MovieMusic.com Message Boards: Enemy at the Gates vs. Pearl Harbor

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

Enemy at the Gates vs. Pearl Harbor

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

Author	Topic: Enemy at the Gates vs. Pearl Harbor

Hasta Oscar® Winner	Personally, there aren't any movies I'm looking foward to more in the year 2001. Enemy at the Gates is due March 23 and Pearl Harbor is due Memorial Day (May 28th). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge war buff, these two films simply look incredible. It also doesn't hurt that my two favorite composers are scoring the projects, Horner for EATG and Zimmer for Pearl Harbor. I hope each of the scores are fabulous and the films equally so, but which of the two are you guys looking foward to more? With Michael Bay (The Rock, Armageddon) doing PH I'm slightly worried it could be a little too stylish and hence go for looks instead of emotion, but I'm hoping he will realize what he is doing isn't meant to be fcked with. The two trailers that have been released both look fabulous and Zimmer's haunting music from The Thin Red Line goes beautifully with them. Enemy at the Gates trailer isn't quite as good, but the acting and action look fantastic. Marvin's piece from U-571 also goes wonderfully near the end of the trailer. Anyway for those of you who have seen both trailers and know the information about the films what are your reactions? Which one are you looking more foward to more? Pearl Harbor trailers #1 and #2 can be found here... http://www.movie-list.com/p/pearlharbor.shtml Enemy at the Gates trailer... http://www.movie-list.com/e/enemyatthegates.shtml NP - Casper (Horner) */***
posted 02-04-2001 11:24 PM PT (US)

Drixorial Oscar® Winner	Scores aside I have to say that I'm much more looking foward to Enemy at the Gates. Pearl Harbor looks like it might be good but remember that the same people that are giving us this 'Saving Private Ryan' of the Pacific Theatre are the same ones that brought us such cinematic masterpieces as 'Armageddon', 'Bad Boys' and FLASHDANCE!!! I'm not looking for anything more then to be entertained which is a shame considering the subject matter. NP: Thirteen Days -Trevor Jones
posted 02-05-2001 05:54 AM PT (US)

sean Oscar® Winner	Well, I think Hans Zimmer will give Pearl Harbor a score that it doesn't deserve (as he often does with his films.) The trailer for PH is nice to watch, although I don't see why we get to the POV of a Japanese bomb smashing into the deck of an American battleship; I thought war was supposed to be tragic not cool. Personally, I hate all of Michael Bay's dfilms, and I fear this one will be just as awful as the American-propaganda film: The Patriot. Enemy at the Gates, looks really good. I'm glad to hear that Horner will be scoring it as it says on the Sony webpage with a "Russian feel" (or something like that.) Ah, a war film without Americans; YEEEEHAW!! :P NP: Gladiator - Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard ***/***
posted 02-06-2001 02:22 PM PT (US)

Hasta Oscar® Winner	Sean I have to agree with you there, when I first saw the #2 trailer I was pretty mad. The first one was done with such style that it looked to take itself serious and emotional. I had two complaints with the second trailer. #1 was in fact that shot of the Japanese bomb. It SHOULDN'T be there and there should be no shots like that, but this is a Michael Bay / Jerry Bruckheimer film, I think we are going to have to live with it. The second shot I didn't like was the "slow-mo" of the Japanese soldiers. American or Japanese there shouldn't be any slow-mo scenes like that, it's ridiculous. Anyway, I know the film will look fantastic (the plane shots are the best I've ever seen, EATG ones look nice too btw), and I'm most likely going to go into the theatre on May 28th expecting nothing more than a popcorn flick.
posted 02-06-2001 03:25 PM PT (US)

Quill Oscar® Winner	Ummm...why would the bomb scene make you mad? From what I've read, this seems a fairly accurate depiction of how the bombs were utilized and operated. Now, if Steve Buscemi was sitting on it screaming, "NO NUKES, NO NUKES..." as it falls, that would be different. If you're getting upset simply because its Michael Bay...well Steven Spielberg made a career of popcorn movies, but then settled into serious mode with a couple great World War II films. I say, keep your mind open, and hope for the best. I think Enemy at the Gates will be good, but I have a feeling the pace might be languid...but I'm keeping an open mind.
posted 02-07-2001 07:53 AM PT (US)

sean Oscar® Winner	I'm sorry Quill but I don't think it really has anything to do with an open mind. I'd say people's selection of composers and the films they like have to do with an open mind; like someone who only likes music by Ennio Morriconne and Jerry Goldsmith is narrow minded, IMO. I just don't really think a scene of a bomb falling from a Japanese plane works for a war film; especially Pearl Harbor. I don't doubt that it is accurate, ILM is doing the effects, but it's just riduculous to have it because it looks really phuckin awesome! And when you make a war film you should be trying to condem it rather than promote it or glorify the hurt of war. As far as the slow-mo shot, I don't think they should do that either. Especially with the Japanese soldiers. To me, it re-enforces the stupid Western idiology of crazy ruthless Japanese kamakazi pilots. And, as we know, both American and Japanese soldiers did really awful things to each other so I don't believe it to be right demonize one side and not the other, as well. Another narrow minded perspective, must we feel sorry once again for solely the Americans? PH will probably be really awful American propganda, personally I don't really care for Jerry Bruckheimer films and/or Michael Bay films, neither are exceptionally talented. NP: Metallica - black album ***/*** [Message edited by sean on 02-07-2001]
posted 02-07-2001 01:42 PM PT (US)

ManOfSorrows Oscar® Winner	Oh my god Sean.....you listen to Metallica? Good for you, listen to anymore heavy metal?
posted 02-07-2001 02:34 PM PT (US)

Jeron Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by sean I just don't really think a scene of a bomb falling from a Japanese plane works for a war film; especially Pearl Harbor. I don't doubt that it is accurate, ILM is doing the effects, but it's just riduculous to have it because it looks really phuckin awesome! Sean, I have a problem with this. It shouldn't make you angry. You or Hasta. Gee whiz, it's a movie. Bruckheimer films are meant to EXCLUSIVELY ENTERTAIN. Have we not heard Jerry Bruckheimer repeat this time and time again? This isn't supposed to be Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line. Bay and Bruckheimer are great moviemakers. This is where we divide the line between a film and a movie. There is a distinction. This is a movie. Buy your ticket, walk in, sit down, and be entertained. Bruckheimer himself SAYS he loves to make movies that involve great characters in involving stories. No where has he or Michael Bay said they are out to make a statement and change the world. Sure, filmmakers can do this. Filmmakers DO do this. That's awesome. But the bottom line is this: Bruckheimer is in the game to entertain. That's his primary goal. His joy comes from the fact that people watch his movies and have positive things to say. Not because they are groundbreaking or psychologically powerful - but because they are just plain fun. Personally, I think the bomb-dropping sequence looks great. If you're going to get all idealistic about the underlying meaning - why can't a film glorify war? I'm not saying I advocate it, but there are plenty of flicks out there promoting violence, sex, drugs, etc. How is this any different? It may be propoganda, but I think it's a neat throw-back to the 30's and 40's. Can't wait to see the movie in its entirety. In the end: THINK ENTERTAINMENT. That's all Bruckheimer is about. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Jeron [Message edited by Jeron on 02-07-2001]
posted 02-07-2001 03:03 PM PT (US)

Hasta Oscar® Winner	Jeron, I respect what you are saying but still I must object. Pearl Harbor was a serious event, and I don't believe somebody like Bruckheimer or Bay should be allowed to butcher it. Second, I read a quote (I believe in USA Today) directly from Michael Bay that claimed "I'm done with popcorn flicks, it's time to do something serious". Don't count me word for word but that's pretty much what he said. I was happy when I read that, because the man definately has a visual style, he just doesn't use it to his fullest capability. Also, I never usually find myself too attached to characters in Bruckheimer films. One exception was Cage's fiance in "The Rock" of course, but only because she is one of the hottest women on this planet. Also, what movies really glorify drugs? Most I have seen end with tragedy or such (Requiem for a Dream). Maybe I haven't seen em all. NP: Nightmare Before Christmas (Elfman) **/***
posted 02-07-2001 03:26 PM PT (US)

H Rocco Oscar® Winner	Call me cynical (and you'd be correct), but I think Michael Bay -- one of the biggest hacks now working -- sees PEARL HARBOR as his "transition" to "real," "serious" filmmaking (as if he were capable of it), and his own personal ticket to the Oscars, a la James Cameron and TITANIC. If this year shapes up anything like last year, then PEARL HARBOR might well wind up a serious contender, as, bizarrely, GLADIATOR has become this year. (I didn't dislike GLADIATOR, but don't consider it Oscar material.) I'm dreading this movie in a lot of ways, yet still have to admit I'll be seeing it. NP: GLADIATOR, ironically (1992 Goldsmith rejected version, though)
posted 02-07-2001 03:30 PM PT (US)

otten Oscar® Winner	I am really looking forward to this film, actually. I must admit I am a big fan of Michael Bay. I hope that he does try to make a serious movie. As for the bomb shot, I think that is really helps in understanding what was a critical blow to I believe the Arizona. (Don't quote me on that, it may be another ship). I certainly understand sean when you say that war films should be filmed in a certain way, and for the most part they have always been filmed in that way. Look at Titanic. The movie really changed the way we looked at the sinking of the ship. The angles Cameron took, such as the shot where you are looking down at the sinking aft half of the boat. It was amazing. I think that maybe this movie, through it's effects, can allow us to see the bombing from a perspective that we never have before (such as the point of view of bomb "slowly" falling into a ship). I think it still can be respectful. Same with the soldiers running. Slo-motion, again, in my opinion, is useful in emphasizing a scene, making it more powerful, and in allowing the audience to see the scene better. Anyway, that's just my two cents. Like I said, I really enjoy Bay's movies, so I guess I am a little biased. I hope the movie can be both serious and entertaining. I will, however, withhold judgement until I see it. BTW, I mean this seriously. I have heard so many people call certain directors (most notably Bay) a "hack". What does that really mean? It's not that I have never heard it before, but what does it refer to? Any answers would be appreciated. Ed
posted 02-07-2001 04:16 PM PT (US)

H Rocco Oscar® Winner	I couldn't necessarily define "hack" in a way that might satisfy, but I find Michael Bay sloppy, self-indulgent and vividly and profoundly unconcerned with such vagaries as plot, pacing, and logic. Does ANYONE really understand what happened during the Russian satellite sequences in ARMAGEDDON? If he's NOT genuinely a hack -- if he actually DOES care about the work he does, and works his heart out to make it what it is -- then somehow, I find that even more tragic. So much effort for so little result. Bay apparently believes he is the literal illegitimate son of John Frankenheimer, and all I can say is, if he IS Frankenheimer's boy, then talent is NOT necessarily inherited. (Frankenheimer told GQ, I think, that he took a blood test to make sure he was not Bay's father, but Bay still holds onto that dream, suggesting that DNA tests today are more conclusive than those that were administered some years ago.) I should emphasize that I have nothing personal against Michael Bay, I just don't think he's talented. If by happenstance he should improve as a director (it could happen, I suppose), then I would welcome any great movie with open arms, as always I do.
posted 02-07-2001 05:19 PM PT (US)

Mark Olivarez Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by H Rocco: Call me cynical (and you'd be correct), but I think Michael Bay -- one of the biggest hacks now working -- sees PEARL HARBOR as his "transition" to "real," "serious" filmmaking (as if he were capable of it), and his own personal ticket to the Oscars, a la James Cameron and TITANIC. If this year shapes up anything like last year, then PEARL HARBOR might well wind up a serious contender, as, bizarrely, GLADIATOR has become this year. (I didn't dislike GLADIATOR, but don't consider it Oscar material.) I'm dreading this movie in a lot of ways, yet still have to admit I'll be seeing it. NP: GLADIATOR, ironically (1992 Goldsmith rejected version, though) The only difference is that Cameron, at least in my mind, had already established himself as being able to make movies with special effects that had a storyline that kept the audience captivated. Certain events in our history are not for every director to touch. Some have shown the ability to grasp history and succeed while others have failed and failed quite bad. The fact that Hans Zimmer and Michael Bay are doing this movie gives me no hope for a serious film as to opposed to a typical Bruckheimer "noise" fest.
posted 02-07-2001 06:16 PM PT (US)

Hasta Oscar® Winner	Mark, I agree with you except for the fact that you threw Zimmer's name in there!!! F#$! Did you even SEE "The Thin Red Line"? Was it any less serious than Private Ryan or any other recent war film? I think not. Zimmer has matured, even if Bay has not! NP: Free Willy (Poledouris) */***
posted 02-07-2001 06:20 PM PT (US)

skiletic Oscar® Winner	Absolutely, Hasta. Couldn'a said it better myself. Thin Red Line, on its own, destroys any previous sound argument on Zimmer's capacity for only commercially amusing music. I say Gladiator does as well, but why bother being objective on that right now, it'll only lead us to another distracted post. And for that super appealing, modern music of Zimmer for action scores, it works. It emphasizes emotions, and there are emotions other than deep morose drama in film. I eagerly await both the scenes and its music. Incidentally, I love Russian history, and I downloaded Enemy at the Gates' trailer today and can't wait for that either. Horner's overall effect is growing on me as of late, and this is a big test in my mind for my modern opinion of me. The trailer itself is an excellent example of piecing together scores to a trailer. The climax of U-571's Finale and Dedication music as 'Paramount Pictures' comes by is even more moving than in U-571 itself. NP: Spartacus ***
posted 02-07-2001 06:45 PM PT (US)

Mark Olivarez Oscar® Winner	When I could keep from dozing off I attempted to watch Thin Red Line. I saw nothing that impressed me, of course I have the same problem with Kubrick's 2001, Yawn. While Zimmer's score was a nice departure from his other stuff, nothing about his score caught my attention or leads me to believe that this will be any different.
posted 02-07-2001 06:56 PM PT (US)

otten Oscar® Winner	Yeah, the satellite blew up. I think I understand what your getting at. I don't agree, but I understand. Logic, okay, but who makes a logical movie nowadays anyway. Plot, I really liked the plot of The Rock. Bad Boys was pretty bad (even Bay admits that), and Armageddon, well, Armageddon could have a forum all to itself with so many people have differing opinions. Pacing, well, I like the pacing. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. And I must say, it is nice to see someone who is willing, after his first three movies, to still keep an open mind. Many people I talk to won't even consider it, which I think is pretty silly.
posted 02-07-2001 07:04 PM PT (US)

Hasta Oscar® Winner	First of all, I totally agree with you skiletic. In Enemy at the Gates, I believe the order of music is (off the top of my head, don't quote me on it): 1)Nixon 2)Not sure (what is it for you who know?) 3)U-571 (Definately the best and most moving in the trailer. You're right skiletic, it is more moving than U-571, probably because U-571 wasn't very good) 4)Braveheart (Or one of Horner's, this piece sounds like it is from so many of his scores) All work very well. The trailer as a whole is just very well put together. Then again, so is Pearl Harbor's! Mark, how could The Thin Red Line bore you!?!? I realize you are with about 50% of the population when you say that, as many people seem to have the same complaints, but I found the movie to be maybe the best of 98. I loved SPR, but I believe TTRL was a better film. It may be the best looking film I've ever seen. It is technically Zimmer's best score to date, and the acting was pure bliss throughout (especially Elias Koteas and James Caviezel). Cameo's by Travolta and Clooney were retarted, though. As far as Michael Bay is concerned, I find that Bad Boys is a better flick than Armageddon. At least it doesn't take itself too seriously and plays along most the time as a joke. Lawrence and Smith were a good team, and Mancina's score was smokin'. I didn't despise Armageddon when I first saw it, found some of the scenes unbearable but for the most part enjoyable. To this day I still love Rabin's score. Funny thing I ordered the DVD when it came out and only on my 2nd watch did I realize how bad of a movie it really was. I know one person that thinks "The Rock" is one of the worst movies ever made, and calls Bay a "hack" like some others. He pointed out that he can't stand Bay because he needs 100's of climaxes in the film. He's right, but I still enjoy "The Rock" for what it is, mindless entertainment. NP: Free Willy (Basil Poledouris) - **/***
posted 02-07-2001 07:20 PM PT (US)

Quill Oscar® Winner	It seems everyone involved in this thread has well substantianted arguments. In the end, as Jeron stated above, this is only entertainment. There was a recent post regarding the historical accuracy of film...folks upset with the betrayal of the English-Indian conflict in Last of the Mohicans, the questionable portrayals of characters such as William Wallace of Rob Roy...why should Hollywood be a forum for historical study. I can understand people wishing such a delicate and tragic story to be told with dignity and respect. I feel the movie will be...on the propaganda point, well, the US government used the heroism and tragedy of Pearl Harbor as propaganda to motivate the country to enter WWII. A lot of you folks seem overly eager to shred apart a director, who so far has made a few harmless, entertaining films. From what I've heard about the script, the movie will treat the invading Japanese with dignity, not the "crazy, ruthless, Kamikaze pilots as stated above." To conclude from a slow-mo shot that this will not be the case takes an awful presumptious leap. And why would a great looking bomb drop be an advocation for war...it will simply show a reality that was unable to show in previous incarnations of the story. In the end, people will hate the score of both films simply because they hate Horner and Zimmer. And it is obvious that people will hate Pearl Harbor because they hate Michael Bay. Who knows, the film might be a melodramatic piece of garbage, but preconcieved notions will only further your disappointment.
posted 02-08-2001 08:05 AM PT (US)

Al Oscar® Winner	How to tell if Pearl Harbor is a popcorn flick: If anywhere in the movie, a character exclaims, "Gotcha suckas!"
posted 02-08-2001 08:31 AM PT (US)

Jeron Oscar® Winner	Well said, Quill. I also have an additional comment about the bomb drop effect: Everyone has seen "Tora! Tora! Tora!". Everyone has seen the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Michael Bay is a commercially-trained director with a knack for the visually fantastic. If he wants to take us on a ride that wasn't possible until now, then by golly, let him. I look forward to it.
posted 02-08-2001 09:15 AM PT (US)

sean Oscar® Winner	Yeah Pearl be the popcorn flick! Yes, ManOfSorrows I listen to Metallica.....I don't really listen to any other metal though. I know I should. NP: Hannibal - Hans Zimmer ***/***
posted 02-08-2001 01:28 PM PT (US)

Tom54 Oscar® Nominee	To answer some questions... Check this out: http://www.geocities.com/tomsami/_enemyatthegates.htm
posted 02-09-2001 10:54 AM PT (US)

Quill Oscar® Winner	What's the deal...it looks like a code download...damn!
posted 02-09-2001 11:35 AM PT (US)

Tom54 Oscar® Nominee	54 quote: Originally posted by Quill: What's the deal...it looks like a code download...damn! If you´ve problems, click right, copy link location and open it directly with the RealPlayer
posted 02-09-2001 12:33 PM PT (US)

Quill Oscar® Winner	That worked a little better..but no I don't get any sound...damn this cruel world...any other suggestions? If not...thanks for trying.
posted 02-09-2001 02:16 PM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB