MovieChat Forums > Windtalkers (2002) Discussion > Windtalkers vs Pearl Harbour

Windtalkers vs Pearl Harbour

posted 17 years ago by surround_sound
15 replies | jump to latest

I've heard lots of terrible things about both films. Before I watch WindTalkers I was wondering how you would compare WT and PH on the following criteria:

Hilarity
Cheesiness
Lack of realism

And then some technical aspects:

Cinematography
Effects
Sound
Acting
Directing
Music

And then finally, which is the better film, which if pressed would you say pips the other one, all things considered. Btw, PH had some brilliant technical aspects but the script and realism left a lot of us feeling nauseous. I suspect the same could be said of WT.

[–] thefatguyabouttostealyou 17 years ago

Windtalkers wins, because it didn't tack on an extra hour for no reason, and have like, four endings

[–] Aylmer 17 years ago

yeah, plus Windtalkers portrays something fairly new; the battle of Saipan which I don't think has been done since war movies were predominately in black and white. Pearl Harbor tells the same story that was told much better in TORA TORA TORA (1970) except with some maddeningly useless love story.

[–] anglo-dan 16 years ago

Well consider the directors of both films. You could not honestly expect John Woo to direct a realistic WWII film. I am sure that somewhere there is a deleted scene showing Joe Enders, in Slow motion, duel wielding Thompsons and then pulling out duel .45s to finish off the Japanese general who is also duel wielding pistols.

On the other hand Pearl Harbor had the chance to be good and they just plain *beep* it up because they didn't want a little thing like realism and historical accuracy to get in the way of their dream scene where two Japanese planes collide mid air.

[–] Marlonius 16 years ago

I think that they're both on par with each other in terms of cheesiness.

However Windtalkers lacks the cheesecake dessert that an extraneous love affair would have provided as it did in Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor also takes more liberties with the facts by putting the P-40 pilots into the Doolittle raid.

In P.H.s favour, it does have a lot more spectacle and I thought the effects were much superior to Windtalkers. Recall the colourized stock footage Woo used of the battleships firing their cannons.

Overall though, both movies were huge disappointments and wasted opportunities.

[–] roger-395 15 years ago

Pearl Harbor suffered from so many problems one hardly knows where to begin. The only recommendations I can make for this movie is that the Pearl Harbor attack sequence is first rate (ignore the parts with the two actors and focus on the actually attack). I've seen Tora, Tora, Tora, and the second volume of the Victory at Sea series; Pearl Harbor offers a very good sense of the attack.

Nothing wrong with P-40 pilots flying the B-25 Mitchell actually. The Mitchell proved to be best suited for low leveling strafing and fire support of ground troops rather than as a bomber and so fighter pilot training would have been useful for anyone flying the Mitchell; whether any of the Doolittle pilots or flyers were fighter pilots seems doubtful however.

[–] teacher_tom516 15 years ago

In short - they WEREN'T. We're not just talking about low level strafing or fire support, we're talking of an upgrade from a single engine fast fighter to a multi-engine heavy weight bomber. Doolittle's crew was drawn from regular bomb groups. They did NOT advertise for fighter pilots.

"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient

[–] tylermaher 16 years ago

Hilarity-Windtalkers
Cheesiness-Windtalkers
Lack of realism-Both, but Windtalkers takes the cake

Cinematography-Pearl Harbor
Effects-Pearl Harbor
Sound-Pearl Harbor
Acting-both really bad, but Pearl Harbor had a couple okay performances (Baldwin, Hartnett) versus all awful from Windtalkers
Directing-both so bad, but I'll say Bay was a little better
Music-Pearl Harbor-the music is really good in this film thanks to Hans Zimmer

Even though both suck, Pearl Harbor kicks Windtalker's ass

"Freedom is never free"

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bookgodzilla 16 years ago

THe director of Pearl Harbor stated that it is a love story that is set in proximate time to an historical event. What I get from it is an exceedingly irritating mix of Titanic, From Here to Eternity and Tora, Tora, Tora. At least Doris Miller finally got his day in the sun, so-to-speak.

If you watch either film for historical accuracy you're watching the wrong films.

I think that the directing and acting is better in Pearl Harbor. The casting of Windtalkers was better but totally wasted by what passes for a plot for which the writers should have asked for their names to be removed from the credits. There isn't anything that will make Nicholas Cage an actor and and Director John Woo apparently didn't try. Or Woo's direction went something like "Play grumpy."

Unlike Pearl Harbor where cast characters came and went you will have to endure Nicolas Cage through the entire film, and will soon wish his chatacter had been KIA on Guadalcanal with his squad.

[–] MovieMan1975 16 years ago

Windtalkers is better in all aspects, despite being a flawed film itself - Pearl Harbor is simply THAT BAD.

At least Windtalkers had a more original story, better action, and no horrendous 2 hour love story, and no performance in Windtalkers can come even close to nauseatingly horrid work of Josh Hartnett, who, with his page-boy hair, simply makes Pearl Harbor unwatchable. He made Affleck look like Laurence Olivier lol.

The cinematography and sound are equally good in both films. I'd say Windtalkers is slightly better directed, because, despite cheese and all that, at least it has style and Woo gives the movie some heart. Pearl Harbor lacks not only heart, but style and substance. PH is pure fomunda cheeze.

While both films are far from war-film classics, i find Windtalkers to be supremely more watchable, while if you have seen PH once - watching it a second time is pure torture.

nb: the main action scenes:

the grand attack scene on Pearl Harbor has its moments of bliss, but overall fails due to a lack of scope and sweep. Its too all-over-the-place at too many points, not allowing the viewer the ability to focus on the grand picture and the details at the same time. The sinking of the USS Arizona, while a technical tour-de-force with that giant gimble, is totally unimpressive because its shot like a music video. Bay coulda def taken some tips from James Cameron for the sinking....

the battle of Saipan on Windtalkers, however, is quite impressive. Its well shot, well choreographed, and the simple fact that the battle of Saipan was never dramatized before also gives it a higher level of interest than PH.

[–] BobbySimone86 15 years ago

Windtalkers is a more historically accurate movie, but I would say overall it is a a worse movie than Pearl Harbor. Nick Cage going alone against hundreds of Jap soldiers and not getting a scratch until the very end is beyond dumb.

[–] shulma2002 10 years ago

Don't get why a Wintalkers forum is criticizing all aspects of Pearl Harbor. PH was supposed to be a love story and never claimed to accurately detail the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. PH had terrible acting; especially Hartnett and Baldwin. Sadly, most viewers weren't around for the actual attack and PH is where they get their information. Windtalkers, in its favor, was not a love story and had better acting and wasn't such a long film. It portrayed prejudices against the Navajo quite well; a commendable effort.

[–] Imdb11168 10 years ago

Both were *beep* movies with good battle scenes, Pearl Harbor was more *beep* and a better battle scene , so both movies are equally bad

Darkness lies an inch ahead

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]