Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I don't really understand why this movie has such poor reviews. It is definetely worth seeing. The romance is great, with a lot of details right - about subtle feelings in different situations. Yes, it is a movie, not a documentary - so fighting scenes are not realistic - LIKE IN ALL MOVIES. I actually enjoyed this movie a lot. I love WW2 movies, and also this kind of intense romance movies. If you enjoyed Top Gun, The Notebook, then you'll love this movie.

The title is promising. but when you watch this movie oh my GOD they presence polyandry story. and they like to make it look ok . very bad romance story ever..I heard about this film while it was in production. I heard about how they were going to go out of their way to get all the right aircraft to film so things would look right. I heard how they wanted everything to look as authentic as possible. I heard that the movie would somehow encompass the Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor, and the Doolittle Raid (??? - an early warning sign). I heard that they were going to stage the premiere on an aircraft carrier moored in Pearl Harbor, for an audience of Second World War veterans. They even managed to get one of the veterans attending the premiere to say complimentary things about the movie. I knew that special effects technology had advanced enormously since 1970, allowing the filming of things that would have been impossible in the previous big-budget movie about Pearl Harbor, Tora Tora Tora.

When I asked a friend of mine about this movie, he told me "don't go see it." "Its a lousy love story with the attack on Pearl Harbor thrown in."But I saw it anyway. What a disappointment. I love history, especially World War Two. I collect original period items and even have a helmet worn by a Marine on Dec. 7th, 1941 at Ewa Field. But this movie is so hokey. How does the Army Air Corp. allow a stuttering pilot to stay in. They character of Lt. Red Winkle is annoying. He can't even say the yell out the Japanese are attacking without stuttering horrible. That would cost lives in a war.Alex Baldwin, that America hater and veteran hater, as Jimmy Doolittle. I grew up admiring Doolittle and even met him as a teen. But Baldwin is a complete disgrace in uniform. The attack on Tokyo was inaccurate. The bombers flew in one at a time as they were spread out by hundreds of miles. A better movie is "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo."And how does a dead American make it back from China in a pine box. The Tokyo Raiders spent weeks trying to get back from China, with the Chinese help. And finally the P-40 our heroes fly during the attack on Pearl Harbor could never turn with a Zero. The P-40 could outrun the Zero but never out turn it. I was frankly bored with the movie. Adding the token black character of Dorey Miller was useless. What was the point. None.

Completely non spoiler review: See this movie and don't read the other reviews. They are, in my humble opinion, not reviewing a movie. They are nit picking a historical account, sometimes based on their own biases and sometimes based on their disappointment in what really happened! For example, yes, there is a token black guy. THEY WERE ALL TOKEN BLACK GUYS BACK THEN! It's called discrimination. It still exists! How is that Michael Bay's fault? Anyway, watch this movie to see a good movie with amazing effects, likable characters, enough history to teach you something (if you don't know the history behind Pearl Harbor) and the best ending this movie could possibly have.Mildly spoiler review (but if you know your history, this is not a surprise: Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor in 1941!):When I was a boy, my father took me to see the story of the Pearl Harbor attack in the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora". I still remember the room shaking as the planes took off from the deck! I looked up at my dad with a huge smile on my face. Yes, that was a good movie. More like a documentary than a movie. At the end of the movie I felt empty. Was that it? I was about 10 years old and confused (also disturbed by the scene where the son lands his plane all bloody and screaming). My dad then explained to me that we (the USA) won the war and etc, etc, etc. But the scene at the end with the 2 military guys just chatting was so weirdly confident to me. Didn't they realize they just had lost thousands of men to a rotten sneak attack? There were no characters throughout the whole movie to get emotionally attached to, just like a documentary.Fast forward about 25 years. My wife and I went to the movies and saw Pearl Harbor. I loved it. I've seen in about 4 times now and still love this movie. The scenes were excellent, the characters likable and the emotion felt right. A good balance of respect for the subject matter and the true parts of the story. If you don't know the story, the movie tells you. But, unlike Tora, Tora, Tora, they weren't trying to make a documentary, and they included some relatively minor characters (like the "token black guy" some other reviewers are upset about (should he not have been included at all?!?) and Michael Bay found a way to include an excellent story about a lesser known story: the Doolittle raid and he ended on that note instead of just the defeat at Pearl Harbor. Frankly, a brilliant way to tell both stories and have the audience leave feeling better about the story.I realize I'm in the minority here, but I'm confused about what people hated so much about this movie and I can't wrap my head around it. I read a couple dozen reviews and it seems to me that they just can't understand that they are watching a movie, not a documentary.I thought the acting was good, the music great and the action scenes fantastic. And, I am a history buff and have read many WW2 books, including the entire series written by Winston Churchill, so yes, I knew where Pearl Harbor wasn't completely accurate. Had it been, Micheal Bay could have called it "Tora, Tora, Tora" and the haters would have blasted him for just doing a remake of that movie.The nitpicking in the reviews about "that model jeep was not being used in that year" and "that guy's name was misspelled" and "this US 5$ bill not yet in circulation in that year" and "those are not the exact two guys who flew the planes" are hilarious. In 2001, the attack on Pearl Harbor was 50 years old. What percentage of the movie goers would have any idea about these details? Could Michael Bay have been less lazy and/or more accurate? Sure. If you want to see the exact story, the History Channel has some excellent programs. If you want to see a great movie, which is about 85% historically accurate and captures the zeitgeist of the times it portrays, watch this movie: Pearl Harbor is excellent.