Alas, it is just as I feared, Pearl Harbor is no good. At least that's what Roger Ebert says in his review. I was afraid that Pearl Harbor would suffer from Armageddon syndrome, in which lots of explosions and cheesy patriotism are substituted for a decent plot or any semblance of realism. I can suspend disbelief, but I don't want a movie to treat me like a 5 year old. It's too bad Spielberg or James Cameron couldn't have done this movie instead. I'd gladly suffer through a love story element if the director had taken Cameron's obessive-compulsive approach to historical accuracy.
I almost always agree with Ebert's reviews of movies, his tastes run parallel to mine, and he hates being insulted by a movie even more than I do. Here's the first paragraph from his review:
"Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle. Its centerpiece is 40 minutes of redundant special effects, surrounded by a love story of stunning banality. The film has been directed without grace, vision or originality, and although you may walk out quoting lines of dialogue, it will not be because you admire them.