Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

MartinHafer My review is for the original full-length docudrama made by Gregg Toland. For a variety of reasons, the US government (who commissioned the film) hated Toland's version and John Ford was brought in to rescue the project. He re-shot some scenes, created a few new ones and edited away about much of the film. Interestingly, this much shorter version received an Oscar and the original version was censored for many years.The film begins with the embodiment of Uncle Sam (Walter Huston) meeting up with an old guy (the familiar character actor, Harry Davenport). What follows is a history lesson concerning Hawaii (particularly focusing on Hawaiians of Japanese descent) and account of the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which is narrated by Sam. Interestingly, Uncle Sam talks on and on about how these Japanese-Americans are very loyal to America and Davenport (usually such a nice guy in films) goes on to question their loyalty and their 'so called religion called Shinto'! Interestingly, Davenport's attitude about these people is pretty much in line with the government policy of internment of Japanese-Americans following the December 7th attack. And, very oddly, Uncle Sam is seen as naive and perhaps a little stupid. What follows is a lot of dry narration and, finally, an odd scene between dead soldiers (one of which id Dana Andrews).So why did the government dislike the film? First, although being anti-Japanese was encouraged, the original version basically said that beneath their veneer, many Japanese-Americans were evil agents working for Japan--and that Uncle Sam (i.e., the US government) had been naive and complacent. Second, when it came to the surprise attack, the original film said that we SHOULD have been ready and led credence to conspiracy theories that the government knew or should have known about the attack. As a result, of both themes, the film came off like an indictment of the government and instead of instilling patriotism, it might have instead served to create a defeatist and anti-government attitude. I can see why the film was re-made and edited.Sure it was filled with very nasty anti-Japanese material...but was it well made? What about the technical merits of the film? I don't really think it was made well. Much of the film needed tightening. For example, the Japanese montage just went on too long. Additionally, as I mentioned above, the film was not at all successful in conveying what the government wanted--a HUGE drawback. Its nasty tone really represents negative propaganda and I fully understand the need to re-do this picture. Still, very interesting and an unusual insight into the sorts of feelings brewing in America at the time. Probably mostly of value to historians today and I am glad it is finally available-- politically correct or not!By the way, it IS true that many of the ships sunk at Pearl Harbor were actually repaired and recommissioned. I am not sure whether or not the US government wanted this to be known or not. I could see an advantage for not letting the enemy know this or the benefit of letting the civilians know we are resilient.

tag gallagher Here's the explanation for this film.In President Roosevelt's judgment, the 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent living on the West Coat were a terrible threat to national security during ww2. Accordingly, they had been interned in concentration camps, suddenly and brutally. Obviously, the 160,000 Japanese-Americans on Hawaii posed an even greater threat, since Hawaii was the most critical American base in the Pacific. Roosevelt wanted these potential subversives locked up as well, and the task of December 7th was to argue for this necessity by indicting the loyalty of 160,000 Hawaiian citizens.But something rare in recent American history occurred. The military governor of Hawaii, General Delos Emmons said, in so many words, "Nuts, I won't do it!" And he prevailed. The Nisei stayed free. Accordingly, December 7th's denunciation of their disloyalty was replaced with a tribute to their patriotism. And not a single hostile act by a Japanese- American was reported during the war.Hawaii's successful defiance of Roosevelt is an ignored event in American history — not surprisingly, because it gives the lie to the excuse that continued internment of 110,000 people (mostly Californians) through almost four years of war (and the effective confiscation of their property to the profit of their neighbors) was an understandable precaution in the heat of the moment.Ford and Toland, whatever their sentiments at the time, were following orders. A year after the war was over, in December 1946, Ford made a point of depositing in the National Archives an 82-minute print, unreleased (but now on DVD), containing Toland's unreleased sequences preceding the 34- minute released sequences. As a single film it makes no sense: the second part contradicts the first, blatantly. Yet it documents a government policy that we have forgotten ever even happened.

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- 1943, A documentary that discusses and shows the many US military command and government war actions during the WW2 Pacific theater.*Special Stars- Director: John Ford *Theme- The US will win against any obstacle.*Trivia/location/goofs- Documentary made up of recreation with actors from narrative films and live action combat or newsreel footage. John Ford was a command naval officer.*Emotion- An enjoyable and this is really an impressive war documentary. It suffers from the staged or fake reenactment scenes to complete the narrative. Once you've seen this you can understand what all those war films have been trying to achieve. However, there are the unpleasant shots of injured Americans and some blatant racism in the form of the word use of 'Japs or 'Nips'. But it is extremely educational and does what a narrative simulated war film can do. You do have to put up with the blatant propaganda but this actually helps put the documentary in its war era context, providing an insight into social and political opinion of the time.

pv71989 It's hard to imagine why this little gem of a flick was unavailable for 50 years. Actually, the original 82-minute length with its brief references to a missed opportunity involving a radar that picked up the Japanese attack force was banned by Chief of Staff George C. Marshall as inflammatory. Cinematographer Gregg Toland had filmed most of it on a Hollywood lot, but producer John Ford had to come in and edit in down a 34-minute film. Amazingingly, it won Ford his fourth Oscar -- as a documentary. You have to get the full 82-minute version. The first 15 minutes are blatantly racist and jingoistic. Walter Huston plays the embodiment of Uncle Sam, which is pacifist, as America was in 1941, despite the war in Europe. Harry Davenport plays Mr. C, Uncle Sam's conscience. The two begin a dialogue where, despite Uncle Sam's best efforts to portray Japanese-Americans as loyal, Mr. C picks apart the defense and sells our own citizens are being ripe for recruitment by the Imperial Japanese military. It's done so covertly as to leave the impression that any Japanese-American could be a spy. It even uses Korean actor Philip Ahn as a smiling Shinto priest to malign that religion and say that any religion other than Christianity is immoral. Amazingly, Nazi spies show up to "aid" the Japanese spies, who are always smiling. Toland shows Nazi spies listening to the conversations of sailors and civilians who spill military secrets like slippery glasses of milk. Oddly enough, the scenes of Americans freely spilling secrets and Nazis spies walking around Hawaii pretty as they pleased should have been more of a security concern than Japanese-Americans who taught their kids about their ancestry and culture. The action shifts (finally) to December 7th. The radar scene is featured prominently, then the Japanese planes attack. I have to say that Toland may have thought his special effects were something in 1943, but now they look just plain cheesy. Paper-mache ships explode in showers of sparks, instead of flames. You can clearly see the strings holding up the Japanese planes. Despite being riddled by .30- and .50-caliber bullets from the Japanese planes, American sailors take the time to stop, drop and die gracefully. What's most galling is the inaccuracies. Toland shows the battleship Nevada underway (which really happened), but then shows Japanese torpedoes blowing her into a mass of flaming wreckage. In reality, about 25 Japanese bombs wrecked her decks as the Nipponese pilots desperately tried to sink her to bottle up the entrance to Pearl Harbor. Also, the movie shows mock-ups of the battleship Pennsylvania, as well as the destroyers Cassin and Downes. All three are in dry dock. Suddenly, a slew of bombs rips the Pennsylvania apart. The destroyers follow suit. In reality, a crane operator used his crane boom to thwart attacks on the Pennsylvania and she suffered one superficial bomb hit. The missed bombs, however, did pummel Cassin and Downes in junk that boxed the battleship in for weeks. Also, the narrator "cleverly" points out that the Japanese pilots calmly fly across Hawaii, confident that their attack is a complete surprise, but they many hundreds of Japanese-Americans-turned-spies have lulled America to sleep. The pilots know they are about to deal a blow to the ships that lay at anchor because they have been specifically targetting those same ships in practice. Also, the two Japanese ambassadors in Washington talking to Henry Hull, are called sneaky and bland, knowing the attack is imminent. In truth, the attacking pilots were afraid that they would be met by American fighters and anti-aircraft fire all the way in. When they broke into the skies above the anchorage with no American the wiser, only then did squadron leaders issue the code word that meant they had achieved complete surprise. The pilots had been after the American carriers all along, not the battleships, but only learned the carriers were not in port just a short time before take-off. Fuel concerns and fears of American submarines prompted them to launch the attack rather than wait a day or so to see if the carriers appeared. Finally, the Japanese ambassadors in Washington had no idea an attack was to occur. Japanese prime minister Hideki Tojo had sent them a confusing message that made no hint of war. Tojo knew the ambassadors were fond of America and didn't want them giving out any warnings. The movie shows the three Japanese midget submarines that were captured after the attack and says they were all captured. In reality, three were captured, but two were sunk, along with the mother submarine that had carried them all. Curiously, one sub was sunk as it entered the harbor prior to the attack, but the report somehow never made it to the right people. That was a more glaring error than the radar foul-up, but some poor Army Air Force lieutenant incurs Toland's wrath rather than the captains and admirals who screwed up the submarine report. Also, the narrator (George O'Brien) triumphantly remarks that 200 Japanese planes attacked and 50 were shot down. The movie shows the second wave of Japanese planes being shredded and driven off by our brave gunners. In truth, only 29 planes and 55 Japanese fligth crewmen were lost (along with 25 guys on the submarines, including the ones on the captured midget subs who committed suicide). Here were have America's first instance of enemy casualty rates. The film ends with the narrator pointing out some of the sailors and Marines who died. Toland and Ford are smart enough to include all races -- black, white and Hispanic. The parents of the deceased potrayed themselves. The movie ends with a patriotic speech between the narrator and the ghost of an American sailor, played by Dana Andrews. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but I was ready to puke by this point. Back in 1942 when this film was first shot, the inaccuracies and racism were overlooked because they got Americans' blood boiling. After the war when the facts of Pearl Harbor slowly came out, the film looked more and more fake, ultimately becoming as much a novelty as those stupid government education films of the 50's and 60's that warned of Communists around every corner and of marijuana destroying the country. All in all, December the 7th is worth a look just to see how America portrayed itself and its enemies during the war. The Japanese did the same thing with a film called "I Bombed Pearl Harbor," which was a hit in Japan until the Imperial Navy went down in flames at Midway. If you want to know what really happened at Pearl Harbor, buy the war classic "Tora, Tora, Tora."