About the only use you'd get out of it is that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. In other words, absolutely bloody zero use at all - but that is not its intended use.

Here's the thing. Works of historical fiction - any such works, no matter how well-researched - serve only one purpose as far as the study of history is concerned: as a gateway to the events in question. They cannot be taken as any sort of 'source' for historical inquiry because, no matter the concerns of the makers in question regarding historical accuracy (whether the work be film, novel, or other), their real concern is telling the story they want to tell. They can, and will change what 'really' happened if that change suits their vision. And sometimes, they'll change things around due to practical concerns. Most common of that sort is condensing several real people into one character, sometimes themselves a real person or a completely fictional one. Sometimes the budget will intervene; the TV movies based on the Sharpe books just don't do justice to the battles, not having enough money for enough people. And there is the inherent difficulty of portraying events in a fashion that can fit within the confines of the work.

We can see this in just about every film that's 'based on a true story'. For instance, Braveheart's depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge features absolutely zero sign of the bridge, as it was apparently too difficult to work around. Bernard Cornwell's works frequently 'Hollywoodise' the battles he writes about, among other things.

However, I must return to the point about study not being their intended use. I would be remiss in forgetting to address the other side of the coin: Accuracy is not a requirement of art. Art is about the story it tells, the beauty of its execution, the emotions it inspires in the consumer. Art is under no obligation to be accurate. It certainly helps if it's accurate to the period it purports to be set in or to the events it nominally portrays, but that's just gravy, not main dish.

Quite frankly, you're Doing History Wrong and Doing Art Wrong at the same time by considering using the film in this manner. If it gets you interested, yay! That's really the best draw of historical fiction, as the gateway drug to 'real' history. But it's only the gateway, and for serious historical study, you want actual sources, primary and secondary. Secondary sources ideally should be as recent as possible, as older scholarship may have become outdated in the meantime, with new perspectives cropping up.

u/SnarkMasterRay has quite a thorough book list focused on Pearl Harbor.