Pacific Rim [spoilers]

[Jim]

This string HAS to be worse than my anti-Game of Snores, er Thrones posts... and that was my own thread started to be a relative anti-show thread and people bitched and cried about me being negative until I realized that the show wasn't worth the time that I was putting into detracting it.

What so your saying I'm bad for giving my opinion on a film you are raving about. I didn't realise anyone around here was that touchy. I can't see a problem saying the film is crap when it is. Especially when I gave good reasons for it.

I wasn't raving about it... but I do not think that my comments in the Thrones thread were any "worse" than yours... and it was my own thread... yet I still got crap for it. I guess people liked that shit storm, I mean Game of Thrones more than they like Pacific Rim since they are not giving you too much grief over your dislike for it.

[Jim]

This string HAS to be worse than my anti-Game of Snores, er Thrones posts... and that was my own thread started to be a relative anti-show thread and people bitched and cried about me being negative until I realized that the show wasn't worth the time that I was putting into detracting it.

No this string is a review and not a bashing thread. I do not see the title of his thread as 'Pacific Rim is the most boring Movie ever'.

Big difference.

No, not really any difference at all. That would be a rather good title for a negative review.

[Jim]

I don't get this bit at all. I just don't follow it.

I am going with ... average like/lack of dislike for Pacific Rim so negative comments dont bother too much. LOVES Game of Thrones so negative comments can only be referred to as juvenile and cut to the bone and therefore must be stopped!

[Tyyr]

Here you go:

- Paper thin characters.
- A camera that can't keep still.
- No emotional connection with the people in the movie.

Debate away?

After the five year old comment and the blatant hypocrisy in the top ten list I was tempted to just rail on that but I deleted all of it. So here we go instead.

Some of the characters are thin and unable to emotionally connect with, yes. Raleigh and the younger Aussie pilot are Maverick and Iceman only without any backstory build up or nearly enough interaction between them. PacRim's biggest issue is that the central character is bland an uninteresting. He's surrounded by a Del Toro cast which makes his blandness even more obvious and grating. It's hard to sit through his scenes when everyone around him is far more interesting. The backstory with his brother is a good idea, but needed more time focused on his memories of it and the fact that he felt his brother die, not just saw it. We get Mako's memory in graphic detail but for Maverick's all we get is Mako saying, "I felt it." Ok, well... how about the fucking audience? It helps flesh out Mako's motivations but what could have been a defining moment in Maverick's character is just left as an, "I felt it," and the audience's assumptions. Then again, I don't hink Charlie Hunnam can actually be interesting so we might be better off not getting more screen time of him. The rest of the cast though outside the Top Gun dynamic is solid though. Mako actually has some depth to her and a character arc. Is lost her family so she wants revenge new and exciting? No, it's been done before, and it's also something very human. I don't want to rely on this all that much but in this setting where these attacks kill tens of thousands of people and they happen every few months or weeks is the idea that a girl's family was wiped out and she wants revenge really all that out there? It fits with the universe the movie built. Pentecost is a military commander... and that's that. Personally I found his simplicity refreshing. He wasn't turned into a kill crazy psycho, or someone who loved his men like his sons. He was a military commander in charge. He doesn't get buddy buddy with the pilots. He's there to do a job and does it. He does get some what of a softer side in Mako's dream but again, the film doesn't dissolve into cliche by having a heartfelt reminiscing session with Maverick, he tells him to fuck off and get back to work. The scientists were a mixed bag. I liked Charlie Day's Newt, I thought he was fun and his side story was enjoyable but the other one was not so much. His absolute dismissal about the biological side was going beyond professional bias into parody. Frankly when Newt wheels out two bone fragments from Kaiju years apart and they're identical everyone's ears should have perked up. In summation the central character's utter blandness was the main issue and he drug down every scene he was in.

As for the camera issue, I really don't get it. I really honestly don't. Even in 3D I had no issues seeing what was going on, the fights were well choreographed and the way they were shot made it clear what was going on. I've read a lot of critiques of the movie, both those who liked the film and those who hated it and you two are the first people who I've heard claim they couldn't follow the action.

[IanKennedy]

After the five year old comment and the blatant hypocrisy in the top ten list I was tempted to just rail on that but I deleted all of it. So here we go instead.

Would you care to explain? You said I didn't like popular films. Clearly I do. I also don't dislike certain types of film, perhaps that's what you are assuming? It's not the case.

We seem to agree (somewhat) on the characters, dull and provided no connection for the audience to root for. This leaves you not knowing who you want to win, man or monster. I disagree about the scientists they were the worst stereotypes I've seen in a long time, and just plain irritating.

As for the camera issue, I really don't get it. I really honestly don't. Even in 3D I had no issues seeing what was going on, the fights were well choreographed and the way they were shot made it clear what was going on. I've read a lot of critiques of the movie, both those who liked the film and those who hated it and you two are the first people who I've heard claim they couldn't follow the action.

I hate shaky cam, plain and simple, I can just about cope with lens flare but it almost ruined STXI it was so over the top. A good comparison was with Bond. Casino Royale was very very good, the action scenes well filmed and you could see perfectly what was going on. In Quantum of Solace a new director took over and he favoured shaky cam. Once again this almost ruined the film for me. It was difficult to see what was happening and who was involved and so it made it harder to follow the film. Fortunately, it wasn't take to extremes there.

Shaky cam here employed to appalling levels. Utterly ruining the action side of the film. Thus we end up with a film with no redeeming features. The characters do not provide any connection and the action is simply unwatchable.

[McAvoy]

In your opinion of course.

The action I was for the most part able to follow. The characters are cliche. The motivation for the monsters are cliche. The scientists are cliche. Even the robots are cliche. The whole movie is just a popcorn summer flick and not a Shakespeare film.

There was no deep meaning to the film. So far you two are the only ones who have an issue with the action. The shakey cam wasn't that noticeable to detract from the scenes.

[IanKennedy]

In your opinion of course.

Yes, I'm not qualified to give someone else's opinion and I don't know anyone who is.

The action I was for the most part able to follow. The characters are cliche. The motivation for the monsters are cliche. The scientists are cliche. Even the robots are cliche. The whole movie is just a popcorn summer flick and not a Shakespeare film.

There was no deep meaning to the film. So far you two are the only ones who have an issue with the action. The shakey cam wasn't that noticeable to detract from the scenes.

Yes, in our massive survey of what, ten people who've posted to this thread two have a problem. That's about 20% failure rate, or 1 in 5, which doesn't seem to rule a problem out. That's not counting others who've said they did see an issue but not to the extent we have, so the percentage could be higher. Please don't try and claim to speak for the silent masses it's not in your or my skill set. Interestingly Rotten Tomatoes has a rating of 84% and that's without me voting on it (I refuse to have a facebook account for all sorts of reasons). So our little group of 10 is not far off the average there.

Also I've no problem with popcorn movies, check out my list of the top 10 films of all time. It's just that this one, as I said before, had no redeeming features.

[Jim]

In your opinion of course.

Yes, I'm not qualified to give someone else's opinion and I don't know anyone who is.

... wives have been doing it for centuries...

[IanKennedy]

In your opinion of course.

Yes, I'm not qualified to give someone else's opinion and I don't know anyone who is.

... wives have been doing it for centuries...

Doing it, yes. Qualified to do so, I don't think so

[McAvoy]

In your opinion of course.

Yes, I'm not qualified to give someone else's opinion and I don't know anyone who is.

The action I was for the most part able to follow. The characters are cliche. The motivation for the monsters are cliche. The scientists are cliche. Even the robots are cliche. The whole movie is just a popcorn summer flick and not a Shakespeare film.

There was no deep meaning to the film. So far you two are the only ones who have an issue with the action. The shakey cam wasn't that noticeable to detract from the scenes.

Yes, in our massive survey of what, ten people who've posted to this thread two have a problem. That's about 20% failure rate, or 1 in 5, which doesn't seem to rule a problem out. That's not counting others who've said they did see an issue but not to the extent we have, so the percentage could be higher. Please don't try and claim to speak for the silent masses it's not in your or my skill set. Interestingly Rotten Tomatoes has a rating of 84% and that's without me voting on it (I refuse to have a facebook account for all sorts of reasons). So our little group of 10 is not far off the average there.

Also I've no problem with popcorn movies, check out my list of the top 10 films of all time. It's just that this one, as I said before, had no redeeming features.

Criticizing a movie has always been about opinion. There is nothing professional about it. Always subjective to the person watching it.

Like I said you are the only one who had an issue with the action scenes. I can see the complaints of not being able to fully see everything because of the dark and perhaps because of up close shots. But not the fighting in general.

[LaughingCheese]

In your opinion of course.

Criticizing a movie has always been about opinion. There is nothing professional about it.

Ha! Tell that to "professional" critics.

[McAvoy]

Ha! Tell that to "professional" critics.

As professional as the critics on YouTube.

[IanKennedy]

Criticizing a movie has always been about opinion. There is nothing professional about it. Always subjective to the person watching it.

As other have pointed out there are such things as professional critics. As for my opinion being only my own, yes, I fully agree about that. As yours is only your opinion. This is hardly a massive revolution and does nothing to diminish that opinion or it's validity. So that brings us to why you felt the need to point it out? Given it's changed absolutely nothing.

Like I said you are the only one who had an issue with the action scenes. I can see the complaints of not being able to fully see everything because of the dark and perhaps because of up close shots. But not the fighting in general.

Read the post. I explain in detail the stats of who has and hasn't complained about the effects. Hint, It's not just me. If you have alternative figures that support your point of view I would be happy to read them. If not simply saying the same thing over and over again will not make it any more true.

[Tyyr]

Would you care to explain? You said I didn't like popular films.

I said you're a contrarian. I have seen you several times take the polar opposite stance on various films and other bits of media around here.

Clearly I do. I also don't dislike certain types of film, perhaps that's what you are assuming? It's not the case.

No, I'll spell it out.

Reasons for disliking PacRim:

- Paper thin characters.
- A camera that can't keep still.
- No emotional connection with the people in the movie.

What you do like in a movie:

No, I like good films that have a plot and characters that are actually worth caring for.

Movies in the top ten you liked.

Avatar
Titanic
Avengers
Dark Knight Rises
Pirates of the Carribean

Avatar, Dances with Wolves with a sprinkling of Pocahontas. A retread of a tried story that they bring nothing new to and only works because the main character is a fucking moron. The only guy I came close to having an emotional connection with was the bad guy. It looks fucking amazing and the action is well shot.

Titanic - The boat sinks, duh. Rather than focus on the true story and all it's drama a by the numbers, boring as hell, rich girl learns to appreciate the common boy story is slathered over the top getting in the way of the actual interesting part of the movie. At least we got to see Leo die. Similarly, the ship is beautifully realized and the action well done. Pretty much what I'd expect from James Cameron.

Avengers - I really do like this movie but all the characterization was built into the other movies and the plot was little more than an excuse to blow shit up. It's a fun, very Joss Whedony film, but without the long episodic run he usually needs to build characters. He was handed a bunch of already realized and fleshed out ones in other movies and played with them for two hours.

Dark Knight Rises - Well it has a plot, as utterly idiotic and illogical as it is there is a plot. The characters though, this was Batman at his most "What?" Nolan's Batman has never been an incredibly deep and fleshed out character but in this film there seemed to be no real desire for any of his actions to make much sense. It's a Batman movie with no soul, no character. People show up, do their thing, and go away without any real chance to connect with any of them. Bane was the closest thing to a compelling character they had and he was just a bad guy for the sake of bad until the movie is almost fucking over.

Pirates - This movie had a slightly better plot than the rest of these, but the movie is entirely carried by Johnny Depp. I feel the rest of the movies bore this out as his schtick got increasingly old and boring and their every attempt to have the rest of the cast do something interesting kept failing.

Of those movies I really do like two and own the BLu-Rays, Avengers and Pirates. I like them, inspite of their flaws they are still damn entertaining movies for various reasons. Superheros beating the shit out of things, Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow schtick before it got old, they're fun enjoyable movies. I see PacRim in much the same light. It's got issues. I won't argue that. I just don't feel the issues are significant enough to really impede enjoyment of it. Certainly not enough for someone who enjoyed Avengers to start insinuating that other people are 5 year olds for liking a movie.

We seem to agree (somewhat) on the characters, dull and provided no connection for the audience to root for. This leaves you not knowing who you want to win, man or monster.

I dunno, I kinda felt the Kaiju's killing thousands of people in each attack sorted out who the bad guys were. That and one of the targeting a little girl and trying to eat her. Hunnum's boring, that we agree completely on. I also don't think it's just this script (though I don't think anyone could have sold it unless they went the Idris route of going completely over the top with every line) because the guy's boring as hell in Sons of Anarchy too.

I disagree about the scientists they were the worst stereotypes I've seen in a long time, and just plain irritating.

I found the mathematician irritating mostly for his casual dismissal of a major piece of infor (clones) and for using eight blackboards to figure out that the time between attacks was halving. Charlie Day's Newt... I can see where he might be annoying but I don't see the stereotype. He's a fanboy, he's a bull headed scientist, but to me the foibles of those two character archtypes clash in such a way as to avoid the really annoying parts of either. You have the enthusiasm of the fanboy, but not his total uselessness. You have the determination of the bullheaded scientist, but the ego is replaced by the fanboy's enthusiasm. I don't think he goes from archetype to cliche.

I hate shaky cam, plain and simple,

As do I. That's sort of where I'm confused. The only shaky camera I can recall in the movie is the in-cockpit views when the jaegers were getting hit by the kaiju. Other than that the camera appeared to be comparatively still and zoomed out so you can see what's going on.

[IanKennedy]

I said you're a contrarian. I have seen you several times take the polar opposite stance on various films and other bits of media around here.

What you actually said was "And I'm pretty sure you're dyed in the wool contrarian who compulsively dislikes things for being popular." so I gave you films that where popular and told you which I liked and disliked. I cannot see how you can accuse me of disliking popular films.

No, I like good films that have a plot and characters that are actually worth caring for.

OK, I'll extend that for you. I don't mind crap, if it's visually stunning. I can excuse short comings for utter beauty. (Avatar). A camera that can't keep still, that I can never forgive.

Avengers - I really do like this movie but all the characterization was built into the other movies and the plot was little more than an excuse to blow shit up. It's a fun, very Joss Whedony film, but without the long episodic run he usually needs to build characters. He was handed a bunch of already realized and fleshed out ones in other movies and played with them for two hours.

I pretty much said the same on this one. Except we do see some interplay between the people once they get together as a group. I'm thinking of Stark and the Hulk for example.

Certainly not enough for someone who enjoyed Avengers to start insinuating that other people are 5 year olds for liking a movie.

You really need to learn to read what people write and not what you read into things from a view point you have before you start reading. Either that or I need to explain things better. I said that liking a movie just because, and only because, it has monsters fighting robots is the kind of thing I would expect a five year old to say.

I kinda felt the Kaiju's killing thousands of people in each attack sorted out who the bad guys were.

I would agree if that was actually shown. It really wasn't, it was described in a voice over at the start of the film, which is very lame.

He's a fanboy, he's a bull headed scientist

He's a freak, utterly uncool and very off the wall. He also takes risks no sane scientist would ever do. Pretty stereotypical to me.

---
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the shaky cam it pretty much ruined the movie for me, that and the darkness and poor camera angles. You obviously have a greater tolerance than you think you do, either that or they're showing different cuts here in the UK than they did in the US. Seems unlikely.