Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) User Reviews

"I fear we have only awakened a sleeping giant..."

[wandering-star · 8/10 · 24 February 2007]

I just finished reading a great book on the history of Japan in the Second World War, "Rising Sun" by John Toland, and decided to watch Tora! Tora! Tora! again.

This is a great movie and immaculately accurate down to the last detail, such as how the Japanese trained for the attack on Pearl Harbor at Kagoshima City on Ryukyu Island. The book describes how the pilots in crews of three, zoomed down over the mountains behind the city, over the pier, and dropped torpedoes at a breakwater 300 yards away. The movie had all these details. Throughout, it was accurate even down to the exact wording of communications and quotes from the various people involved.

I loved how the Japanese directed the Japanese parts and vice versa for the Americans. It really told both sides of the story.

Technically as a film though, it has limitations. Some of the models used are kind of cheesy, but some are actually pretty good. But hey, it was 1970, this is before Star Wars even. And a lot of the acting is pretty wooden.

If you're looking for great special effects, and not much substance, see Pearl Harbor. If you're interested in the story, the "why", and figures involved in this historic event, definitely see Tora! Tora! Tora!.

Better yet, read the book I referenced above - it won the Pulitzer Prize and you won't be able to put it down - and you will be spellbound by this movie knowing all the background and reasons for the Japanese attack, and all the details about the characters.

Superbly done

[grahamsj3 · 8/10 · 7 February 2005]

This film tells the story of the attack by the Japanese Navy on an unsuspecting Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The film is balanced insofar as it's perspective, being told from both the Japanese and American sides. The storyline begins pretty much with the decision by the Japanese government that, unless negotiations with the United States were to take a decidedly different direction, there would be no choice but to go to war. It then follows the planning of the attack by Admiral Yamamoto and his staff. Concurrently, it shows that the negotiations between the two countries was not going well at all (from the Japanese standpoint). Depicted are, sadly, the absolutely dreadful decisions made by the US Commanders at Pearl Harbor, the ignoring of evidence that an attack was imminent, the lack of coordination in communications that resulted in huge delays in receiving crucial information and, lastly, ignoring the incoming Japanese raiders after they were spotted on American radar on their way in. The actual bombing and combat footage is very well done. The acting is superb by the entire stellar cast. Overall, if you want to know how a tragic event came to be, this film will explain it. It is historically mostly correct, although some artistic license was taken, for sure. Overall, an excellent production!

One of the best WW2 movies ever.

[ljcjpjlj · 21 October 2004]

Tora! Tora! Tora! has long been a favorite of this WW2 buff. Considering I have had 34 years to study and learn about the war since the film first was shown, I still maintain it is almost unbeatable in terms of realism and historical accuracy. An added attraction for me has always been it's total lack of a love interest. Unlike the recent "Pearl Harbor", T!T!T! is not complicated by any silly love stories. While by recent standards the movie may seem slow paced and plodding, the details of the events leading up to the attack is gratifying to see and actually educational. The attack action is thrilling, well paced, and in its use of models, actual planes and other equipment,is extremely realistic with few distracting anachronisms. Be aware that this is definitely not a movie to watch if you are in a hurry.

Near perfect in its attention to detail.

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 30 August 2014]

While not every detail is perfect, I really appreciate how the makers of some historical movies try very, very hard to get it right. In contrast, many war films (such as "Midway") are shoddy when it comes to the details--such as using stock footage of planes or tanks which didn't even debut until well after the battle. And, very, very few war films try to explain the events leading up to it. This drives ex-history teachers like me nuts! However, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" is an amazing film because they tried so hard and the film feels so complete. Of course the filmmakers had to make a few adjustments--such as converting American T-6 airplanes to look a lot like Japanese planes and recreating Japanese ships because they'd all been lost during WWII. But they TRIED--and I appreciate that. And again and again, the film stresses details--details that might bore some viewers but make history nuts salivate!

So why am I giving this movie a 10? After all, I almost never give such a score to a movie. In addition to the two huge pluses above, the movie excels because it does not burden itself with superfluous love stories (such as in "The Battle of Britain") nor does it give way to sentiment. It is almost like an actual recreation of events as they unfolded-- brought to the big screen in epic fashion. All in all, probably the best war film of all time because of its attention to detail, scope and accuracy.

Apparently, Roger Ebert HATED this film for the reasons I loved it. He hated the detail and wanted to have the characters fleshed out more-- like a typical Hollywood production. I didn't mind its documentary-like style and as a certifiable history nut, it's the sort of film I adore!

Extremely Faithful

[skallisjr · 10/10 · 5 May 2005]

I can review this from a different perspective: my father was a Coast Artillery officer in the U. S. Army stationed at Fort Kamehameha, abutting Hickam Field, when the attack took place. He had his family with him, so my mother, my sister, and I also were involved. I was pre-kindergarten at the time, but have a good memory. Naturally, I've read extensively about the attack since.

Speaking personally, the attack in the film sounded real, though our mother kept me and my sister inside for much of the attack (we had to go outside to get evacuated from our quarters).

But that aside: the film mirrors historic events closely. However, (possibly a minor spoiler or two follow) there were some little points that had been added for the audience's sake.

The MAGIC machine, which was breaking the Japanese PURPLE cipher, did not have to be explained to either officer, but one did, so the audience would get the drift of what was happening. (The actual machine was the greatest cryptological feat of World War II, greater than Enigma, because it was developed from scratch by Frank Rowlett under the direction of William Friedmann.) The film was based in large part from the books of Professor Gordon W. Prenge, an historian who specialized in Pearl Harbor. Prenge interviewed many of the principals in the action, on both sides, and became friends with several.

This is the best film on Pearl Harbor. I got tapes for my mother and sister, both of whom shared my reaction to it.

Powerful! Dynamic! Realism! Tora! Tora! Tora!

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 25 July 2002]

It takes three directors and almost two and a half hours to present one of if not the best film concerning the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor thus causing the U.S. to enter WWII. Taut, tense and unbelievable depiction of the dramatic attack on that fateful December morning in 1941. This movie leaves a lot to be desired as far as a strong story line goes; but the whole focal point is the Oscar winning special effects. An all-star ensemble cast features: Jason Robards Jr, Martin Balsam, So Yamamura, Joseph Cotten, E.G. Marshall and James Whitmore. Forget the rest...this is really the best.

A Date Which Will Live In Infamy

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 14 August 2007]

The real story of Pearl Harbor may have begun in 1853 when a squadron of U.S. frigates under Matthew C. Perry forced open the isolationist Tokugawa shogunate that governed Japan to take a reality check and open trade with the outside world. In less than 100 years Japan became an industrial power, every bit as formidable as any western country and was able to attack the country that forced it open.

Our Far eastern foreign policy from then until 1941 was simply trading concessions with both Asian powers, Japan and China. When they became rivals in Asia we and other countries had to choose up sides. Alternately we favored China and Japan, but in 1941 U.S. sympathies in Washington and in public opinion was favoring China.

The island chain of Japan is notoriously lacking in natural resources. Even the United Kingdom which it is often compared to has deposits of coal and iron and that created the British steel industry. Japan has to import and in the age of imperialism, they became every bit as imperialistic as any of our western countries, maybe more so because their need was greater.

Note during the film of Tora Tora Tora it is remarked that the U.S. Fleet in Hawaii was like a dagger pointed at Japan. When the island country of Hawaii was formally annexed to the United States and the Phillipines acquired after the Spanish American War at the end of the 19th century we became rivals in the Pacific to the Japanese. And imagine if the Japanese who were most anxious to annex Hawaii themselves had done so. The dagger would have been at our West Coast. Of course the poor Hawaiians had little to say about any of this.

All that has to be factored into what you are seeing in Tora Tora Tora. That and more is what led up to the events that are meticulously recorded in documentary style. Unlike the later film Midway which spoiled a good account of the battle with a personal story, Tora Tora Tora does not waste any of the viewers time in that regard.

The participants are there in all their flaws. Admiral Husband Kimmel who made the fortunate choice of sending out the aircraft carriers which was an act that may have eventually won the Pacific War for America is played by Martin Balsam. Nevertheless he took the fall for the attack as did Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark played by Edward Andrews.

One very luckless man was Army commander in Hawaii General Joseph Short played by Jason Robards, Jr. who was in real life in the Navy and at Pearl Harbor. Short made the fatal decision to put all the aircraft at Hickam field in the center of the field because he was afraid of saboteurs. The better to bomb them from the air.

Three members of FDR's cabinet are portrayed, George MacReady as Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Joseph Cotten as Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and Leon Ames as Frank Knox the Secretary of the Navy. Franklin Roosevelt being the wise leader he was and knowing that our eventual entry demanded bipartisan support chose a pair of Republicans in Stimson and Knox. Would that our current president had that kind of foresight.

George MacReady who usually portrayed polished villains is a good guy here and has one of his best screen moments as the Japanese envoys are ushered into his office AFTER the attack has begun to issue Japanese diplomatic demands.

Tora Tora Tora should be shown in schools as a great piece of well acted documentary film making if that's not a contradiction in terms. It won an Oscar for Special Effects which are out of date compared to the later Pearl Harbor movie, but still done well. Catch it if you can by all means.

"The men are eager because they do not know the taste of battle"

[PudgyPandaMan · 7/10 · 9 March 2009]

I am a big fan of War and Military movies. I think this film rates up in the top tier for accuracy, information, and education on the events that led up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that ultimately thrust the US in WWII.

Be forewarned that film runs long at 144 minutes. But one can hardly fault that considering the wealth and breadth of material to be covered. I think it was insightful to show both the US and Japanese perspectives in the film. It helps one better understand the motives and strategies of both sides. The first half views more like a documentary. It's not until the last half that the action really gets going.

I think all the actors did a fine job portraying their characters. I'm glad they forewent casting big name heartthrobs and instead opted for lower key character actors. I think it was also a good decision to have the Japanese speak in their own language for a more realistic depiction. However, if subtitles bore you, this probably isn't the film for you.

It's interesting to note that this film was a flop when released in the US but was a huge success in Japan. This ties in with the fact that the US Navy office was inundated with complaints that they allowed US service persons to participate in the filming - they felt it glorified the Japanese aggression and showed the US as bumbling idiots that were unprepared.

SIDENOTE: Gotta love the "Decoding machine" and the officer's explanation of how it works: the Japanese transmission goes in here, whirls around inside this box, then comes out the other side decoded. Hilarious! Not bad for a quasi-computer in the 1940's!

Solid History.

[j-d--1 · 8/10 · 13 August 2005]

In pure movie terms, this film is pretty light. As a historical drama it is almost perfect. Based on Gordon Prange's book of the same name, the film draws on Prange's 30 years of official USN research to draw some interesting and thought-provoking questions about the mistakes made by both sides in the lead up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

For the history buffs it even raises some questions which are not part of most people's understanding of how and why it happened the way it did. For the general public it puts all the basic points of the attack into one neat, interesting package. Some characters have been combined and events changed slightly to aid production but nothing of any real significance is altered.

The Japanese sequences were originally intended to be directed by the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa but when the producers realised that those parts alone made up four hours of screen time, the trouble started and Kurosawa was replaced. The acting is solid but unremarkable, as one would expect from a film of this type.

The battle sequences are, for the most part, beautifully done. The producers spent cubic dollars converting old trainers to look like Japanese fighter and attack aircraft and succeeded brilliantly. Only the real oficianados can tell them apart. The flying is fantastic and it looks brilliant against the Hawaiian scenery.

About the only thing missing, and probably a salient reason for its lack of real commercial penetration, was the lack of a love angle.

By contrast, it is amazing to me that "Pearl Harbor", made some 30 years later, was so bad in comparison. Had the producers actually watched this film before making such a turkey, they might have actually learned something. "Tora, Tora, Tora!" is a film which could be shown to any history class with few concerns as to its authenticity. "Pearl Harbor" should never be shown again.

Considering the amount of information which had to be conveyed in such a small amount of screen time, "Tora, Tora, Tora!" is remarkably successful.

A realistic look at the events at Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States into WWII.

[gitrich · 7/10 · 16 January 1999]

Tora! Tora! Tora! is a monumental accomplishment. Its special effects alone are certainly worth experiencing. It also makes an effort to tell both sides of the attack accurately using Japanese and American actors. What prevents this epic film from becoming a classic boils down to the quality of the acting. Not the Japanese actors but rather some big name American actors who seem to just be going through the motions. Bit players are even less convincing. Still, this is a story that everyone should see on film and care is taken to make it historically correct.

Do you have confirmation?

[marbleann · 9/10 · 13 November 2005]

I haven't seen this movie is years. I actually have it on DVD and never watched it. But Fox played a few war movies on Veterens Day and I watched it again. First I love war movies. Not the soapy Pearl Harbor type movies, but a real nuts and bolts war movie. On seeing this movie for a second time a I noticed a lot of things I didn't see the first time. Little thing like the submarine trying to sneak into Pearl Harbor and how our ship saw it and blew it up. I never knew that happened. And the aftermath in which a call is made to the base commander and all he can say is ask for confirmation because these things happen all of the time. I wanted to smack him. It is incredible how a lot of middle men actually prevented word about the attack getting to the right person. Such as the guys who pick up a plane formation heading for Pearl Harbor and the men who received the message just brushing it off, and not conveying it to the correct person. Or how the Wesley Addy character had to run around DC trying to talk to anyone who would listen to no avail. Or the man who has direct access t the Commanders after getting concrete evidence and decides not to call the commander at Pearl Harbor but wants to run it by the President first. It is amazing how middlings actually held the fate of PearL Harbor in their hands and blew it. I also admire way they show the Japanese perspective. I love movies like that because it shows that the other side are soldiers like we are and are committed to their cause too, right or wrong. It humanizes them as it should. All Quiet in The Western Front was one of my favorite novels and movies because it was told through the eyes of a very young German recruit. I see how they are all psyched into going to war as they do here to young men and when they fight they see this is not what they signed up for. There was no side stories, thank you, because they ruin all war movies. This is a very good war movie. And it gave us a inside view of the steps leading to the Attack. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to see good movie about Pearl Harbor without an foolish love story or side stories.

The real Pearl Harbor story

[hall895 · 7/10 · 25 March 2011]

Tora! Tora! Tora! is the Pearl Harbor story. The real story, not a fictionalized Hollywood romance which just happened to be taking place in Hawaii in 1941. No made up characters, plot lines or melodrama here. This is the real deal, the story of the men whose decisions and actions led to a date which will live in infamy. As such there aren't going to be much in the way of surprises. There's an inevitability to the film, everyone knows how the story ends. But the film still manages to be compelling, dramatic and entertaining. For a nearly two and a half hour long movie in which you know the ending from minute one that is no small feat.

Tora! Tora! Tora! is in a way two different films, the Japanese one and the American one. The two movies within this one movie have different writers, directors, cinematographers and actors. This could have easily led to a very disjointed feel. But things come together rather smoothly. The two stories fit together remarkably well as they proceed along their parallel tracks, destined to come together in the skies above Hawaii on December 7. While there are a few recognizable faces in the cast there are no real stars, no characters who obviously stand out from all those around them. This is a case where the story is the star. The plot, not the performers, drives the film forward. Which is not to say the performances are not good, they certainly are. Each actor, American and Japanese, plays his historical part more than well enough to let you totally buy into the story. You see the decisions the true-life men made and realize how all the small decisions led inexorably to one of the most significant historical events of the modern age. On such small details can history turn. If there can be any complaint with the film it is that the buildup towards the day of the attack can be slow at times. There's an awful lot of historical information to get across and often the same information is shown twice, from both the American and Japanese perspective. But a somewhat slow pace is a small price to pay for the painstaking historical accuracy the film achieves. It would be hard for a documentary to tell the Pearl Harbor story any more truthfully or any better. And however long the film took to get to December 7 the final payoff is no doubt worth it. The film's conclusion, inevitable though it may be, is breathtaking. Action on a grand scale, a powerful ending to a thoroughly compelling film.

A Case Of The Slows

[slokes · 2/10 · 22 January 2007]

By sticking three exclamation points in the title, the producers of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" seemed to acknowledge in advance that their product needed pumping up. Boy, does it ever. Ingmar Bergman didn't make movies as static as this.

Here's a "Tora! Tora! Tora!" drinking game you can play. Take a slug of beer every time someone in the film opens or closes a door. Take another when someone puts a piece of paper in an attaché case, or picks up a phone. If an American says something about deciphering the Japanese diplomatic code, or a Japanese guy says something relatively mundane in a screaming voice, have another. Just don't drive after, or your car will look like that PBY that got caught on the runway at Hickam Field.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is a Japanese-American co-production about the attack on Pearl Harbor, according to this film something of a co-production itself. The Americans were bull-headed about keeping an embargo against Japan, moving its fleet from San Diego to Hawaii in response to Japanese aggression in China. As one Japanese officer says, "That fleet is a knife leveled at Japan's throat," meaning the only thing to do about it is to bomb the U.S. Navy into scrap metal by means of a surprise attack.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" emphasizes the courage of the Japanese forces, the idiocy of the American leaders, and the disappointment of not catching the Americans even more by surprise i.e. with their carriers in the harbor as well. Not surprisingly, the film was a big hit in one country and sank like the Arizona in the other.

The film even goes out of its way to excuse the sneaky nature of the Japanese attack, suggesting a slow typist at the Japanese embassy kept the U.S. from getting "a declaration of war" (as Admiral Yamamoto later puts it) minutes before the attack began. In fact, the message being typed was just breaking off negotiations; Japan waited until late December before formally declaring war, as if it still needed saying. But in keeping with the script's no-fault agenda, this is obfuscated in favor of comments by Yamamoto about having awoken a sleeping giant that never in fact took place.

Give the Japanese some credit: They are a lot easier to watch in this movie. Both sections of the double narrative suffer from repetitive, awkward exposition scenes ("No wonder you decided to call it Operation Magic!" codebreaker E.G. Marshall says, with all the subtlety of Rick Moranis' Dark Helmet turning to the camera and asking "Everyone got that!" in "Spaceballs"), but at least the two Japanese directors, Kinji Fukasaku and Toshio Masuda, give you more interesting backdrops and some impressive martial pageantry to break up the tedium and help you stay interested until the fighting breaks out 90 minutes in. On the American side, Richard Fleischer shoots people walking in and out of rooms.

Neville Brand and James Whitmore are the only standouts on the American side, while the Japanese cast led by Soh Yamamura (Yamamato) and Takahiro Tamura (Fushida, leader of the first assault wave) get across what little energy the film has until we get to the attacks themselves. These are impressively staged both from the air and water, and you feel a sense of helplessness and power that eyewitness accounts of the attack, however eloquent, never quite convey. It's just that it takes too long getting there. I've never before been in the position of wanting American ships to hurry up and sink; it meant the movie would be over that much faster.

If you really want to know what happened...

[mermatt · 10 June 2001]

...see this film.

Whether you want to waste time seeing Brucheimer and Bay's self-indulgently long PEARL HARBOR with its totally extraneous fictional romance -- that's up to you. But whether you see it or not, the real history of the human stupidity on both sides of the Pacific that created the attack is clearly portrayed in TORA! TORA! TORA!

The new DVD edition has insightful commentary by the director plus a documentary about the attack. This film is tensely paced and displays and excellent cast. The Jerry Goldsmith score is kept to a minimum but is very effective. The special FX for the attack are all the more impressive considering they were done before the advent of computer generated FX such as those in PEARL HARBOR -- and they equal those of PEARL HARBOR.

If you want to know the real story, see this film and then also check out the companion stories in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, DESTINATION TOKYO, and THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO.

No False Glory Here

[patrickf · 8/10 · 5 June 2001]

A fascinating film - and remarkably even-handed for a World War II epic. Pearl Harbour is shown as an American debacle, and a terrible Japanese mistake. Having read a number of books on the subject ("Day of Infamy", "At Dawn We Slept" etc.) I believe this is the most accurate depiction of the events. There is an incredible tension in watching fallible human beings - not plastic heroes - cope with momentous events. In some ways it reminded me of "13 Days"(2000), but without it's successful conclusion. Richard Fleischer has had a spotty career but this is one of his best, combining his documentary-realistic style (as in "The Boston Strangler"(1968), "Compulsion"(1959), "10 Rillington Place" (1971))and his taste for spectacle (as in "The Vikings" (1958)). Fukasaku"s work I am not so familiar with, but it can be compared to sympathetic treatments of the Imperial Army by other Japanese directors- Ichikawa's "Harp of Burma"(1956) and Kobayashi's "The Human Condition"(1959). There are a number of British and American war films that attempt to show the Japanese troops as more than "Tojo and his band of bug-eyed monkeys" (a quote from a John Wayne film), such as Lean's "Bridge on the River Kwai"(1957), John Boorman's "Hell in the Pacific"(1968), and Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun"(1987).Just as "TTT" was criticised for it's even-handed approach, so too were these films. Here in Australia, the Pacific War also causes much angry debate, mainly due to the Australian POW's who died in Japanese captivity, & the Japanese bombing of Darwin (our Pearl Harbour). I think "TTT" was unpopular at the time for another important reason. "TTT" was a film about an unprepared world power - the USA - being defeated by an underestimated and implacable Asian foe in a daring sneak attack. "TTT" was released 2 years after the Tet Offensive (1968) in the Vietman War, and must have seemed uncomfortably close to home. Hollywood in the late 1960'& early 1970's, shied away from films depicting the Vietnam War (too divisive, too downbeat, too controversial etc.), but were OK on films set in another time tackling similar themes and questions. Films that are obvious metaphors for Vietnam include: Altman's "MASH"(1970)(Korean War as Vietnam War); Penn's "Little Big Man"(1970)(Washita River as My Lai, Little Big Horn as the Tet Offensive); Robert Wise'"Sand Pebbles"(1966)(1920's China as Vietnam); Ralph Nelson's "Soldier Blue"(1970)(Indian Wars as Vietnam) and even British films like Tony Richardson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade"(1968)(Crimean War as Vietnam). I guess people can only watch so much defeat, which is why "Patton"(1970) was welcomed. Even though it begins with an American catastrophe (Kasserine Pass), it ends in victory.

TKO against Pearl Habor

[SnoopyStyle · 9/10 · 11 November 2013]

This is the true story of the events leading up to and including the attack on Pearl Habor. Two things stand out in this version as oppose to Michael Bay's version. It goes into a lot of the historical details leading up to the attack. And the action is done with real planes and look the better for it.

I can't debate how accurate it is. There's certainly enough there that's heavily researched. The biggest risk is the heavy concentration on the Japanese side of the story. They account for half the screen time. And it's quite informative. These Japanese are not some Hollywood movie creations.

Not only do the characters come off as real. So too does the action. Sure this is a lot of miniature models. That's to be expected for the era. However the crazy number of planes and the real action is truly jaw dropping. There are some stunts there that just can't be believed. I take this over any amount of CG that Michael Bay can come up with. This has some of the best of the old fashion big Hollywood war extravaganza.

Contains One Of The Greatest Battle Scenes

[2004RedSox · 7/10 · 3 April 2005]

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is not exactly a great film. Mediocre acting and script. However, it contains one of the greatest battle scenes ever shot on film, if not the greatest. It's a treat for war film lovers to watch. I still find the simulation of the Pearl Harbor attack to be a totally mesmerizing spectacle.

This film is done before CGI, which the vastly inferior "Pearl Harbor" used ad nauseum. This fact makes this film much more amazing. (This film must cost 300 million to make nowadays!)

The only bad battle scene in this movie is the bombing of Arizona, in which you can tell the ship is floating on a bath tub. But other than that, you'll be hard-pressed not to say, "Wow!"

Codename: Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!, the best recreation ever...

[jlpicard1701E · 10/10 · 21 July 2004]

Some of you younger movie-goers, may only know of "Pearl Harbor".

Forget it!

If you want to have the actual story of what "really" happened on December 1941, then you have to go back to this movie made in 1970.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is a vision from both sides of the coin, not just the American one.

"Pearl Harbor" is more a love story in its context and has only one vision, the unilateral and unnecessary patriotic American one. This is not history as it should be told.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" was the codename given by the Japanese fleet to its carrier pilots to start the attack on Pearl Harbor.

This is far less a shooting war movie, than an actual historic recreation of facts happening on a certain month, week, day and moment in 1941.

Everything is told, from the bureaucracy involved (slow at that, as usual), to the actual military decisions on both sides and on the ground.

The attack, when it comes, is a majestic recreation that, once watched side by side with the actual documentary footage available, makes you realize that were it in black & white, one could not distinguish its differences. That's how accurate it is!

Expenses were not spared at all in doing this recreation. The aircraft used are all faithful reconstructions (a rarity!).

All the actors involved (American and Japanese) have played their roles with outmost accuracy and sense of drama.

The watcher is taken in and left wondering "what next", even if he already knows the story. Not a moment passes in boredom.

This is another fine movie I would recommend for schools and war museums.

It is a movie for thinkers, not warmungers, and it is certainly not one for those who always love to wave flags around.

In other words, this is history, told at its best.

Pros and Cons:

[boomaga1 · 6/10 · 7 September 2006]

A lot of great things about this movie. Realism, visual effects, the Japanese acting, fantastic. Tora! Tora! Tora! is well written and well paced - the editing is tight, if dizzying and confusing.

Problem is, Fleischer's ham-fisted directing and some lousy post-production.

Honestly, he's NOT a good director. Besides the great actors in this movie (Robinson, Robards, Balsam, etc.), all the other actors deliver flat, unconvincing, hackneyed performances. What excuse could you have for framing that cuts off people's heads, or leaves 2/3 of the top of the frame empty to no artistic purpose ? And ohhhh, those sound effects - besides being the same wall-to-wall clichés, the mix is so bad, whole lines of dialog spoken RIGHT into the camera disappear completely.

Contrasted with the Japanese-directed segments, his weakness shows terribly.

He wasn't one of Hollywood's great directors. How dare I slander the work of the man who brought us Million Dollar Mystery, Red Sonja, Conan the Destroyer, Amityville 3-D... ? Guess I'm a jerk. Point is, someone else should've directed Tora! Tora! Tora!, and it would truly be a classic.

More docu less drama, but quality mostest

[Kakueke · 10/10 · 18 November 2001]

"Tora Tora Tora" is my favorite war movie, and objectively one of the best documentary-style accounts of an historical military event. Told equally from the Japanese point of view (actually, more), it reflects a joint Japanese-American effort to stage the events leading up to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack itself. Martin Balsam plays Admiral Kimmel, supported by a good cast portraying the key U.S. figures, but closest to a central personality (there really is none) is Admiral Yamamoto (So Yamamura), the architect of the strike. "Tora" contrasts his views on naval/air strategies with those of the Japanese "Old Guard", and emphasizes his doubts about the notion of war with the U.S.

From the American side, apart from Kimmel and U.S. Army General Short (Jason Robards), the principal characters are decoders Colonel Rufus Bratton (E.G. Marshall) and Lieutenant Commander Alvin Kramer (Wesley Addy) -- actually, in both cases, more so than Short. "Tora" gets straight to the point -- no good love stories ("From Here to Eternity") or inane ones ("Pearl Harbor") get in the way. The only mention of the subject comes when Kramer, as the ability to trust anyone is being questioned, is asked whether he trusts his wife, and states, "as a matter of fact, I do." Good, let's get down to business.

Unlike in the plastic "Pearl," in which "oil" is the 10-second explanation for the bombing, the Japanese are treated in depth. The warlike spirit is shown, but Japanese are not all saber-rattling fanatics, and are willing to consider peaceful alternatives. Aside from Yamamoto, important figures are strategist Admiral Genda; naval task force leader Admiral Nagumo; and air strike leader Lt. Fuchida. I won't bother to name other Japanese actors, but suffice it to say none is Toshiro Mifune; for whatever reason, many (including myself at one point--well, I was once his neighbor in Tokyo) seem convinced he is in "Tora."

"Tora" being chiefly a chronicle of military facts, there is no appearance from symbols of state President Roosevelt, though his advisors figure prominently, and Emperor Hirohito, and only a brief one of hawkish Prime Minister Tojo; his predecessor Prince Konoye, whose desire not to have war with America is eclipsed, is given more focus. The issue of Roosevelt's advance knowledge was rudimentary in 1970, and is not the sort of thing the film sought to treat anyway. Amen, read that last clause again, those who criticize unfairly some aspects of the movie.

Kimmel is portrayed more sympathetically than Short, who comes across as somewhat brusque and brassy and makes a major strategical error by keeping U.S. planes together in the airfields to guard against sabotage in Hawaii by Japanese locals. From the navy's viewpoint, problems were perceived, but a principal difficulty was simply that there were not enough ships to go around, aside from the problem of generally underdeveloped mechanisms of defense, such as radar. However, the movie also shows, more subtly, that Kimmel was not up to the task.

The earlier part of "Tora" focuses on piecemeal strategic points without completely tying them together. However, there is much to cover, so it is difficult to provide contexts and explanations for everything. What we do get is presentation of the most important strategic issues, and America's unpreparedness. As the time of the attack approaches, "Tora" takes advantage of its better opportunity with events, as opposed to strategies: the Japanese submarine, the radar warning, the telegram, other communications failures, bad luck with weather. It clearly sets forth the near-term facts behind America's failure of prevention--just tell us what happened. But ultimately, the biggest blunder is on the Japanese side, separate from the attack itself. Admiral Yamamoto's and Admiral Halsey's contemplations fittingly wind down the dramatic recreation of the shock and surprise of the attack.

There are beautiful scenes of Hawaii, too; indeed, "Pearl" edges out "Tora" only in sunsets. The sea and blue sky, islands and mountains, Hawaiian music at military clubs. The Japanese planes take off in dark early dawn, nice aura, then a striking rising sun precedes beautiful dawn settings and the attack.

Sorry to be so narrative, but to do so is fitting in reviewing this very narrative movie. There are no dash and elan, no good guys or bad guys, and in fact, no protagonists or antagonists. Expressions of anger are not terribly intense and are fleeting, no intense passions are worked up. The closest thing to a hero is Colonel Bratton, whose importunations to accept his warnings are legitimized only too late.

"Tora" turns the trick for viewers with a more straightforward than sensationalistic approach who want to see a good, intelligent story; uncontrived people; an excellent extended battle staging yet no cheap special effects; no blood and gore; good flow. I am a big fan of "Lawrence of Arabia," and tho I ultimately see all its scenes as justified, I admit it had moments of drag, in both the first and second halfs. Some people think "Tora" drags at times, but it never drags for me. Besides, it is much shorter than "Lawrence" and many other epics. Fair enough, some simply do not like this type of movie as much as I do. But the attack on Pearl Harbor itself is one of the most dramatic events in military history and certainly U.S. history, and that helps carry the day. Geopolitics, strategy, unpreparedness, codebreaking issues, miscommunication, before a war, then a sneak attack -- John Wayne not needed.

10 out of 10.

Decent, but missing something

[Stu-42 · 6/10 · 15 August 2003]

This movie had great actors, was shot on location for much of it and contained some very interesting history. However, it wasn't a great film, rather it was pretty flat for the first hour and a half. I think the length hurt without solid direction and the battle scene while very good was not enough to make this one a winner. Even the excellent Jason Robards didn't seem to have much of a chance to do anything here. I couldn't help but have the feeling it could have done a lot better with tightening up some of the history which came out somewhat confusing. For example, the time references on Dec. 7th were mixed up including a mistranslation of the Japanese language. Also, certain points of the story which could have been made to be very dramatic just sat there such as the anticipation of an attack on Nov. 30th that didn't happen. Ideas like these were just forgotten about leaving this viewer with an unsatisfied feeling as if somehow there was a cohesion that was lacking. The last 45 mins. with the battle scene was what really had an impact here. There, I got the whole review done without mentioning Pearl Harbor. Darn! No I didn't!!!

How a war movie should be made...

[ptl0168 · 9/10 · 13 February 2010]

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS Right from the off, this is one of the most realistic war movies ever made. Taking a neutral stance and showing both sides of the conflict is a masterstroke. Weaving both viewpoints seamlessly is also another great aspect of this film.

The acting on both sides, Japanese and American is top rate. They just don't make them like Martin Balsam and Jason Robards any more - both give top performances.

The non-CGI effects are amazing once the action gets underway - some of the stunt men look in genuine danger as they escape the flames and explosions.

Forget 2001's Pearl Harbor which was a turkey by any stretch of the imagination - this is the definitive 7th December 1941 movie.

Sober Documentary Approach

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 20 March 2015]

It is doubtless a good thing that Michael Bay was not around in 1970. If he had been, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" might have ended up as a bloated three- hour epic about a love-triangle involving Admiral Yamamoto, Admiral Kimmel and Tokyo Rose, with the attack on Pearl Harbor tacked on as an afterthought.

Fortunately, he wasn't. The film we actually have takes a very different approach to that taken in Bay's "Pearl Harbor". There are no fictional love stories, indeed virtually no fictional characters at all. Rather, the film documents the Japanese preparations for the attack and the efforts of the Americans to understand what the Japanese were planning. The title (meaning Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!) is the Japanese code-word used to indicate a successful attack.

Although some well-known Hollywood names took part, including Martin Balsam, Joseph Cotten and Jason Robards, there are no real star parts; this is very much an ensemble cast. One thing that struck me was how little James Whitmore, who plays Admiral William F. Halsey, resembled Robert Mitchum, who played the same role in "Midway" from a few years later; neither actor, in fact, looked much like the real Halsey. Any actor playing a major wartime army commander such as Patton or Montgomery would no doubt be carefully made up to resemble the man he was playing, but naval commanders seem to have been much less well-known to the public than their military counterparts, so such realism was presumably thought unnecessary.

In many ways the film does not address the most interesting question about the attack, namely the question of why the Japanese leadership decided to take such a reckless gamble in the first place. Emperor Hirohito never appears, and General Tojo only appears briefly. The Japanese part of the film concentrates upon Admiral Yamamoto and his predecessor Admiral Yoshida, both of whom opposed war with the United States. It is implied that some Japanese leaders considered the Americans to be a spiritually corrupt, cowardly nation who would be unwilling to carry on fighting once their Pacific Fleet had been destroyed. It is also implied that the Japanese suspected the Americans of plotting an aggressive war against their country, especially after the Pacific Fleet was moved to Pearl Harbor from its normal base in San Diego, and therefore began planning a pre-emptive strike of their own. The film, however, never comes down definitively in favour of either explanation, possibly because it was an American–Japanese co-production and the Japanese film-makers might have been unwilling to explore their country's responsibility for the war in too much detail.

The film is more interesting when considering events from the American viewpoint. Contrary to popular opinion, the attack did not come as a complete surprise. The Americans suspected the possibility of a Japanese attack, having deciphered a key Japanese code which allowed them to read diplomatic communications. Remarkably, the Americans actually fired the first shots of the day when a U.S. destroyer sank a Japanese submarine trying to enter Pearl Harbor, but reports of this incident were not passed to senior commanders while more junior officers awaited official confirmation.

The film, in fact, tries to rehabilitate the reputations of Admiral Husband Kimmel (I wonder if Mrs Kimmel ever used to refer to "my husband Husband") and General Walter Short, the two officers who were made scapegoats for the disaster. The Americans certainly had enough information to anticipate the attack, but owing to a combination of incompetence and mischance this information was not passed to the two commanders on the ground until it was too late. Producer Darryl F. Zanuck" described the film as taking a "revisionist approach" which showed "what really happened on December 7, 1941".

None of the many individuals depicted here emerge as really interesting characters; I suspect that this is more a film for the military or history buff than for the general viewer. As such, however, it works very well, and the action scenes showing the attack are extremely realistic; the aerial dogfight sequences will bear comparison with those in "The Battle of Britain" from the previous year. I greatly prefer the sober, documentary approach taken by Zanuck and director Richard Fleischer to Bay's overblown, turgid love-story. 7/10

Pearl Harbor Gets Bombed, Again

[The_Other_Snowman · 5/10 · 14 May 2013]

By now Pearl Harbor has been assaulted so many times on film that historians have lost count. Images fabricated for the movies have been presented on the news as the real thing. Documentaries cheerfully masquerade reenactments of the attack as original footage, and a score of famous actors have participated in the defense.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" aims for honesty and verisimilitude at the expense of drama, which is perhaps a noble goal. The producers intentionally left out the big-name stars and fictional characters and subplots of "From Here to Eternity", instead focusing on the real historical figures: Japanese Admirals Yamamoto and Nagumo, and various American generals and so on. Their names pop up on screen in case you're not already familiar with them. Like a lot of epic war films of the time, it's not about the characters.

And that would be tolerable if the movie wasn't so execrably boring for the first half. You find yourself eagerly anticipating the destruction of the American fleet just so that you can see something happen. The interminable build-up to the Day of Infamy divides its time between both sides: in Hawaii and Washington an endless parade of gray-haired officers and politicians discuss plans and strategies, while the Japanese train and prepare for the attack. The Japanese segments are better, the characters more sympathetic, and the script more nuanced, with a gradual build-up of tension abetted by Jerry Goldsmith's understated score.

It's not every movie that gets you rooting for the wrong team through sheer incompetence. While it's not a bad movie, the only reason to watch it is for the airplanes and the spectacularly staged climax. Pearl Harbor might have been an infamous defeat for the USA, but it was a rousing success for the Empire of Japan -- unfortunately, it's the latter feeling that comes across the clearest.