Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Pacific Rim

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Pacific Rim Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 1:41:54 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54624
Joined: 1/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I thought Kermode was acknowledging the difference between GDT and Bay in terms of simple film-making competence (see also Dev's post) tbh, that's why the 'who' was relevant and there is a difference IMO.

The national 'stereotypes' aren't just Hollywood though and still fitting old monster movies which weren't particularly socially progressive (also, the other Jaeger was a Chinese team not Japanese ).


Doesn't make it right though, maybe a movie in 2013 should try to move away from any sort of stereotyping? -


Although I did use the wording I think it's a bit excessive to even go the stereotype route - I thought the initial intro of the Chinese triplets was actually them playing baseball. Basically you had two teams that had virtually no time on screen. But it's interesting to go that route and say it's Hollywood and not focus on the fact America wasn't really up there on screen - even the US 'hero' wasn't played by an American. Beyond that you basically had the comedy Tully-esque scientist amd sme smaller roles. For a Hollywood film it was pretty un-American - not to mention the political dystopia going on in the background which, in a different film, would have been nice to see more of.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to ChudMonkey)
Post #: 61
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 2:12:52 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8307
Joined: 31/7/2008
SPOILERS:

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I thought Kermode was acknowledging the difference between GDT and Bay in terms of simple film-making competence (see also Dev's post) tbh, that's why the 'who' was relevant and there is a difference IMO.

The national 'stereotypes' aren't just Hollywood though and still fitting old monster movies which weren't particularly socially progressive (also, the other Jaeger was a Chinese team not Japanese ).


Doesn't make it right though, maybe a movie in 2013 should try to move away from any sort of stereotyping? -


Although I did use the wording I think it's a bit excessive to even go the stereotype route - I thought the initial intro of the Chinese triplets was actually them playing baseball. Basically you had two teams that had virtually no time on screen. But it's interesting to go that route and say it's Hollywood and not focus on the fact America wasn't really up there on screen - even the US 'hero' wasn't played by an American. Beyond that you basically had the comedy Tully-esque scientist amd sme smaller roles. For a Hollywood film it was pretty un-American - not to mention the political dystopia going on in the background which, in a different film, would have been nice to see more of.


It's still an American character saving the day in the US's Jaeger though. And he gets to live, whereas almost all the other (non-American) pilots buy the farm (who - unless they're native English speakers - we don't really care about anyway because we're given nothing about them to feel otherwise).

< Message edited by superdan -- 16/7/2013 2:13:14 PM >

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 62
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 2:18:27 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 593
Joined: 30/11/2005
According to Wikipedia (but with articles referenced there):

Del Toro cut approximately an hour of material from the film. The unused footage explored the characters and their arcs in greater detail, but the director felt it was necessary to strike a balance, stating: "We cannot pretend this is Ibsen with monsters and giant robots. I cannot pretend I'm doing a profound reflection on mankind." Each character's arc was edited down to its minimal requirements. The director wanted to keep the film around two hours, particularly for younger viewers. Alejandro González Iñárritu and Alfonso Cuarón helped with the editing; Iñárritu removed ten minutes of footage, while Cuarón removed "a few minutes" and rearranged several scenes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim_(film)#Principal_photography

Maybe the cut footage will show up on home release.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 63
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 2:19:11 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54624
Joined: 1/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

According to Wikipedia (but with articles referenced there):

Del Toro cut approximately an hour of material from the film. The unused footage explored the characters and their arcs in greater detail, but the director felt it was necessary to strike a balance, stating: "We cannot pretend this is Ibsen with monsters and giant robots. I cannot pretend I'm doing a profound reflection on mankind." Each character's arc was edited down to its minimal requirements. The director wanted to keep the film around two hours, particularly for younger viewers. Alejandro González Iñárritu and Alfonso Cuarón helped with the editing; Iñárritu removed ten minutes of footage, while Cuarón removed "a few minutes" and rearranged several scenes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim_(film)#Principal_photography

Maybe the cut footage will show up on home release.


I hadn't read that - very interesting.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 64
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 2:48:10 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5110
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Thank god he cut it out - the last thing this film needed was another hour of appalling sub-Power Rangers dialogue. And as for the performances...jesus. Nowt against Charlie Hunman, bless his Geordie socks but from Queer As Folk to Green Street to Sons Of Anarchy to this, the lad just simply can't act. Still, none of this stopped me thoroughly enjoying the ride.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 65
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 2:49:49 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

Agree that Bay is a disgrace to filmmaking - a guy who comes across as purely unpleasant and money-grabbing. However he's found his way into filmmaking, he doesn't suggest that he does it for love or artistic expression. Given that he's doing very well and has a job that would be an awful lot of people's hobby, that's pretty sad really. Sadly his formula is annoyingly successful, despite (with reference to Megan Fox in particular) an approach to filming women that is so offensively obnoxious that his cinematographer appears to be a 13 year old boy! Despite what I may have said about GDT in other posts, I've always recognised the enthusiasm and love for his projects, as well as an amazing visual style even when the budgets aren't the biggest.



Wildly off topic here, but I do wonder sometimes if people see the same Michael Bay movies as me. I mean, I cant disagree that he has an awfully simplistic and sterotypical view of race and gender and his sense of humour doesn't seem much higher than 'gutter', but I cant believe people still consider him a talentless disgrace. I mean, I don't see how you can be a fan of the art of film and film making and not appreciate, at least on a technical level, that Michael Bay is a very talented guy, especially when orchestrating action. The spinning gunfight from Bad Boys 2? The opening Meteor Shower from Armageddon? Thw whole of The Rock?! The Chicago set finale from Transformers 3? I mean, c'mon, they may not work as whole products in most cases (although I stand by the statement that The Rock is one of the best action movies of the nineties) and I could apprecate they wont appeal to all, but to think someone talentless could put some of the things on screen in the way he does? Give the man his due, he has a gift for that kind of spectacle that few other directors have.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 66
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 2:55:17 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54624
Joined: 1/10/2005
O/T

I don't agree tbh. The problem with Transformers was lots of shiny metal you couldn't tell one from the other, a confused mish-mash of a mess.I don't think any of them are particularly noteworthy action films - throwing money and pretty graphics at the screen doesn't necessarily mean the same as exciting IMO

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 67
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:11:34 PM   
ChudMonkey


Posts: 130
Joined: 29/7/2007
From: London

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

Agree that Bay is a disgrace to filmmaking - a guy who comes across as purely unpleasant and money-grabbing. However he's found his way into filmmaking, he doesn't suggest that he does it for love or artistic expression. Given that he's doing very well and has a job that would be an awful lot of people's hobby, that's pretty sad really. Sadly his formula is annoyingly successful, despite (with reference to Megan Fox in particular) an approach to filming women that is so offensively obnoxious that his cinematographer appears to be a 13 year old boy! Despite what I may have said about GDT in other posts, I've always recognised the enthusiasm and love for his projects, as well as an amazing visual style even when the budgets aren't the biggest.



Wildly off topic here, but I do wonder sometimes if people see the same Michael Bay movies as me. I mean, I cant disagree that he has an awfully simplistic and sterotypical view of race and gender and his sense of humour doesn't seem much higher than 'gutter', but I cant believe people still consider him a talentless disgrace. I mean, I don't see how you can be a fan of the art of film and film making and not appreciate, at least on a technical level, that Michael Bay is a very talented guy, especially when orchestrating action. The spinning gunfight from Bad Boys 2? The opening Meteor Shower from Armageddon? Thw whole of The Rock?! The Chicago set finale from Transformers 3? I mean, c'mon, they may not work as whole products in most cases (although I stand by the statement that The Rock is one of the best action movies of the nineties) and I could apprecate they wont appeal to all, but to think someone talentless could put some of the things on screen in the way he does? Give the man his due, he has a gift for that kind of spectacle that few other directors have.


Agreed...love The Rock (and the first Bad Boys to be honest)
He's got a talent for spectacle



_____________________________

Top 10 of 2013 so far:
1. Mud
2. Philomena
3. Before Midnight
4. The Way Way Back
5. Spring Breakers
6. In The House
7. Django Unchained
8. Only God Forgives
9. Tattoo Nation
10. Iron Man 3

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 68
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:16:06 PM   
ChudMonkey


Posts: 130
Joined: 29/7/2007
From: London

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

O/T

I don't agree tbh. The problem with Transformers was lots of shiny metal you couldn't tell one from the other, a confused mish-mash of a mess.I don't think any of them are particularly noteworthy action films - throwing money and pretty graphics at the screen doesn't necessarily mean the same as exciting IMO


Agreed on this too but both criticisms can be levelled at Pacific Rim. The much heralded action scenes are a muddled jumble of images

I love GDT's work normally (all of his work as director and most of his work as producer / exec producer) but Pacific Rim felt like an empty experience devoid of the love and attention to detail of his other work. Lots of money thrown at the screen but a complete lack of art created with it.

_____________________________

Top 10 of 2013 so far:
1. Mud
2. Philomena
3. Before Midnight
4. The Way Way Back
5. Spring Breakers
6. In The House
7. Django Unchained
8. Only God Forgives
9. Tattoo Nation
10. Iron Man 3

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 69
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:16:23 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8307
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

O/T

I don't agree tbh. The problem with Transformers was lots of shiny metal you couldn't tell one from the other, a confused mish-mash of a mess.I don't think any of them are particularly noteworthy action films - throwing money and pretty graphics at the screen doesn't necessarily mean the same as exciting IMO


Agreed. The finale of T3 in particular was a lousy action sequence: overlong, confusing and (worst of all) boring. He can do action, but he misses more often than he hits and when he misses he really misses. I'd argue he's actually a rather poor action director for the most part, and has been able to hide it behind big budgets for far too long.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 70
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:18:29 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

O/T

I don't agree tbh. The problem with Transformers was lots of shiny metal you couldn't tell one from the other, a confused mish-mash of a mess.I don't think any of them are particularly noteworthy action films - throwing money and pretty graphics at the screen doesn't necessarily mean the same as exciting IMO


True, money and GC dont make excitement, but I dont really see that that is what Bay does. The finale of Trasnformers 3 for example, the seige in Chicago and, in particular the Halo jumping sequence, are handled really well, for the most part. You're right that the three Transformers films have issues due to the design of the robots,as they are mostly terrible, but the staging of the action is pretty damn good. That building collapse too is pretty great, and the chocie of shots (one in particular as Optimus Prime flies in to save the day) are mostly pretty great. It's clear that Bay understands how to shoot action. The freeway chase from Bad Boys 2 would be another example, lots of CG and lots of money, but it's shot really quite well and some of the stunt work is spectacular. Again, it's clear he knows what he is doing. I dont wanna drag it off topic though, but yea, Bay deserves more credit than he gets!


_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 71
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:19:19 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54624
Joined: 1/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

O/T

I don't agree tbh. The problem with Transformers was lots of shiny metal you couldn't tell one from the other, a confused mish-mash of a mess.I don't think any of them are particularly noteworthy action films - throwing money and pretty graphics at the screen doesn't necessarily mean the same as exciting IMO


Agreed on this too but both criticisms can be levelled at Pacific Rim. The much heralded action scenes are a muddled jumble of images

I love GDT's work normally (all of his work as director and most of his work as producer / exec producer) but Pacific Rim felt like an empty experience devoid of the love and attention to detail of his other work. Lots of money thrown at the screen but a complete lack of art created with it.



I'm afraid we don't agree here - I'd no problem differentiating the antagonists in this film, or accepting their existence against both the sea and cityscapes. Even in 3D, which I dislike at the best of times!

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to ChudMonkey)
Post #: 72
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:25:45 PM   
ChudMonkey


Posts: 130
Joined: 29/7/2007
From: London

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

O/T

I don't agree tbh. The problem with Transformers was lots of shiny metal you couldn't tell one from the other, a confused mish-mash of a mess.I don't think any of them are particularly noteworthy action films - throwing money and pretty graphics at the screen doesn't necessarily mean the same as exciting IMO


Agreed on this too but both criticisms can be levelled at Pacific Rim. The much heralded action scenes are a muddled jumble of images

I love GDT's work normally (all of his work as director and most of his work as producer / exec producer) but Pacific Rim felt like an empty experience devoid of the love and attention to detail of his other work. Lots of money thrown at the screen but a complete lack of art created with it.



I'm afraid we don't agree here - I'd no problem differentiating the antagonists in this film, or accepting their existence against both the sea and cityscapes. Even in 3D, which I dislike at the best of times!


You must have better eye sight than me! I could not tell which monster was which in the final battle. I swear they said there were only 3 and I'm sure I saw 2 killed but then another one would just turn up (or the same one that hadn't actually been killed - I had not idea what was going on)
Plus Gipsy Danger and Striker Eureka looked pretty similar. It would have helped to have had the Chinese and Russian Mecha around for longer because I could at least tell them apart. Have exactly the same criticism for Transformers. Unless it was Bumblebee or Optimus Prime every robot looked identical...



_____________________________

Top 10 of 2013 so far:
1. Mud
2. Philomena
3. Before Midnight
4. The Way Way Back
5. Spring Breakers
6. In The House
7. Django Unchained
8. Only God Forgives
9. Tattoo Nation
10. Iron Man 3

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 73
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:27:01 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Wildly off topic here, but I do wonder sometimes if people see the same Michael Bay movies as me. I mean, I cant disagree that he has an awfully simplistic and sterotypical view of race and gender and his sense of humour doesn't seem much higher than 'gutter', but I cant believe people still consider him a talentless disgrace. I mean, I don't see how you can be a fan of the art of film and film making and not appreciate, at least on a technical level, that Michael Bay is a very talented guy, especially when orchestrating action. The spinning gunfight from Bad Boys 2? The opening Meteor Shower from Armageddon? Thw whole of The Rock?! The Chicago set finale from Transformers 3? I mean, c'mon, they may not work as whole products in most cases (although I stand by the statement that The Rock is one of the best action movies of the nineties) and I could apprecate they wont appeal to all, but to think someone talentless could put some of the things on screen in the way he does? Give the man his due, he has a gift for that kind of spectacle that few other directors have.


I'll agree that some of his films have some visually impressive moments, but that's enough to cover up the fact that he's pretty useless at telling a story. Also, his frankly dodgy attitude to people who aren't white and male pretty much negates the things he gets right.

Also, the moments you mentioned are hampered by the fact that he isn't very judicious when it comes to editing and pacing them. The opening meteor shower in Armageddon for instance goes on for way too long and gets really tedious after the 200th building gets blown up.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 16/7/2013 3:28:28 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 74
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:37:01 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

Agree that Bay is a disgrace to filmmaking - a guy who comes across as purely unpleasant and money-grabbing. However he's found his way into filmmaking, he doesn't suggest that he does it for love or artistic expression. Given that he's doing very well and has a job that would be an awful lot of people's hobby, that's pretty sad really. Sadly his formula is annoyingly successful, despite (with reference to Megan Fox in particular) an approach to filming women that is so offensively obnoxious that his cinematographer appears to be a 13 year old boy! Despite what I may have said about GDT in other posts, I've always recognised the enthusiasm and love for his projects, as well as an amazing visual style even when the budgets aren't the biggest.



Wildly off topic here, but I do wonder sometimes if people see the same Michael Bay movies as me. I mean, I cant disagree that he has an awfully simplistic and sterotypical view of race and gender and his sense of humour doesn't seem much higher than 'gutter', but I cant believe people still consider him a talentless disgrace. I mean, I don't see how you can be a fan of the art of film and film making and not appreciate, at least on a technical level, that Michael Bay is a very talented guy, especially when orchestrating action. The spinning gunfight from Bad Boys 2? The opening Meteor Shower from Armageddon? Thw whole of The Rock?! The Chicago set finale from Transformers 3? I mean, c'mon, they may not work as whole products in most cases (although I stand by the statement that The Rock is one of the best action movies of the nineties) and I could apprecate they wont appeal to all, but to think someone talentless could put some of the things on screen in the way he does? Give the man his due, he has a gift for that kind of spectacle that few other directors have.


But you have a problem there, the Meteor shower of Armageddon? One small bit in an otherwise overlong film, Bad Boys 2 can be impressive but the crassness sucks some fun of it. The Chicago set finale of Transformers 3 is woeful, only set in one building most of the time (so fuck that scale) and still cursed with Bay's camera fuckey and inability to frame a shot well (and I don't mind shakey cam, but there is way too much going on there), it's not spectacle when there are so many frustrations in the middle of the spectacle. The third act of The Avengers was spectacle, Bay's stuff is just dull at the end which is the worst Bay's movies can be accused of. A lot of explosions alone spectacle don't make. And yes, if you train a monkey very well at filmmaking, yes, I do think even it can come up with some pretty destruction, it's everything else that's going around the spectacle that matters.

Oh and The Rock rules.

Also, Striker Eureka and Gipsy Danger really don't look similar other then having humanoid form. One of them having a big hole in the chest is enough to identify it.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 16/7/2013 3:41:12 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 75
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 3:52:28 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

Agree that Bay is a disgrace to filmmaking - a guy who comes across as purely unpleasant and money-grabbing. However he's found his way into filmmaking, he doesn't suggest that he does it for love or artistic expression. Given that he's doing very well and has a job that would be an awful lot of people's hobby, that's pretty sad really. Sadly his formula is annoyingly successful, despite (with reference to Megan Fox in particular) an approach to filming women that is so offensively obnoxious that his cinematographer appears to be a 13 year old boy! Despite what I may have said about GDT in other posts, I've always recognised the enthusiasm and love for his projects, as well as an amazing visual style even when the budgets aren't the biggest.



Wildly off topic here, but I do wonder sometimes if people see the same Michael Bay movies as me. I mean, I cant disagree that he has an awfully simplistic and sterotypical view of race and gender and his sense of humour doesn't seem much higher than 'gutter', but I cant believe people still consider him a talentless disgrace. I mean, I don't see how you can be a fan of the art of film and film making and not appreciate, at least on a technical level, that Michael Bay is a very talented guy, especially when orchestrating action. The spinning gunfight from Bad Boys 2? The opening Meteor Shower from Armageddon? Thw whole of The Rock?! The Chicago set finale from Transformers 3? I mean, c'mon, they may not work as whole products in most cases (although I stand by the statement that The Rock is one of the best action movies of the nineties) and I could apprecate they wont appeal to all, but to think someone talentless could put some of the things on screen in the way he does? Give the man his due, he has a gift for that kind of spectacle that few other directors have.


In reference to Transformers, he was making a movie about giant robots based on a massively popular boys toy! so his style suited it perfectly and I think Transformers was a great adaption. I think its just snobbery to dismiss him and a popular forum trend to trash him. He has a talent for what he does best . I like his shameless unabashed way of approaching movies!.You get great relate-able and likable characters, simple and fun stories and fantastic action!. Hes an unapologetic spectacle blockbuster director. Last of a dying breed! god bless you Michael Bay!

I am off to see Pacific Rim on Friday!! I have no preconceptions, its going to be a load of Robots smashing the shit out of monsters! cant wait!


_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 76
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 4:44:17 PM   
Cruisecontroller


Posts: 4447
Joined: 28/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey


6. There was an abundance of lapses of logic that I couldn't get past a) how did just 4 helicopters carry the huge Jaegers? b) Why did no one else use their escape pods? c) Why did Gipsy Danger take so long to use it's sword? d) Why didn't Gipsy Danger seem to be affected at all by the nuclear explosion caused by Striker Eureka? e) Why did Idris Elba think he would be compatible to pilot Striker Eureka with Kazinsky? He seemed to have piloted with Herc Hanson in the past but it seemed fairly established that father and son were very different characters - surely the neural link between the two wouldn't have worked? f) Mako seemed to get over her inability to neural link successfully with Raleigh very quickly...surely he'd have been safer with someone else on such an important mission? g) How the fuck was one of the monsters pregnant - weren't they all clones and therefore had no need to breed? (and how did a baby who was not a clone have all the knowledge of his alien brethren to give Day and Gorman?) h) Why didn't the Jaegers stand back at a safe distance and just blast the monsters? Hand to Hand combat seemed to be pretty risky (considering only one Jaeger is left by the end) bad military planning from Idris Elba's character? i) Come to think of it, there's a lot of insubordination from various rank and file towards Elba's character. Surely a court marshal would be in order rather than the honour of piloting a Jaeger? Elba's character seems to be a pretty weak leader in all honesty j) The Chinese Jaeger got beat pretty damn easily for something that was supposed to be the superior mecha? Wouldn't it have been better to have seen it go down in a blaze of glory unable to fend off countless monsters rather than getting bitch slapped by one? k) How the fuck did that little boat at the start manage to stay afloat? l) Where did Ron Perlman get the knowhow to build the tech to neural link with a monster? And, if he did, is it all his fault that the monsters are still attacking - are they trying to find him? If so why did the baby eat him but the parent left Charlie Day alone? None of it makes sense!!!



Your right with all these plot flaws which I hadn`t really considered when I was watching the movie I was just bowled over with the sheer spectacle of the film at the time it really visually delivers. The 3D on my local IMAX screen really made it look terrific but there was too many fight sequences at night which made it hard to see what was going on. The Sunday Times critic hated it and questioned why the robot machines were built to fight monsters coming out of the sea but couldn`t swim which is also a huge plot hole. It`s also the loudest film I`ve ever seen in the cinema truely defening. I knew it would be loud but not that loud. The film is too long and some of the script is bad. I hated the scientists espcially the one played by the guy from Torchwood he overacted throughout.

I think because Del Toro directed it people expected more depth to it despite knowing the basic premise and thats why so many moan about the lack of story. If you love monster movies and go to it just enjoy the sheer awesome spectacle of this, try not to analyse it too much and don`t expect it to be more than it is man worked giant robots versus giant sea monsters and bring some ear plugs you should enjoy it. A celebrally flawed visual masterpiece. 3/5

_____________________________

MyDVDCollection.http://www.empireonline.com/myempire/mydvdcollection.asp?UID=49319b

Last five movies seen & rated by me.

1.12 Years A Slave. 4/5
2.Robocop. (1987) 3/5
3.Devils Due.3/5
4.American Hustle. 4/5
5.Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. 3/5

(in reply to ChudMonkey)
Post #: 77
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 4:56:19 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8307
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
In reference to Transformers, he was making a movie about giant robots based on a massively popular boys toy! so his style suited it perfectly and I think Transformers was a great adaption. I think its just snobbery to dismiss him and a popular forum trend to trash him. He has a talent for what he does best . I like his shameless unabashed way of approaching movies!.You get great relate-able and likable characters, simple and fun stories and fantastic action!. Hes an unapologetic spectacle blockbuster director. Last of a dying breed! god bless you Michael Bay!

I am off to see Pacific Rim on Friday!! I have no preconceptions, its going to be a load of Robots smashing the shit out of monsters! cant wait!



And I think it's lazy to dismiss criticism of him as 'snobbery'. So Sam is relatable and likable in T3? With his impossibly hot girlfriend and glamorous loft apartment, both of which he takes completely for granted and spends the first hour of the film moaning about how he doesn't get the respect he deserves? The stories are simple (usually) I'll give you that, but whether they are fun or not is a greyer area.

Anyway, I don't know why it's Transformers that Pacific Rim keeps getting compared to when it should be Godzilla really. I think it's fair to say PR is a better film than the Emmerich version (and that film is one of my guilty pleasures).

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 78
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 5:20:57 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
Well, I don't know about anyone else but I tend to wank over pics of Godard, Melville, Herzog, Nolan and stick pins in my Bay voodoo
effigy.

Card carrying Bay hating snob right here, bitches.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 16/7/2013 5:22:13 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 79
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 6:37:18 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 593
Joined: 30/11/2005
Time to banish Michael Bay from this thread and get back on topic...

Just back from watching Pacific Rim - I enjoyed it a lot! Very entertaining, but pretty much on the level of 'giant robots vs monsters', nothing more profound than that really. Depending on your point of view, characterisation is either very economical (lots of 'showing', rather than 'telling'), or pretty much non-existent. But the film gives just enough background about the characters to allow the viewer to care about them - if you choose to. ChudMonkey has highlighted pretty much all of the plotholes so I don't need to - especially the swords that seem far more effective than anything else! (It was a bit like the freeway scene well into the first Transfomers movie, where Optimus Prime suddenly remembers that he has a llethal sword in his arm that can kill Decepticons with a single blow, a weapon that he hadn't used up until that point and doesn't bother with again!) However, this film is all about the visuals, and the CGI is absolutely astonishing - a huge sense of spectacle, weight, violence, and superb feeling of movement throughout. I saw it in 2D but, since all of the fights were either at night or underwater, they were a bit confusing to follow in places. Nothing major, and I had no problems differentiating between Gipsy Danger and Striker Eureka (wish the Russian and Chinese jaegers could've had more screentime though). Just don't go expecting a profound masterpiece and you won't be disappointed. I was thoroughly entertained anyway.

To anyone still to see the film - there is an extra scene during the credits, so stay for a few minutes rather than leaving straight away.

Edit: Remembered a few more things. The acting is adequate at best, though Rob Kazinsky nails the Aussie accent 100% convincingly. Idris Elba seems to have been watching Waking The Dead, as his approach is pretty much Trevor Eve's TALKING VERY LOUDLY style when trying to make a point. Despite a totally transparent character arc and some slight (but understandable) struggles with acting in English, Rinko Kikuchi probably gives the best overall performance, aided by a marvellously expressive face and haunting / haunted eyes. Charlie Hunnam has come a long way from Queer As Folk and is likeably adequate in the lead - acceptable for this sort of 'spectacle' movie. An earlier poster remarked that the preposterously named Burn Gorman (apparently his real name) seems to have come from another film entirely. I'd agree, and would venture that he appears to be offering a bizarre tribute to Lee Evans in There's Something About Mary! As for his fellow scientist, was he trying for 'JJ Abrams on amphetamines'?! So, let's just say that the human performers are largely overshadowed by the stunning jaegers and kaiju!

< Message edited by BelfastBoy -- 16/7/2013 7:01:56 PM >

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 80
RE: Pacific Rim - 16/7/2013 8:52:32 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4030
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

Agree that Bay is a disgrace to filmmaking - a guy who comes across as purely unpleasant and money-grabbing. However he's found his way into filmmaking, he doesn't suggest that he does it for love or artistic expression. Given that he's doing very well and has a job that would be an awful lot of people's hobby, that's pretty sad really. Sadly his formula is annoyingly successful, despite (with reference to Megan Fox in particular) an approach to filming women that is so offensively obnoxious that his cinematographer appears to be a 13 year old boy! Despite what I may have said about GDT in other posts, I've always recognised the enthusiasm and love for his projects, as well as an amazing visual style even when the budgets aren't the biggest.



Wildly off topic here, but I do wonder sometimes if people see the same Michael Bay movies as me. I mean, I cant disagree that he has an awfully simplistic and sterotypical view of race and gender and his sense of humour doesn't seem much higher than 'gutter', but I cant believe people still consider him a talentless disgrace. I mean, I don't see how you can be a fan of the art of film and film making and not appreciate, at least on a technical level, that Michael Bay is a very talented guy, especially when orchestrating action. The spinning gunfight from Bad Boys 2? The opening Meteor Shower from Armageddon? Thw whole of The Rock?! The Chicago set finale from Transformers 3? I mean, c'mon, they may not work as whole products in most cases (although I stand by the statement that The Rock is one of the best action movies of the nineties) and I could apprecate they wont appeal to all, but to think someone talentless could put some of the things on screen in the way he does? Give the man his due, he has a gift for that kind of spectacle that few other directors have.


THIS!!!!

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 81
RE: Pacific Rim - 17/7/2013 10:23:52 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 593
Joined: 30/11/2005
One further thought - at one point, when he's brought back into the jaeger programme but needs to find a co-pilot, Raleigh competes with the candidates selected by Mako. So, anybody want to come up with an explanation as to how he(?) can determine mental Drift compatibility by engaging in one-on-one kendo style fighting with a succession of interchangeable martial artists? Impressive as the choreography is, especially from the two lead actors, to me this scene lacked a wee bit of logic! Are they supposed to be able to anticipate each other's moves, and thus decide if they're Drift-compatible?

Apologies for briefly reverting to Michael Bay, but despite some historical inaccuracy and much US jingoism, the actual attack on Pearl Harbour is a truly superb, extended sequence at the heart of an appalling film. The tension is built up wonderfully, and I've always loved the visuals as the Japanese aircraft make their way through the lush valleys of the island. One of my issues with Bay (apart from miraculously being able to turn day into night) is that many of his films are US military porn, but then I'll also concede that this may well be a condition that secures their co-operation and the lending of hardware and personnel.

< Message edited by BelfastBoy -- 17/7/2013 10:31:24 AM >

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 82
RE: Pacific Rim - 17/7/2013 11:08:47 AM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
In reference to Transformers, he was making a movie about giant robots based on a massively popular boys toy! so his style suited it perfectly and I think Transformers was a great adaption. I think its just snobbery to dismiss him and a popular forum trend to trash him. He has a talent for what he does best . I like his shameless unabashed way of approaching movies!.You get great relate-able and likable characters, simple and fun stories and fantastic action!. Hes an unapologetic spectacle blockbuster director. Last of a dying breed! god bless you Michael Bay!

I am off to see Pacific Rim on Friday!! I have no preconceptions, its going to be a load of Robots smashing the shit out of monsters! cant wait!



And I think it's lazy to dismiss criticism of him as 'snobbery'. So Sam is relatable and likable in T3? With his impossibly hot girlfriend and glamorous loft apartment, both of which he takes completely for granted and spends the first hour of the film moaning about how he doesn't get the respect he deserves? The stories are simple (usually) I'll give you that, but whether they are fun or not is a greyer area.

Anyway, I don't know why it's Transformers that Pacific Rim keeps getting compared to when it should be Godzilla really. I think it's fair to say PR is a better film than the Emmerich version (and that film is one of my guilty pleasures).



I'd agree that criticism of Bay isn't 'snobbery', it's just realistic and being critical of the shit that doesnt work. I have some major issues with a lot of his films and approach to character, but I also have a huge respect for a director that can create the kind of spectacle and mayhem he does on screen (mostly successfully, ableit hampered by a desire to fast edit so much). Referring back to Dev's point about Armageddon, I used the opening meteor shower as one example. I actually rate Armageddon as one of his better and most successful films, it's just a fun time and the characters he draws (although thin) arent wholly offensive and they sit on the fine line between ridiculous caricatures and people you care about, so when they do cark it, there is at least a little bit of an emotional punch. There are several set pieces in Armageddon that I think work really well. Likewise Bad Boys 2 (the freeway chase, the spinning gunfight, the corpse chase), I was using just one example of him being able to put on screen a great action set piece. Does the movie as a whole work? No, it's flawed and Bay must take his criticism for that, but I can also give credit where due and praise him for the stuff that does work. The T3 Chicago finale, well, we'll disagree of course, I think the scale and spectacle was superb. Yes the central set piece was the collapsing building, but around that there are plenty of other elements - the halo jump, the copters approach, the incursion to the city and return of the autobots, the death of that old robot dude, the showdown with Optimus and that other Prime dude, the actual take over of the city. It's a huge piece and it's central 'building collapse' is great, and I didnt have issue with the editing at all.

Wildly on topic....

Off to see Pacific Rim soon, so will chime in back them. Word from colleagues that saw it last night was not positive at all though. They're not movie buffs at all, and what I would consider a good measure of 'Joe Public' and they hated it. Passionately. They didn't mind the concept but criticism I am hearing is that characters talk like cartoons and it feels childish when ever a human is on screen, rather than feeling childish when the big robots are there. So, maybe all this talk of GDT aiming for a very literal translation of the 'kaiju' source material (comiscs/cartoons, I guess?) even went down to making the dialogue feel cartoony? Those that have seen it, is that fair to say? If so, I think I am going to struggle with it.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 83
RE: Pacific Rim - 17/7/2013 12:25:12 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 593
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Wildly on topic....

Off to see Pacific Rim soon, so will chime in back them. Word from colleagues that saw it last night was not positive at all though. They're not movie buffs at all, and what I would consider a good measure of 'Joe Public' and they hated it. Passionately. They didn't mind the concept but criticism I am hearing is that characters talk like cartoons and it feels childish when ever a human is on screen, rather than feeling childish when the big robots are there. So, maybe all this talk of GDT aiming for a very literal translation of the 'kaiju' source material (comiscs/cartoons, I guess?) even went down to making the dialogue feel cartoony? Those that have seen it, is that fair to say? If so, I think I am going to struggle with it.


I went in with low expectations and came out very entertained overall. I suspect that the dialogue is poor and clichéd because of bad writing, rather than being deliberately cartoony though. Again, I'm nicking from Wikipedia:

"Del Toro collaborated with [Travis] Beacham on the screenplay, and is credited as co-writer. The script also received an uncredited rewrite from Neil Cross, who previously created the Elba-starring drama series Luther and wrote the del Toro-produced horror film Mama. Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan were also enlisted to perform uncredited rewrites when their spec script Monstropolis caught the filmmaker's attention."

A lot of polishing there! Given that a lot of material was apparently cut from the film, perhaps there's more character moments on the cutting room floor that received better dialogue than what's left on screen. From a technical standpoint, much of the characterisation is visually evoked, something that film can do very well and Pacific Rim does very economically - like I said in my earlier post, lots of 'showing' rather than 'telling'. Therefore, the actual dialogue is purely functional and serves to keep things moving efficiently.

Can I make another point though, on the whole issue of trying to make something deliberately like an earlier source in order to homage this? Tarantino has done this throughout his career and lots of people seem to like this (myself not included). Also, if scifi and comic books didn't exist, what would Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg be up to?

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 84
RE: Pacific Rim - 17/7/2013 12:27:04 PM   
ChudMonkey


Posts: 130
Joined: 29/7/2007
From: London

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
In reference to Transformers, he was making a movie about giant robots based on a massively popular boys toy! so his style suited it perfectly and I think Transformers was a great adaption. I think its just snobbery to dismiss him and a popular forum trend to trash him. He has a talent for what he does best . I like his shameless unabashed way of approaching movies!.You get great relate-able and likable characters, simple and fun stories and fantastic action!. Hes an unapologetic spectacle blockbuster director. Last of a dying breed! god bless you Michael Bay!

I am off to see Pacific Rim on Friday!! I have no preconceptions, its going to be a load of Robots smashing the shit out of monsters! cant wait!



And I think it's lazy to dismiss criticism of him as 'snobbery'. So Sam is relatable and likable in T3? With his impossibly hot girlfriend and glamorous loft apartment, both of which he takes completely for granted and spends the first hour of the film moaning about how he doesn't get the respect he deserves? The stories are simple (usually) I'll give you that, but whether they are fun or not is a greyer area.

Anyway, I don't know why it's Transformers that Pacific Rim keeps getting compared to when it should be Godzilla really. I think it's fair to say PR is a better film than the Emmerich version (and that film is one of my guilty pleasures).



I'd agree that criticism of Bay isn't 'snobbery', it's just realistic and being critical of the shit that doesnt work. I have some major issues with a lot of his films and approach to character, but I also have a huge respect for a director that can create the kind of spectacle and mayhem he does on screen (mostly successfully, ableit hampered by a desire to fast edit so much). Referring back to Dev's point about Armageddon, I used the opening meteor shower as one example. I actually rate Armageddon as one of his better and most successful films, it's just a fun time and the characters he draws (although thin) arent wholly offensive and they sit on the fine line between ridiculous caricatures and people you care about, so when they do cark it, there is at least a little bit of an emotional punch. There are several set pieces in Armageddon that I think work really well. Likewise Bad Boys 2 (the freeway chase, the spinning gunfight, the corpse chase), I was using just one example of him being able to put on screen a great action set piece. Does the movie as a whole work? No, it's flawed and Bay must take his criticism for that, but I can also give credit where due and praise him for the stuff that does work. The T3 Chicago finale, well, we'll disagree of course, I think the scale and spectacle was superb. Yes the central set piece was the collapsing building, but around that there are plenty of other elements - the halo jump, the copters approach, the incursion to the city and return of the autobots, the death of that old robot dude, the showdown with Optimus and that other Prime dude, the actual take over of the city. It's a huge piece and it's central 'building collapse' is great, and I didnt have issue with the editing at all.

Wildly on topic....

Off to see Pacific Rim soon, so will chime in back them. Word from colleagues that saw it last night was not positive at all though. They're not movie buffs at all, and what I would consider a good measure of 'Joe Public' and they hated it. Passionately. They didn't mind the concept but criticism I am hearing is that characters talk like cartoons and it feels childish when ever a human is on screen, rather than feeling childish when the big robots are there. So, maybe all this talk of GDT aiming for a very literal translation of the 'kaiju' source material (comiscs/cartoons, I guess?) even went down to making the dialogue feel cartoony? Those that have seen it, is that fair to say? If so, I think I am going to struggle with it.


Spot on! It actually feels a little like they made the film in Japanese and then dubbed over in a poor English translation with bad voice actors - from talking to friends it seems some feel this was GDT's intention so have forgiven it. I personally just found all the human characters unwatchable...

_____________________________

Top 10 of 2013 so far:
1. Mud
2. Philomena
3. Before Midnight
4. The Way Way Back
5. Spring Breakers
6. In The House
7. Django Unchained
8. Only God Forgives
9. Tattoo Nation
10. Iron Man 3

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 85
RE: Pacific Rim - 17/7/2013 10:55:59 PM   
Giant Green Rabbit


Posts: 1109
Joined: 13/2/2006
From: Cloud Cuckoo Land
I'm actually embarrassed to have paid to watch Pacific Rim - and to watch it on IMAX to boot. It was a risible effort, and truly a mess of a movie. If Michael Bay was the director it would have gotten an absolute panning and rightly so. So it's a B-movie - fine. But even a B-movie needs to have two elements fundamental to any movie: firstly a well constructed plot - a screenplay which gives the film good pacing; secondly, characters you care about or at the very least characters you like. Pacific Rim failed on both counts.

The result of that failure - it's excruciatingly boring and impossible to care about anything happening on screen. It might have only been two hours long but felt a lot longer - the fights go on forever, with no internal logic, and involve cardboard cut-out characters who hold no interest, let alone emotional investment. I kept wondering, who on earth is this movie for? Is it deliberately shit? Are we supposed to be amused by the sub-standard dialogue, the amateur performances? Is it a pastiche? If it is a tribute to GDT's childhood favourites, it might only appeal to the few people who watch the manga films that Pacific Rim seems to ape in live-action. And the transferring of such stilted dialogue and vacuous characterisation simply doesn't work outside of animation. Moreover if GDT or anyone else wants to recreate childhood nostalgia, they could simply, you know, revisit those old movies. The charm of a B-movie is lost when you deliberately set out to make something adhere to all those cliches.

So overall a terrible movie - probably the most boring film Ive seen in the cinema since Superman Returns.

Note to the studios concerned; take some of GDT's money away and invest it in a script not written by a 13-year-old boy.

_____________________________

Once there was a little bunny who had a little furry tail and a little shiny nose. But the electrodeath cloud of commerce strangled it and its foxhole was converted to a parking lot, a parking lot, a parking lot. Ample parking asphalted over bunny bones. Everyone everyone get in.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 86
RE: Pacific Rim - 18/7/2013 1:03:38 AM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3239
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giant Green Rabbit
Is it a pastiche?


I think an element of affectionate pastiche is in there - for example when a character declaims that they're avenging their family, you have to take it as a moment that is partly tongue-in-cheek. See also the characterisations of character nationalities straight out of Street Fighter 2.

I have to say I loved Pacific Rim, easily the most fun movie of the summer for me. Apart from the irritating Charlie Day who reminded me of Christian Slater at his worst.

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.


(in reply to Giant Green Rabbit)
Post #: 87
RE: Pacific Rim - 18/7/2013 7:38:10 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8307
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giant Green Rabbit

I'm actually embarrassed to have paid to watch Pacific Rim - and to watch it on IMAX to boot. It was a risible effort, and truly a mess of a movie. If Michael Bay was the director it would have gotten an absolute panning and rightly so. So it's a B-movie - fine. But even a B-movie needs to have two elements fundamental to any movie: firstly a well constructed plot - a screenplay which gives the film good pacing; secondly, characters you care about or at the very least characters you like. Pacific Rim failed on both counts.

The result of that failure - it's excruciatingly boring and impossible to care about anything happening on screen. It might have only been two hours long but felt a lot longer - the fights go on forever, with no internal logic, and involve cardboard cut-out characters who hold no interest, let alone emotional investment. I kept wondering, who on earth is this movie for? Is it deliberately shit? Are we supposed to be amused by the sub-standard dialogue, the amateur performances? Is it a pastiche? If it is a tribute to GDT's childhood favourites, it might only appeal to the few people who watch the manga films that Pacific Rim seems to ape in live-action. And the transferring of such stilted dialogue and vacuous characterisation simply doesn't work outside of animation. Moreover if GDT or anyone else wants to recreate childhood nostalgia, they could simply, you know, revisit those old movies. The charm of a B-movie is lost when you deliberately set out to make something adhere to all those cliches.

So overall a terrible movie - probably the most boring film Ive seen in the cinema since Superman Returns.

Note to the studios concerned; take some of GDT's money away and invest it in a script not written by a 13-year-old boy.


I actually felt the exact opposite. When I saw that it was over 2 hours long I groaned, but I thought it rattled along really well and never felt overlong and that was down to how well-paced I thought it was.

(in reply to Giant Green Rabbit)
Post #: 88
RE: Pacific Rim - 18/7/2013 3:06:25 PM   
Coyleone


Posts: 569
Joined: 13/10/2008
I thought this was a whole lot of fun, and by far the most enjoyable blockbuster/popcorn movie this year. It just felt like a massive tribute to the old Kaiju movies from decades ago, and a bunch of other sci-fi and creature features.

It’s big, cheesy and chock full of references and homages. It’s a B-movie with a huge budget and it knows it. This is the type of movie that Del Toro loved when he was younger and what he’s done here is gone and made one himself.

The plot is minimal, this seems to be the main complaint, but it doesn’t need any more plot than it has. The characters are developed well enough for us to care. Not a whole lot, but enough. The dialogue is cheesy, cliché and sometimes bad, but it honestly felt like it worked, and that it wasn’t just bad writing. It felt like a cartoon, or a dubbed over Japanese film, and I completely believe that’s what Del Toro was going for. I’m not some Del Toro apologist either. I love Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy II, but nothing else he’s done has particularly left me very impressed. So yeah, this does feel like a B-movie, it feels silly and like the kind of thing people would laugh at, but I didn’t laugh at it, rather sat there with a smile on my face because I knew I was watching a homage all the way through. It felt like something I’d like when I was a kid but in a good way. It kept bringing to mind not only the dubbed Japanese Kaiju films but movies like Starship Troopers too, I’m sure once you’ve seen it you’ll see what I mean by that. It doesn’t take anything seriously at all and it’s so much more enjoyable than most other recent blockbusters for it.

It’s a movie about pilots driving huge robots to battle huge monsters, that’s the main selling point of the movie, and for the majority of the film that’s what it delivers in spectacular fashion. The action scenes are fantastic, the effects are sometimes completely astonishing, and the world created is great. The Kaiju designs are by far the best monsters I’ve probably ever seen in a film. The robot designs are much more minimal than something like Transformers, and so the clarity of the action is better.

It isn’t without it’s faults of course. I thought it maybe peaked one action set piece early. The fight in Hong Kong was amazing and the highlight of the film, and I don’t think they could top it. The last set piece didn’t hold up compared to that for me. I could have done without Charlie Day’s scientist character, felt like he was from a different film completely, I know Del Toro likes to have these comedy characters in his English language movies, but this was a little too much. Charlie Hunnam was bad and super monotonous, he’s clearly not the best actor, but I didn’t mind that since it added to the b-movie style the film was going for. The main female protagonist was also very cliché and rather poorly acted, but again it didn’t bother me or effect my enjoyment. Idris Elba was fantastic as always, and there’s a frankly ridiculous cameo that felt so out of place and shoehorned in it was hilarious in really good way.

Visually it’s pretty amazing, the action is for the most part also pretty amazing, the characters are good enough to give us something to root for, it’s cheesy, light hearted, cliché and a great love letter by Del Toro to the movies he and a lot of people loved when we were younger. It’s thoroughly enjoyable and tons of fun. I felt like a kid again watching this. A great action film and a nice blast of Nostalgia for sure.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 89
RE: Pacific Rim - 18/7/2013 3:08:11 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
If Pacific Rim was directed by Micheal Bay and did the same film, I would go and shake his hand for finally making the first thing really worth watching since The Rock.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Coyleone)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Pacific Rim Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234