> It seems that you're passing judgement without seeing the movie (I say that carefully, as the ad campaign shows pretty much the whole movie...).
> By not going to see Pearl Harbor/ any movie based on the fact that the ad campaign is everywhere...

Subtle difference. I don't go to see movies *because* they have ad campaigns that are everywhere, not *if* they have ad campaigns everywhere. Moulin Rouge's ad campaign is hardly subtle.

Second, since I just know others are going to bash me for judging a movie I haven't seen, I should clarify a few things. I *hate* that argument. It's recited ad nauseum, in ludicrous contexts. It's second to "if you didn't like the movie, why did you see it?" for flawed movie critique reasoning. But there is a point to be made, and I will now clarify my attitude about the whole deal.

I am fully prepared to refine, revise, and even retract everything I have ever said about Pearl Harbor after I see it. However, hundreds of movies come out every year. It's silly to suggest that one must see each before having an educated enough opinion to determine which ones are worth seeing. I've come to a conclusion that seems startlingly obvious to ME that Pearl Harbor is not worth the risk, at least not in the theater. That conclusion is valid even if I were to see it later and like the movie. But here's how I came to this conclusion, and I think you'll find it quite sound.

I saw the ad for Pearl Harbor last Fall. It disgusted me. It looked like countless movies I had already seen before, only worse. I was not surprised. I knew the movie was coming long before that, and I knew Michael Bay was at the helm. I knew it got the largest budget greenlight in film history, and I knew it was intended to be a summer tentpole film that would cash in on the formula of Titanic. Movies that cash in on formulas of recent hits always suck, because it's never the formula that makes movies work for audiences in the first place. As production of Pearl Harbor went on, and I grew to understand the way in which the film was being marketed, my fears escalated. I was afraid that this movie was going to be so dumbed down and politically correct, that it would do no justice to history or those that lived through it, that it would be exploited for summer action entertainment and attempt to do no more, that Michael Bay's editing would be indecipherable, that incoherent sequences of explosions would take the spotlight instead of the hearts of the men and women who lived through this time.

Of course, I could have been wrong. But then this past week I read one critical review after another after another, all of which, to some degree, not only slammed the film (which is something that holds sway with me but is not conclusive) but slammed it with EXACTLY the same fears I had about it from the very beginning, like the critics all read my mind instead of formulating their own opinions. What are the odds that a plethora of critics (critics whose opinions I respect, not just random critics) come to the exact same detailed conclusions that my own instincts feared if we're all wrong, and the movie is actually thoughtful and respectful?

So I'm not going to give nine bucks to a cause that I'm 99% sure is abominable just for the luxury of being able to say I'm 100% sure. I will, however, let them split a 50 cent rental fee with Video Update in exchange for the authority by which I could write a vicious review. (Again, I'll retract everything if a miracle happens, and the movie turns out to be good. But, you know, I'm less sure about the merits of some movies I've already *seen* than I am about this one.)

Well that's all well and good for me, but why, then, should I make a plea to all of you to cast your box office votes as I do? Because it seems no one THINKS about what they see anymore. They get the ad campaign. Who's the director again? Pearl Harbor, eh? Sounds like a great idea for an action movie! Ok, so before you jump down my throat, I *do* credit Rinkies with more than a blind sheep mentality. Still, few follow movies as closely as I do, and one of the perks of hanging out on my forum, is that you all get to be enlightened with my opinion. Yay, you. I'm being sarcastic, of course. Slightly. But the point is that if I can prod anybody into thinking more deeply about something, I'll consider my efforts a success even if people's ultimate conclusions run contrary to mine.

As for Moulin Rouge, the word from Cannes is that it's fantastic, but I don't even care. Hollywood gets my money for finally making a mainstream musical after decades, and maybe my nine bucks will put it over the line into profitability so Hollywood will make more. (Don't laugh -- my vote for President of the United States held less sway, and I wouldn't think of not voting in that race.) The fact that Moulin Rouge is reputed to be a masterpiece only makes me more eager to part with my cash for it.