Volume CXXXIII, Number 10 November 16, 2001 f

The Worst Movie of the Year
MONICA GUZMAN
STAFF WRITER

Due to a ridiculous amount of work I had this weekend, I could not go out and see a new movie. So I've decided to write a special Worst Movie of the Year review. Yes, yes, I know… it's not the end of the year yet. But if a worse one manages to come out between now and New Year's Eve, well, frankly, I'll cry.
The envelope, please. And the loser is: Pearl Harbor!

It's been a while since I've enjoyed so mercilessly trashing a movie. This film was a total waste of my valuable summer time, but I managed to make it a comedy in my own little way to make up for the enlightenment I was denied. What a tragedy: a serious topic, a serious premise, and a serious story made into a mediocre movie.

My movie theater co-workers had forewarned me that seeing this film would spiral me into temporary insanity, but for some reason I just couldn't say no. It had a good cast and a crucial bit of history. I wanted this movie to be good.
So much for that. I think I spent the majority of the wasted time laughing. Some of the not-meant-to-be-funny humor was found in the flakiest screenplay in years, the year's flakiest acting, and some unintentionally pathetic melodrama. I couldn't keep track of all the times cheesy music came on to make the audience cry over nothing. This was a blast in all the wrong ways.

The basic story of Pearl Harbor goes something like this: Two friends get into World War II and share a girlfriend. The Americans lose the battle of Pearl Harbor. If I get into any more detail it would just be embarrassing. Bottom line: don't waste your time even knowing what this thing's about.

This was a total waste of film stock because it was made for money, not art. It followed worn-out formulas that only amaze those who have never seen it all before (which is about ten people in this country). This movie tricked us by making use of what I like to call the "The-Longer The-Better" rule. This myth has been developing in the minds of movie going audiences everywhere: when a movie tops three hours, it's almost always good. That's what had me fooled--the fact that they stuffed an hour-long movie with crap and swelled it up to more than three.

Okay, I need to cool off and see if I can say something good about this. (Mónica scrunches up in deep thought for thirty seconds.) Hmmm…Ben Affleck's good looking, does that count?

I didn't think so. Don't ever see this movie if you value your sanity.