Pearl Harbor is a film that details the events of the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese that triggered the United States' involvement in World War II. This film closely follows two Navy pilots, played by Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, before and during the attack and shortly after the ensuing war. Pearl Harbor was directed by Michael Bay and released in 2001. The attack on Pearl Harbor was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "...a day that will live in infamy." The events that followed Pearl Harbor changed our nation forever. Could Hollywood really have captured that story and impact in a film produced fifty years later? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Let's start with a later generation's first impression of the film. Two major critics reviewed the film shortly after its release in 2001. Peter Rainer of The New York Times gave a rather approving rating and review saying, "Pearl Harbor aspires to Titanic-sized feeling and war-is-hell realism , but sacrifices both to an arsenal of bombastic special effects” (Rainer). He goes on to say that “Pearl Harbor is an extraordinarily numbing experience” (Rainer). Rainer focuses more on the effects and visual impact of the film, however he approves the story and really liked the film. The other critic is Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post. Stephen's first impression of the film is “Pearl Harbor revives the 1940s war film. Moves to evoke the day of infamy ” (Hunter) Hunter focuses more on the story and is very approving. Michael Bay does his best to describe the events that occurred on the day that will live in infamy when Japan made a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, sparking US involvement. United in the world war. Two. Michael uses extraordinary visual effects and millions upon millions of dollars to recreate the scenes so horrifically created fifty years ago. In my opinion, the story was depicted to the best of any director's ability and both Rainer and Hunter agree in their reviews that the story could not have been shown better. Michael really brings the experience to the viewers. Michael recreates many scenes based on documented facts such as the time of the initial attack, the number of ships and response time of the forces stationed, the public reaction and much more. One of my favorite scenes, and probably the most historically accurate, was the very first attack scene. How the Japanese had flown so early that people on the ground thought they were US test flights and the radar readers thought they were birds. The real impact of the situation was not felt until the bombs began to fall and sailors, pilots, doctors, etc. they rushed to get ready. Michael also included scenes he created to tell the story of the pilots' lives outside of combat. I think these scenes help him tell the whole story of what was happening at the time. Michael's point of view throughout the film, that of the two pilots, is very accurate. Most of what Michael shows are simply the highlights of the attack, with the exception of one or two dog fights involving the pilots. These points that Michael describes, after doing some research, can easily be proven to be real. I believe all the scenes in the film except those that describe the private lives of the pilots; help make the film more accurate. The question is the.