Pacific Rim Review

Some people like it when you are able to boil down your opinion of something into a neat little easy-to-understand rating.  This works great for cars, cleaning products, and cell phones, but when it comes to judging works of art, to me it means very little.  Opinions on art is primarily based on the emotional reaction of the viewer/listener.  Emotional states fluctuate due to any number of factors:  health, the perspective of age, time of day, your surroundings, the people you're with, general mood, significant life events, etc., so while boiling it all down into a static rating may seem practical, it's actually kind of dishonest and lazy.

Nonetheless people love bite-sized categorization, which is why I have Professor Shifty's Movie Grades over to the left.  Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed that, occasionally, the grades will change.  This happens when I see a movie a second time and my opinion has altered.  They can go up, they can go down.  Here are a couple of recent examples.  My opinion of "Star Trek: Into Darkness" was remarkably lower the second time around.  "Man of Steel" was pretty much the exact same experience when I saw it again.  Which brings us to "Pacific Rim", a movie which I've seen twice.  I love it now, but the first time I saw it I was disappointed.

Let me clarify:  I wasn't disappointed because I thought it was bad.  I was disappointed in the same way that a parent is disappointed in a good, intelligent kid who deliberately does something stupid - you still love them, but your opinion has been temporarily marred.  The second time I saw this, the good shit came into sharper focus and the bad shit faded into the background.  What bad shit, you ask?  Well, here you have a movie which is the cinematic equivalent of a breath of fresh air - it's not a remake, sequel, or adaptation - yet the filmmakers chose to run with some hoary, timeworn cliches which could have benefitted from some witty finagling.  Honestly, it's a bit nitpicky, but it bugs me a little.

The Pros:

- Guillermo Del Toro.  He can do horror ('"Cronos", "The Devil's Backbone", "Mimic"), he can do fantasy ("Pan's Labyrinth"), he can do Comic Book ("Blade II", the "Hellboy" movies) and now he's proven that he can do Anime.  "Pacific Rim" looks and sounds spectacular.  And it's distinctively Del Toro, from the look and feel, to the economic storytelling, to his emphasis on story emerging from character relationships, to his usual obsession with recurring visual motifs (heads and shoes baby, heads and shoes), to the color-coded lighting schemes, it's unmistakable and very, very welcome.  This movie is clearly a labor of love for Del Toro.  It wears its heart on its robot sleeve and the audience feels it.

- Industrial Light and Magic.  This is their best work in years.  Lately they've been getting their CG asses handed to them by the likes of WETA Digital and Digital Domain, among others, but it's nice to see them recover from such disastrous effects craptaculars like "Battleship" and "Transformers" to reclaim the throne.  Sumptuous may seem like a strange word to use when describing special effects, but the attention to detail is amazing.  It's remarkable how many interesting new details I noticed in the effects work the second time around.

- World Building.  This is the start of a new cinematic mythos, and frankly I would like to see more of it.  There's a great setup for a new sci-fi universe here, one which never felt over-explained or preachy to me.  The whole notion of using giant mechs to fight off an invasion of giant monsters is rather silly, but it's set up and conveyed convincingly enough for me to buy it (like "The Matrix").  Plus, it's just plain cooler than killing off the monsters with some kind of designer disease or something.  Maybe that will be a future subplot.  Plus - there are many subtle ideas sprinkled around which I'd like to see explored in the future (ex: the pregnancy, why the Kaiju went after little Mako, Kaiju pilots, etc).  Plus Plus - the idea of needing two mentally and emotionally compatible pilots to drive the Jaegers (via mind meld) is a fascinating idea.  Making the fight scenes rely on the compatibility of the characters gives the movie a personal, humanistic edge which helps invest the audience in all the comic bookish shenanigans.

- Memorable Names.  I love these character names!  Raleigh Becket.  Stacker Pentecost.  Hannibal Chau. Mako Mori (my favorite character).  Hercules Hansen.  And the Jaegers (the mechs) have great names, too!  Gipsy Danger.  Striker Eureka.  My favorite is Crimson Typhoon.  The Kaiju (monster) names remind me of "Pokemon".  Knifehead.  Leatherback.  Otachi.  This movie has thick layers of texture.

- The 1980s.  I was taken aback by the style of this movie at first until I realized that this was intentional.  In terms of the acting style, the dialogue and the general feel of the movie, it's Del Toro's tribute to sci-fi of the '80s.  Del Toro himself has said that this is his tribute to"Star Wars".  It eschews modern-style cinema (internalized emoting, blunt cynicism, cinema verite camerawork) in exchange for classic '80s earnestness.  The unimaginative would call it 'cheesy'.  I call it a return to the good old days.  Even the score is retro - simple and catchy and rock-n-roll.  Perfect for "Pacific Rim".

- Rock 'em Sock'em Jaegers.  The action scenes are perfectly executed.  The Jaegers, unlike the Transformers, have a real weight to their movements, and I was never confused or lost track of what was happening during the fight scenes.  Plus, they never overstay their welcome.  This movie flies by fast.  Despite the fact that it's establishing a new cinematic universe to play around in, the movie never feels bloated.  I wanted more.

- IMAX 3D.  Perfect.  This is the best movie I've seen in that format in, well, ever.  It's really well done.  I would like to see this in 2D, just to compare, but I don't want to miss another chance for an IMAX showing.  Once it's gone, it's gone.  Unless the movie gets rereleased in the future.

- Cast of Unknowns.  Like "Star Wars", Del Toro purposely avoided casting any big stars, and it paid off.  Some of these characters are cliches, but I dig 'em all the same.  Idris Elba is fantastic in everything, even when he's in crap like "Prometheus".  Charlie Hunnam is reasonably engaging as the main character.  He's a bit too 'whitebread', but I like that he's a kind of damaged Luke Skywalker.  Rinko Kinkuchi is my favorite character in the movie, Mako Mori.  Her line delivery isn't the best (this is her first English-speaking role), but line delivery is only one facet of what makes a good character.  She's the 'Neo' of the movie.  The scientist characters (Charlie Day and Burn Gorman) are borderline annoying, but they never crossed that line for me.  They made me laugh a couple of times (like the scene with the toilet in the ruins).  And, this being a Del Toro movie, Ron Perlman shows up to be awesome, as always.

The Cons:

- "Pacific Rim."  Crappy title.  Tells you nothing of the movie.

-  Climactic Fizzle.  Like 95% of genre movies these days, the best action sequence in the film (the battle for Hong Kong) is not the climactic sequence.  The climax is still good, just not as good.

- Rain and Darkness.  Most of the action scenes take place at night, in the rain.  Or in the ocean, but that's fine because the Jaegers are meant to intercept the Kaiju before they make landfall, so it's a mythology thing.  I would just like more daytime, nice-weather battles.

- Avoidable Cliches.  The 'aliens' who are sending giant monsters through the Breach to exterminate us have one goal in mind - to suck the Earth dry of all of its resources.  Then they will move on to another world.  They are weird, bug-like creatures with large oblong heads and spindly arms.  Our last-chance method of striking back is to send a nuke into the Breach to hit them where they live.  Before this plan starts, Pentecost makes a rousing speech about the last stand of humanity, at the end of which cheers erupt.  Sound familiar?  Besides "Independence Day" there are also a few "Top Gun" chestnuts.  The character of Chuck Hansen might well have been named Iceman.  It bugs me that the filmmakers couldn't have tweaked it up a little bit, just to differentiate it.  It's a good thing that I prefer "Pacific Rim" to "Independence Day" (or "Top Gun", for that matter).  Just keep the cliches out of the sequel.

Bottom line:  it's one of my favorite movies of the year and will likely be viewed by me many more times on Blu-Ray.  It's not perfect, but it's fun. 

Activate elblow rockets!

The Lone Ranger Review

$250 million for a Western?  Doesn't Hollywood remember such big budget bombs as "Wild Wild West", "Maverick" or "Cowboys and Aliens"?  The successful Westerns are always the ones made on smaller budgets - "Unforgiven", "True Grit", "Open Range", "Appaloosa", "3:10 to Yuma", "Django Unchained", etc.  Perhaps Disney thought that by reuniting with the writers/producers/director/star of the highly successful "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies (the first three) they could capture some more lightning in a bottle.

Not so much, it turns out.

2013's "The Lone Ranger" has problems, not the least of which is in its disconnect with the moviegoing audience of today.  Having said that, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, to my surprise.  But I am a unique case.

My dad was a huge fan of Westerns.  When I was young we used to sit together and watch reruns of the classic "Lone Ranger" TV show which originally aired from the '40s into the '50s.  The Lone Ranger theme (a.k.a. the William Tell Overture) was burned into my brain.  I even had a little plastic toy version of the Lone Ranger riding his famous horse Silver. 

As I grew older, though, I had absolutely no interest in Westerns.  I used to think that my dislike stemmed from good, old fashioned childhood rebellion.  Later I came to the realization that it was because of the cowboy hats - see, I don't like country music.  I appreciate it more these days (especially the classic stuff), but I'm still not a fan.  I'm a heavy metal/classical kind of dude.  I used to equate country music to Westerns because of the hats.  It wasn't until I grew older that I learned the truth - the Western movie genre has more in common with metal than with country.  This struck me during a week when I was simultaneously studying the Western genre in film appreciation class and listening to all my heavy metal albums during the week at my day job (I used to have musical "theme weeks").  Themes of isolationism, rebellion against authority, civilization versus barbarism, exploration of the scary unknown, survivalism, inner turmoil, good versus evil, justice versus law, freedom - all commonalities.  And since then I've read many interviews with heavy metal artists in which they cite specific Western filmmakers as primary influences on their outlook and their art.

These days I love Westerns and count many of them among my favorite movies of all time.  "High Noon", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "The Searchers", "The Wild Bunch", the "Dollars" trilogy, "Stagecoach", "The Magnificent Seven", and many more.  Which brings us to director Gore Verbinski. . .

In 2011 he made the animated flick "Rango", a comedic adventure and a tribute to Westerns (also starring Johnny Depp).  Before that he made slapstick comedies for kids ("Mouse Hunt"), scary horror movies ("The Ring"), moving dramas ("The Weatherman"), comedies for adults ("The Mexican") and fun-filled fantasy adventures ("Pirates 1-3").  I like the guy's films.  He's got a great eye and knows how to direct special effects.  I dig his style of humor and handling of action scenes.  His movies get a little bloated sometimes ("The Ring", a couple of the "Pirates" movies, "The Lone Ranger"), but I can deal with that.

"The Lone Ranger" is not only a tribute to the classic story but a shout out to the entire Western genre.  There are direct echoes of classic Westerns in many scenes, many loving cliches reprised and wry, witty in-joke asides.  And, of course, there's Monument Valley.  All of which leaves modern audiences in the cold, unless you're me.  I loved that shit.

Verbinski brings some of the "Pirates" feel to the movie, but not as much as you would think.  The trailers would have you believe that it's a nonstop yuk fest of slapsticky action, but it's more straightforward than that.  There is plenty of humor, but about half of it falls flat.  But the other half worked.  I was rolling in the aisles a couple of times.  Believe me, a movie theater floor is not something you want to roll on.

As for the supposed "supernatural aspects" of the plot, well. . . there aren't that many.  Sure, there are some flesh-eating rabbits (don't ask) but, and here is where I must get into some SPOILERy territory - it's revealed about 2/3rds of the way through that Tonto (Johnny Depp), who is teaching John Reid (Armie Hammer) to embrace his destiny as a spirit walker and become the Lone Ranger in order to avenge his brother's death, is revealed to be an actual crazy person with a tragic past who is shunned by other Native Americans.  All of the spiritual mumbo jumbo he's been preaching turns out to be bull pucky.  I love that.  Many have criticized that Depp's Tonto is just a reprise of his Jack Sparrow character from "Pirates", but I disagree.  I see him as as the flipside of Sparrow.  See, Sparrow only acts crazy and strange and random in order to throw everyone else off - he really knows what's going on and always has a handle on things.  Tonto really is nuts and only thinks he has a handle on things when most of his success in life is due to pure dumb luck.  In the end, he's kind of a sad, tragic character, and while Depp's "weird outsider" routine is getting old these days, I'll forgive him for Tonto.

I also like Hammer as the lead character.  Another criticism I see leveled at the movie concerns Reid's ineptness and inherent wussitude.  This is another thing I love.  He's not the warrior - his brother was.  He's just a lawyer and a well-meaning doofus.  Of course, as the movie goes on, he must step up to be the hero, which adds to the climax.

Okay, here's the scorecard-

The Cons:

       -Too long and bloated.

       -The humor is hit and miss.

       -Too much in-crowd references for Western junkies (which is a Pro for me).

       -Depp's character tropes are wearing thin.

       -The plot is far too similar to 1998's "The Mask of Zorro".  Really, it's soooo close, especially near the end.  This is funny because the character of Zorro was originally created as a ripoff of the Lone Ranger.

The Pros:

        -Visually solid.

        -The cast is great, especially William Fichtner as the villain Butch Cavendish.

        -It was clearly made with love for the Western genre, and that feeling bleeds through (a Con if you hate Westerns).

        -The movie is surprisingly violent.  Puts "World War Z" to shame.  No kidding.  A Con if you hate movie violence.

        -The climax is FLIPPIN' SPECTACULAR!

Here's where the movie shines - it has the best, most exciting climax I've seen in a movie all year.  All of the Cons are worth sitting through because they build to this.  This is where Reid takes the reins of his own destiny and must prove himself, where Tonto must make up for his mistakes and put things right, where the damsel in distress needs to be saved (although she ends up doing a lot of the saving, in true modern day fashion), and where the villains must PAY.  It's a finely crafted, propulsive sequence which hits all the right beats and leaves the film on a high note (although there is one super funny jokes afterwards that I don't want to spoil).  And when Hans Zimmer's version of the William Tell Overture kicks in - absolutely perfect.  I was a kid again.  I literally had tears in my eyes during this sequence.  Then again, I have a history with the Lone Ranger many others do not share.  I'm biased.

It helped that I saw the movie (on opening night) with a cool audience who applauded cheerily after it was over.  I must admit, most of the attendees had white hair.  In fact, when leaving the theater after the end of the credit (there is footage playing over the credits which ultimately goes nowhere, literally, so feel free to leave if you want) I was drawn into a discussion with a group of kindly old gents who were surprised to find a guy under the age of 40 in the theater.  They all were fans of the classic series and loved this new version.  I wish my dad were alive to see this.  I think he would have loved it too.

All told, it's definitely a flawed film, but its nostalgic tone and strong climax made it enjoyable for me.  But, really, $250 million dollars?  What were you thinking, Disney?

The Heavy Metal Ranger! -