Pacific Rim

Took my kids, ages 10, 8, & 6, to see the 2D version this weekend after hearing the very positive Kenneth Turan review on NPR. I thought Pacific Rim was pretty good despite the flaws with the plot and the generic white bread male lead. I kept thinking that the scripted the Chinese love interest to help with ticket sales in China.

I happened to ask if the kids liked if they liked Pacific Rim, or Grown Ups 2 better. All three kids said they liked Grown Ups 2 better. My wife told me it was awful.

I'm so disappointed at my kids lack of taste in movies.
 
tmnt said:
Did anyone else expect the scientist with the tats to be in the end battle controlling one of the Kajui (sp?). Would have added something new and made for a more exciting ending.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought they might put a 'brainwashed' alien brain & him in a special robot as a secret weapon: half alien, half robot, able to mess with alien minds during combat (since alien minds are linked).
 
Terry Nixon said:
I happened to ask if the kids liked if they liked Pacific Rim, or Grown Ups 2 better. All three kids said they liked Grown Ups 2 better. My wife told me it was awful.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Perhaps this isn't a movie for "14 year old boys" after all... maybe the references and deeper meaning resonate with an older audience with knowledge of all the pieces del Toro put into the film.
 
definitely enjoyed the film
im a fan of the old mechas vs monsters anime from the 70s & 80s.
this is a good step to future mecha films!

its not a perfect film. the drama isnt something to be praised but thats not what the film is about.
its a tribute to giant robots vs giant monsters. if you were to really take this movie seriously, (having a 250ft bipedal robot is probably the worst kind of countermeasure for this kind of disaster)
its ridiculous to criticize a film for being something it ddnt try to be (a drama film)
 
dcloud said:
definitely enjoyed the film
im a fan of the old mechas vs monsters anime from the 70s & 80s.
this is a good step to future mecha films!

its not a perfect film. the drama isnt something to be praised but thats not what the film is about.
its a tribute to giant robots vs giant monsters. if you were to really take this movie seriously, (having a 250ft bipedal robot is probably the worst kind of countermeasure for this kind of disaster)
its ridiculous to criticize a film for being something it ddnt try to be (a drama film)
Click to expand...

What I"ve mostly seen is critics saying it's a bad story. You don't say, well, ti's about Giant Robots so it's not supposed to be a good story!

Yea, a few people have poked fun at the premise of giant robots to kill giant monsters, but I have no trouble suspending my disbelief for that. I do have trouble with a disjointed story that has no real main character, and no characters to really care about.

You can have a good story and have giant robots. It's not one or the other.
 
Interesting that a lot of you are saying there was no good story or character development. Personally I thought this movie had some of the best characters in a movie of this size in years. Sure, the main character was a bit dull, but aren't main characters almost always dull compared to the colorful supporting characters? I mean Luke Skywalker is a bratty, whiny leaf of a man, and yet Star Wars managed to be extremely successful because the supporting characters were fantastic.

As for the story lacking depth, I mean sure I guess that's true. It's easy to claim story is lacking when you compare it to smaller, dramatic films. But I think if you compare this film to other blockbusters we've gotten in recent years, this comes out near the top.
 
It does have a story and character development. Not just that deep. (Simply because i thought the main Character isnt a great actor.)

ive seen the film once and i easily broke the story down. Its so simple. Is it that big of a problem? Its not a bad story per se. Ive seen a lot worst films and i dont expect anything oscar worthy. Hell, avatar has even a simpler storyline.

also that little girl crying and running was heart breaking for me :-)
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna throw out a possibly controversial theory, but I think with a lot of sci-fi stuff, most viewers and many critics are too distracted by all the tech and other shiny objects and high concepts that their minds can't really comprehend the story at the same time. Give someone that is un-aquinted with the science fiction genre a copy of say classic science fiction novel The Forever War to read, and they'll likely not stick with it because it will seem too "out there" for them. Not that this means Pacific Rim is a great story, but in a general sense, average audiences can usually only get into what I call "gateway" science fiction. That would be fare such as Star Wars, Avatar, some Star Trek movies/episodes, Back to the Future, and The Matrix (although the two sequels were too much for most viewers).

Two of my favorites are Alien and its sequel Aliens (the rest of the Alien franchise entries are considered to be crap by most so we'll leave those out of the discussion). The Alien films though, operate on very primal logic, that of survival. Fight or flight. They are haunted houses in space. Everyone loves a haunted house. Just like going on a roller coaster, they allow us to experience terror in a safe and controlled setting.

I suppose a lot of the superhero stuff has one foot in the science fiction genre. Superman is an alien with godlike powers. Iron Man is a guy in power armor that recalls such classics as Starship Troopers. The Hulk is Jekyl and Hyde. Captain America is a super soldier, altered by science. These stories though, are more simple, especially when translated to movies. They really have a very simple formula that audiences seem to favorably respond to. Even the Transfomers are basically alien robots, but their cinematic adventures operate on superhero logic.

We all know the story of cult classic Blade Runner. A movie that actually has a pretty interesting and thoughtful story and has something meaningful to say, yet audiences and critics couldn't see it through all the rain soaked high-tech neon lit future cityscapes. Science fiction doesn't really work for cinema and television. Not on the level that it does so successfully in prose.
 
dcloud said:
definitely enjoyed the film
im a fan of the old mechas vs monsters anime from the 70s & 80s.
this is a good step to future mecha films!

its not a perfect film. the drama isnt something to be praised but thats not what the film is about.
its a tribute to giant robots vs giant monsters. if you were to really take this movie seriously, (having a 250ft bipedal robot is probably the worst kind of countermeasure for this kind of disaster)
its ridiculous to criticize a film for being something it ddnt try to be (a drama film)
Click to expand...

Right. Because you can't have an otherwise outlandish premise and a solid story (or a solid "drama", as it were)...
 
Nektonic said:
Give someone that is un-aquinted with the science fiction genre a copy of say classic science fiction novel The Forever War to read, and they'll likely not stick with it because it will seem too "out there" for them.
Click to expand...

...I was a huge SF fan as a teen, but I never read any of Joe Haldeman's work. ( Philip K Dick, Philip Jose Farmer, Ursula K Leguin, Samuel R Delany, Etc... ) I would love to see somebody try and film Robert A Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" book, or the actual PKD story from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". ( Blade Runner had about 2 percent of the book's content )
 
jghenderson said:
Interesting that a lot of you are saying there was no good story or character development. Personally I thought this movie had some of the best characters in a movie of this size in years. Sure, the main character was a bit dull, but aren't main characters almost always dull compared to the colorful supporting characters? I mean Luke Skywalker is a bratty, whiny leaf of a man, and yet Star Wars managed to be extremely successful because the supporting characters were fantastic.

As for the story lacking depth, I mean sure I guess that's true. It's easy to claim story is lacking when you compare it to smaller, dramatic films. But I think if you compare this film to other blockbusters we've gotten in recent years, this comes out near the top.
Click to expand...

What? Luke Skywalker is a great main character. So is Harry Potter and there are a lot of similarities between the two. We like these stories because we care about the main character, not because they have colorful supporting characters around them.
 
dcloud said:
It does have a story and character development. Not just that deep. (Simply because i thought the main Character isnt a great actor.)

ive seen the film once and i easily broke the story down. Its so simple. Is it that big of a problem? Its not a bad story per se. Ive seen a lot worst films and i dont expect anything oscar worthy. Hell, avatar has even a simpler storyline.

also that little girl crying and running was heart breaking for me :-)
Click to expand...

I thought the opposite. The main character is a good actor, but he had nothing work with. You can't make a bad script into a good story simply with good acting.

It doesn't have to be deep or complex, it just has to be a solid story. Look at Alien which is a great story. What happens? The crew is trying not to get killed by a killer alien that the "company" wants to import. Nothing deep about it

In fact I was leaving the theater thinking wow the CGI was awesome, but I would have enjoyed a more engaging story with some tension and characters I cared about more than the CGI. You could have used guys in bad suits like the old Godzilla movies and I would have enjoyed it more if the story wasn't so poorly put together.

There is WAY to much TELLING me what is going on and why, instead of just showing me the story in Pacific Rim.

They never really figured out whow the main character was in Pacific Rim. Maybe if they had focused on that it would have been a lot better.

An example of a great movie with giant monsters, IMO, is Monsters. The story is as simple as it gets. Two people have to get from point A to point B and in between are Monsters. But you really care about the characters by the end of the movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470827/

This bears reading yet again:

http://movieline.com/2010/03/23/david-mamets-memo-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/



 
Last edited:
Monsters is almost the complete opposite of Pacific Rim. Ultra low budget, almost no VFX, very limited monster screen time, very little action, slow and mostly uneventful with a weak ending. That said, not a bad movie for what it was, however while emotional on a love story level, not the wild fun ride provided by Pacific Rim.
 
Saw this film in 2D last night and enjoyed the ride. The visual effects were every bit as good as people are saying and the action sequences are well directed (i.e. not confusing). I agree with the general criticisms of the humdrum plot though.

I dunno if any one else noticed (or indeed cares) but the extras were fantastic in this. I know it's a very minor thing, but every worker or technician in the background seemed to be doing something appropriate to the setting. And when those heroic speeches are being made, just look at how invested the extras are in the background.

Anyway, here are some other random thoughts/questions I had while watching it:

Why are the guys playing the two scientists acting as if they are in pantomime?

Why are Ridley Scott's lawyers not suing the art department for the city exteriors they're stealing wholesale from Blade Runner?

Why is Elba's character not working despite the actor making every valiant effort with the part?
 
Both movies were compelling, even if, as you noted, for different reasons
Monsters' ending was very memorable for me.
 
norvan5 said:
Why are Ridley Scott's lawyers not suing the art department for the city exteriors they're stealing wholesale from Blade Runner?

Why is Elba's character not working despite the actor making every valiant effort with the part?
Click to expand...

I thought the actors, including Elba, did a fine job.

Nobody's character really worked because there was so much time spent on robot fighting that there was no screen time left for a really good character arc, so they were just 2d sketches of characters. And/or the screen time was squandered on trying to develop so many characters that none really were developed. Everyone got a little set piece scene to establish their character, and that was it, back to robot fighting.

As far as the look of the world, everyone knows that in the future it rains a lot, people mostly go out at night, it's crowded, there are large buildings, lots of signs and neon, and Asians have taken over the world.
 
John Knoll said they put rain/smoke/sea-spray or other particles in as many shots as they could to help with stereo 3D depth. Definitely see this movie in 3D.
 
Nektonic said:
Pacific Rim = after giant monsters emerge from the sea, humanity builds giant robots to fight back against the escalating threat

So there can't be any "good" stories from a lot of movie premises.

Avatar = paralyzed guy telepathically controls blue alien man-cat

Lord of the Rings = midget has to walk really far to throw a magic ring into a volcano

Aliens = soldiers get sent on a thankless mission to kill alien bugs (note: Aliens is basically a take on Beowulf set in the future, so Beowulf must be crap as well)

The Terminator = robot from the future goes back in time to kill a waitress before she can be impregnated with future leader

The Dark Knight = rich man dresses as a bat and beats up criminals, faces a deranged clown anarchist who likes to burn money

Gladiator = Australian guy portraying a Spaniard, gruesomely kills people in the Colosseum in ancient times

Back to the Future = teenage rocker goes back in time and has to get his parents to go to a high school dance

Raiders of the Lost Ark = guy looks for relics that are worth money, is hired by the Army to get a biblical artifact before the Nazi's find it

Jurassic Park = on a remote island with a secret laboratory owned by a billionaire, dinosaurs are brought back to life via cloning

2001: A Space Odyssey = a bunch of monkeys kill each other, then an astronaut is nearly murdered by his computer and after that has vision quest upon encountering a giant alien tile floating in space near Jupiter

Star Wars = with the aid of a wizard, a pirate, and a Sasquatch, a farm boy has to fight against the forces of a black space knight in order to save a space princess and learn space magic so he can be a hero

Apocalypse Now = disillusioned army guy rides around on a boat in Vietnam so that he can kill a rogue colonel that is a big bald dude played by a mumbling Marlon Brando

The Godfather = mob guys kill each other all because their don, played again by a mumbling Brando, has marbles in his mouth and no one knows what the hell he is saying

Close Encounters of the Third Kind = guy looks for UFO's

James Bond movies = handsome secret agent has lots of sex with beautiful women, and then he fights megalomaniacs who want to take over the world

Blade Runner = mopey detective kills sexbots in rainy future city
Click to expand...

From Gladiator on, they start to sound interesting again. Haha
 
Sage said:
Both movies were compelling, even if, as you noted, for different reasons
Monsters' ending was very memorable for me.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the beginning again after seeing the ending? That made the ending more interesting (watched on Netflix. Would have been tough in the theater to see that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top