harbour"s story
again?
BTW:
Critic Roger Ebert summarized Pearl Harbor as "a two-hour movie
squeezed into three hours, about how on December 7, 1941, the
Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle,"
and claimed that, "The filmmakers seem to have aimed the film at an
audience that may not have heard of Pearl Harbor, or perhaps even
of World War Two."
good series of bloopers on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_%28film%29#Historical_inaccuracies
