The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Abdrewes]

(minor spoils ahead)

Five years after his last film, Guillermo del Toro makes a return to the realm of mythical towering creatures in the most impressive smash-'em-up of the summer. As sprawling in scope as it is lovingly imagined, Pacific Rim is built to impress.

Baptizing us into a world of perpetual windstorm and acid rain (both constitute a metaphor for the shadow of doom the monsters cast upon the planet), is an appropriately simple title card defining the terms "Jaeger" and "Kaiju." The two forces constitute one set of the several dichotomous relationships in the film—namely, mechanical and monstrous. Stark contrast and the notion of worlds that exist under or parallel to humanity is a common one in del Toro's films. From the bizarre dimension Ophelia discovers under her home in Pan's Labyrinth to the underground dwellers in Hellboy and Blade II, his conviction in recreating the fantastical worlds birthed in his imagination often yields striking results. The better part of Pacific Rim is rooted in the same vein.

A media montage compiling the seven years of Jaeger and Kaiju battles makes it clear the humans are losing ground against the spearheaded and double hinge jawed behemoths. The American Jaeger defense program is subsequently decommissioned and forced to reform as a multi-ethnic resistance force (American, Chinese, Russian) in Hong Kong. In search of pilots, commander Stacker Pentecost (a stoic Idris Elba) recruits Raleigh Beckett, who took up construction work after nearly losing his life against a class 3 Kaiju, to man the Gipsy Danger.

Maneuvering a Jaeger robot is a very strenuous operation that requires two compatible pilots to share the load. Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam of Sons of Anarchy fame) thinks he has found one in the beautiful and skilled martial artist, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi with a manga blue stripe dyed in her bob cut). Though Pentecost fears she may not have the wherewithal to keep her memories of a childhood trauma locked away, he sanctions the team for Kaiju battle.

The concept that cranks the Jaeger's gears in motion proves to be the most interesting in the film. The narrative is reverse engineered around the concept of drifting, where the two pilots (one controlling the left hemisphere, the other the right) mind meld with the robot, and it's one of the coolest big budget science fiction concepts since dream-sharing in 2010's Inception. The robot's body in effect becomes the human's, thus there are actual stakes, something on the line, in watching these computer generated steel warriors fight. None of the tensionless thrashing and bashing of Michael Bay's Transformers series, and it's inherent jingoism, is present in this deceptively smart creature feature. It's about the human component and all the more so when juxtaposed against images of construction workers erecting defense barriers and resourceful marketplace sellers collecting Kaiju organs.

Speaking of Kaiju organs, seeing their phosphorescent entrails splattered Jackson Pollock style over asphalt and concrete is a complete sensory delight. Making one's way out of a haphazardly shot first act of world building (which in its favor deftly integrates comic relieve into the exposition dumps), the film really hits a stride in the action-packed back-half. There is such a formal rigor in the precise framing and subtle camera movement Guillermo Navarro (whom has shot just all but one of del Toro's films) brings to the table. The sensations captured—the crimson and golden glow of the slick command center interiors and the swaths of neon that illuminate transparent-umbrella toting denizens of Hong Kong's blackboard jungle (a direct visual nod to Blade Runner, one of del Toro's favorite films)—craft frames of graphic novel intensity. Had the film employed speech balloons, it would have been a motion picture comic.

When the allegorical stormy clouds clear and the sun kisses the characters we have come to like, there was no doubt: Pacific Rim is schlock heaven. It is an infectious repository of monster-movie cliché, fist pumping, and turquoise goo that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible.

½

[jvince]

The Mask (1994)
dir. Chuck Russell

The Good: Back when Cameron Diaz was "sssmokin'."

The Bad: Jim Carrey. Very annoying and unfunny.

The Bottom Line: I liked this before? Wow... Kid me must've had some really shitty taste. You disappoint me, kid me.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

...But can you predict what I gave it without cheating?

I think I already saw your review, so it's too late for that. Beforehand though, I probably would have guessed 4/5.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I think I already saw your review, so it's too late for that. Beforehand though, I probably would have guessed 4/5.

Well your before hand would be WRONG!!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

I liked this before? Wow... Kid me must've had some really shitty taste. You disappoint me, kid me.

[SquidPuppet]

Side Effects

I won't write a review. I'll just say that I am in 100% agreement with Jvince. He nails every "bad" detail" that bothered me.

I'll add that the movement through time feels very clunky and jerky. Tries way too hard and feels contrived.

Meh. 2.5/5

Originally Posted by jvince

Side Effects (2013)


The Bad: ...Veers off into conventional territory with a flurry of twists and double-crosses; all of them ridiculous, each one more far-fetched than the last. Channing Tatum still can't do drama. Catherine Zeta-Jones feels miscast. Pacing is uneven. Resolution is cliched and too easy.

[Tony208]

^
The most glaring one has to be how he was able to

[Show spoiler] stay on as her doctor, I just at that point.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: Once Upon a Time in America

Short Review: A film this long and epic probably deserves a formal long review, but ain't nobody got time for that!

This film starts off a little dry, and it can be bewildering with the mixed-up time-jumping narrative. But once things settle in, it is a surprisingly fluid and engrossing experience. Can't say I fully understood the story, but I don't think plot-building was ever Sergio Leone's strong point. What he does best, imo, is crafting colorful characters and building scenes around them, and he does so here with decent effect. The acting, staging, camera composition, editing, and real-looking production makes the film very stylish and immersive. I was also surprised as to how hardcore this stuff is; it gets fairly bloody, there's a ton of rape scenes, and f-bombs aplenty. In spite of everything, it is indeed a classic among gangster films, and it's well worth seeing.

4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Perfect)

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Side Effects

I won't write a review. I'll just say that I am in 100% agreement with Jvince. He nails every "bad" detail" that bothered me.

I'll add that the movement through time feels very clunky and jerky. Tries way too hard and feels contrived.

Meh. 2.5/5

I thought I wasn't going to join the club whenever his bad review was posted, but after watching it last month I did just that. I would have probably given it a 3/5, but close enough. The half point is probably because I'm not as hard on how the story ended up turning out. Sure, it might have been too easy, but I still thought it was a clever plan.

The first half was borderline boring, but I liked the second half. Still, in the end, it's one of the few Steven Soderbergh movies I have no interest in ever owning.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest rental: Once Upon a Time in America

Short Review: A film this long and epic probably deserves a formal long review, but ain't nobody got time for that!

This film starts off a little dry, and it can be bewildering with the mixed-up time-jumping narrative. But once things settle in, it is a surprisingly fluid and engrossing experience. Can't say I fully understood the story, but I don't think plot-building was ever Sergio Leone's strong point. What he does best, imo, is crafting colorful characters and building scenes around them, and he does so here with decent effect. The acting, staging, camera composition, editing, and real-looking production makes the film very stylish and immersive. I was also surprised as to how hardcore this stuff is; it gets fairly bloody, there's a ton of rape scenes, and f-bombs aplenty. In spite of everything, it is indeed a classic among gangster films, and it's well worth seeing.

4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Perfect)

Was hoping for a perfect score, but this will suffice this is pretty much my favorite mobster film.

[Member-244966]

Seven Psychopaths. The darkest black comedy I've sever seen, to the point where it's not even a comedy anymore. Funny in parts, but I slowly disliked Sam Rockwell more and more as the film went on. Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken were awesome though

6/10

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by BreakfastClub211

Seven Psychopaths. The darkest black comedy I've sever seen, to the point where it's not even a comedy anymore. Funny in parts, but I slowly disliked Sam Rockwell more and more as the film went on. Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken were awesome though

6/10

You need to see more Dark comedies then.

Martin McDonagh's In Bruges is a better film, very dark yet very funny, it's a lot more tonally on key than Seven Psychopaths but far bleaker and more deadpan.

[Member-244966]

Truth be told, I prefer my comedies on the stupid side. I'm not even sure how many dark comedies I've seen

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by BreakfastClub211

Truth be told, I prefer my comedies on the stupid side. I'm not even sure how many dark comedies I've seen

Fair enough, In Bruges is not recommended then. (Although if you do come across it check it out because it is tremendous)

[Member-244966]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Fair enough, In Bruges is not recommended then. (Although if you do come across it check it out because it is tremendous)

I do want to see it actually

[jvince]

The Bridge (2006)
dir. Eric Steel

The Good: An unbiased and unsentimental documentary about suicide jumpers. Compelling. Moving. Haunting. Stunning photography of the Golden Gate Bridge. The highlight has to be the remarkable story of the one jumper who managed to survive the fall.

The Bad: Editing is a little messy. Then we have the controversial decision by the director to set up cameras near the bridge for an entire year and secretly film suicide jumpers; a choice some may find ethically questionable.

The Bottom Line: While it can be very emotional and difficult to watch, The Bridge offers a morbidly fascinating and, somehow, strangely beautiful peek into the minds of desperate souls. This is one film you will not forget any time soon. Well worth a watch.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

The Bridge (2006)
dir. Eric Steel

The Good: An unbiased and unsentimental documentary about suicide jumpers. Compelling. Moving. Haunting. Stunning photography of the Golden Gate Bridge. The highlight has to be the remarkable story of the one jumper who managed to survive the fall.

The Bad: Editing is a little messy. Then we have the controversial decision by the director to set up cameras near the bridge for an entire year and secretly film suicide jumpers; a choice some may find ethically questionable.

The Bottom Line: While it can be very emotional and difficult to watch, The Bridge offers a morbidly fascinating and, somehow, strangely beautiful peek into the minds of desperate souls. This is one film you will not forget any time soon. Well worth a watch.

Eessshh, I'm a bit off put by that. It sounds interesting but does those segments make up a large portion of the film?

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Eessshh, I'm a bit off put by that. It sounds interesting but does those segments make up a large portion of the film?

Not really. The imagery can be disturbing, but I didn't find it tasteless. You should give it a try.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

Not really. The imagery can be disturbing, but I didn't find it tasteless. You should give it a try.

I might do if I get the chance.

[legendarymatt92]

"I'll tell you why I'm a good soldier: because of selfless commitment."

The Good Points: Fantastic use of silence and quietness. Great performances from James McAvoy and Mark Strong. Some thought-provoking moments mixed with some high intensity action sequences. Beautifully polished visual style.

The Bad Points: Unexplained, confusing storyline -- why the hell is there such a personal vendetta at play here? Thinly written characters who we don't really care for. The amount of violence is too detrimental to the "emotional" story the film-makers are trying to tell; it's just a generic crime drama, really.



Although it considers itself something better than it actually is, Welcome to the Punch is firmly rooted in its generic police-drama heritage and has nothing original or attention-grabbing in its storyline...but it does have some entertaining, action-packed moments and an intelligent and inspiring use of (dis)quiet not seen often enough in films.

5/10