![]() This historical film is both a story about unfulfilled love and an examination of 1930s post-war appeasement and the lessening of old values. With 1 Oscar win amongst 4 nominations for Best Sound Editing, the film uses some famous and reportedly true anecdotes to try to add a sense of truth to what is largely an action-packed, fantasy film. They are then assigned on the Doolittle raids to avenge the attacks made by the Japanese. In the middle of the movie, they find each other again, and are also engaged in a love triangle with Kate Beckinsale. The two male protagonists are pilots who are at first separated by Affleck’s character going to get real combat experience in Kent fighting the Luftwaffe, whilst Josh Hartnett goes to Hawaii to train at Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor (2001)Īs its title suggests, based on the surprise attack Japan made on Hawaii on 7 December, 1941, Pearl Harbor follows Rafe Mcawley (Ben Affleck), Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett) and Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale) during the events of World War Two. Read on to find out which film has been crowned the winner of History Hit’s top historical film. After totting up your votes, the results are in! We compiled an editorial selection of 50, then handed the final decision on the order of the top 20 over to you. Our team of editorial experts, passionate historians and enthusiasts spent hours assessing our favourite historical films from the last 50 years. To celebrate the launch of our new Culture section, History Hit gave you the chance to vote for your favourite historical film. Then I'd be able to understand the pro-south stance the narratvie so deftly takes and other characters from Gettysburg wouldn't have to be there to get slim pickings of worthwhile scenes so Lang can steal the show.At History Hit we obviously love all things history and that includes any film that’s based on history which, let’s face it, includes a lot of films. In the end if they'd just made a biopic of Jackson I'd appreciate it more. Something Lee would never have done, especially in the home of someone who regularly speaks to said president, by all accounts he was polite to a fault. Most other movies would just have put a line or two somewhere that states he turned down the offer, whereas this feels the need to give Lee a monologue calling out Lincoln for exacerbating the problem. Yes it happened but I really didn't need to SEE it happen. Take for instance the scene where Lee refuses command of the Union Army. ![]() I can't really think of a scene in that movie that didn't need to be there, whereas G&G could have seriously used a red pen. In fact I'd go so far as to say the only reason Chaimberlain was even in the movie is because he was so important in Gettysburg.Īlso Gettysburg (while long) doesn't waste its own time. ![]() We lose the brother vs brother we got before, even though they tried to shoehorn it in occasionally (like with the scene of the soldiers on either side of the river trading coffee for tobacco). In Gettysburg we really got a fantastic amount of perspective from both viewpoints, whereas in G&G there's no doubt that the Confederacy is the main focus. It really over-romanticizes the south and (especially in the extended edition with HOURS of scenes featuring John Wilkes Booth) I felt like it was very much picking that side. For me the only reason to watch G&G is the phenomenal performance by Stephen Lang as Jackson. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |