This past weekend I had a couple of free tickets to go and see Ender’s Game (EG). I love a bit of sci-fi and, given that I’d booked Gravity (review imminent) for Sunday, I figured I’d make it a space-based double bill and see EG on the Saturday.
First: here’s a pretty good reason why you shouldn’t see this film.
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The number one reason why you should not see this film is because if you see this film, the studio, Lionsgate, may go ahead and make sequels. If that happens, then more money goes to the author of Ender’s Game, and extreme homophobe, Orson Scott Card. It is a sad state of affairs when the beliefs of an author get in the way of enjoying and/or recommending a film. But it is what it is, and I can’t change what I believe – or the way I feel.
For what it’s worth, Lionsgate gate have said that it is ‘undecided‘ on whether they’ll move ahead with any sequels. So let’s keep it that way and hope that Ender’s Game disappears (like the proposed follow ups to The Golden Compass and The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe).
Second: here’s another pretty good reason you shouldn’t see this film.
It’s terrible.
Yes, there are some decent strategy moments, and yes the character of Ender is enjoyably smart. But plot hole after plot hole after plot hole – combined with some of the most diabolical acting I’ve seen on screen, ever – makes EG an absolute waste of time and money. I sat there wishing I’d read the books instead.
When I was in Edinburgh earlier this year, my friend would often say (after seeing particularly bad theatre): ‘Why did they bother?’ – not to be facetious or mean, but a genuine question: Why bother? Why did you bother doing it? Surely you must see that there isn’t much substance to this? What on Earth made you do this?
I saw Thor: The Dark World (TTDW) recently, in 3D, at London’s BFI IMAX and, aside from a few inconsistencies, its looking like the house of M has yet another hit on its hands. As part of the more mythical part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Thor has a bit more freedom when it comes to realising the world(s) that Asgardians both live in and visit and, in this reviewer’s opinion, is a better franchise for it.
But there’s more to it than that.
In a post-Avengers world, it’s obviously prudent to have a good idea of where this story picks up from. With Loki, chief villain from both the first Thor film and last summer’s monster smash, Avengers Assemble, again front and centre in this norse god outing, I would strongly recommend seeing the aforementioned films first.
Oh yeah, that and the fact Loki pretty much snatches the film from right under Thor’s nose and completely makes it his own any and every time he’s on screen. Tom Hiddleston is having so much fun here and, somewhat surprisingly, brings an emotional depth to Loki that we’ve only seen glimpses of before. Damn, he’s good.
He’s not the only character who shines in TTDW either. Almost everyone we met the first time around gets to grow in their own way. From Sif’s subtle intentions (and subsequent jealously, equally subtle – nicely done, Jaimie Alexander) around being Thor’s one and only, to Idris Elba getting his badass on as the all-seeing guardian of the Rainbow Road Bridge, Heimdall. Both of Thor’s parents get their own respective arcs too, with Rene Russo flexing both her emotional (and literal) muscles as Queen Frigga, and Sir Anthony Hopkins by her side, as Odin, bringing the gravitas that only the All Father of the nine realms should have.
And the new faces, what of them?
Well, both Christopher Eccleston and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, are barely recognisable as the leaders (first and second in command respectively) of TTDW’s main antagonists, The Dark Elves.
The latter even more so when he’s transformed into the nigh-indestructible beast known as Kurse. Easily beaten, these Elves are not – and Kurse is one formidable opponent for the eponymous man/god/alien. Moving back to Eccleston, I had read a fair bit about his character, Malekith, not being fully developed or not being explored enough but I have to disagree. Not all bad guys need to be made human, not all bad guys need to be given the bit of colour that almost gives them justification for their belief system, and ultimately their actions. Some bad guys just want stuff to be DARK AND NASTY. That’s what Malekith wants and that, combined with the way he chases that goal endlessly, makes him a pretty awesome evil doer, in my book anyway.
Where there’s evil, there must be good, and good is in good shape indeed with Chris Hemsworth stepping up to play Thor for the third time. The petulance has gone and we see a wiser, more thoughtful Thor who no longer falls for Loki’s tricks so easily and oft-leads with the upper hand, as opposed to rushing in and fighting from a disadvantage. It’s a healthy change, and Good Character Development is always nice to see. Seeing him finally lock eyes with Jane Foster (a hardly-stretched Natalie Portman) is great, and you can tell that they’re meant to be. Aww.
If I had to draw negatives it would be only in two ways. First, with Portman finally making it to Asgard, being dressed like the locals, and getting to spend time with Thor – it all feels a little bit a Padme/Star Wars Episode II. And I’m not kidding when I say that is a very bad thing. It only happened a couple of times, but it grated.
The other thing would be tonality.
Let’s get one thing absolutely clear: TTDW is funny. Laugh out loud hilarious even, at some points. But the juxtaposition of that against the backdrop of some truly darker moments sometimes can be quite jarring. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a tough gig trying to maintain lightness amongst the dark – and the original Thor had its fair share of good laughs – but sometimes it felt like TTDW couldn’t make its mind up. Like I said, if I had to draw negatives. Those would be the two that I would choose.
Is it worth seeing in 3D? I don’t think so. But do try and see it an IMAX because honestly, there’s no better cinematic experience than seeing a film like Thor ON THE BIGGEST SCREEN POSSIBLE.
Overall, Thor: The Dark World is an enjoyable ride, and definitely worth seeing at the cinema. So go and do that at your earliest opportunity.Â
PS. There are TWO post-credits sequences. One midway through, and one right at the end. One of them is a now-typical Marvel teaser sign post, the other is just for laughs… You’ll love them both. Â
PPS. TTDW has the best post-avengers cameo, ever. I’ve not seen it leaked anywhere so when you see the film, be a good geek and don’t ruin it for anyone by yabbing about it afterwards. Skills.
I saw RUSH on a whim. On a last minute ‘I’m stood next to the cinema and I’ve got two hours to kill and I’ve got a free ticket to use and the doors opened five minutes ago’ decision. Before I knew it, it was the 1970s, and I had a front row seat* on the rivalry that help make Formula 1 the global phenomenon we know it as today.
Ron Howard is a dab hand at his historical recreations (see Apollo 13 and Frost/Nixon) and I should’ve seen that much coming. But I didn’t. Instead I sat back and enjoyed a tale that I kind of half knew, but half didn’t (this all happened before I was born and I didn’t get into Formula 1 until my late teens), and what a tale it is.
For those of you that don’t know –
…the film is based on the true story of the great sporting rivalry between handsome English playboy James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth), and his methodical, brilliant opponent, Austrian driver Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl). The story follows their distinctly different personal styles on and off the track, their loves and the astonishing 1976 season in which both drivers were willing to risk everything to become world champion in a sport with no margin for error: if you make a mistake, you die.
But what of the film? Three main performances stood out for me.
First, Chris Hemsworth does very well as the (over-)confident and care-free James Hunt. Wild enough to be worrying, and yet intense enough on the track to be inspiring. The man is out to prove something, and he won’t stop until he does it. Having got used to Hemsworth as the lightning-wielding god of thunder, THOR, it’s quite nice to see him flex his dramatic muscles in something other than the Marvel cinematic universe. Good job.
Next, Daniel Brühl is amazing. Admittedly, his is the character that arguably goes through the most dramatic of arc however, having since seen a documentary about the very same story (just a day after catching RUSH, great timing) it is unbelievable how much he completely nails it as Niki Lauda. Everything from the look, the voice, the mannerisms – all of it is just brilliant. While RUSH is billed as a two-hander (and Hemsworth does hold his own) this is very much Brühl’s film. I’m on the look out for more of his stuff as I type…
Third and finally, Olivia Wilde, as Hunt’s main love interest, brings surprising depth to what could’ve easily been a one-note, blink and you’ll miss it character. I haven’t seen Wilde in much (I know her mainly from House and Tron: Legacy) however I’m looking forward to seeing more of her as I really thought, for someone who had very limited screen time, Olivia Wilde does very well indeed.
As I said before, Ron Howard excels at this kind of thing and RUSH is no exception. Everything is meticulously recreated and original footage/audio is used where it isn’t. Combined, this creates an atmosphere of just being there which, funnily enough, is exactly what you want in film. No, really.
In short: RUSH is really bloody great. I made a snap decision to see it and in the world where every decision you make matters, I’m glad I chose so well.
It’s still on general release and if you haven’t already, you should go.
Whatley out.
*Not literally. I haven’t done that since Django, and that was just mental.
It’s been 13 years since we were first introduced to the murderous anti-hero, Richard P. Riddick and since 2000’s Pitch Black first hit our screens, we’ve had one animated short, in the shape of the oft-overlooked Dark Fury, and the universe expanding [proper] sequel The Chronicles of Riddick.
Pitch Black is just great (seek it out if you’re new to the Riddick franchise). A proper B-movie alien film, with morally questionable characters throughout (including Vin Diesel as aforementioned wanted convict) – it was sci-fi fun, with a solid cast to boot.
For 2004’s criminally underrated Chronicles, writer/director David Twohy courageously attempted to create a whole universes, (along with multiple races and religions, around our lead character and, with a couple of character nods to its predecessor, it arguably succeeded (with the Director’s Cut DVD proving vastly superior to the cinematic release, with more emphasis on the mythology and spirituality of what it means to be Furyan. Again, seek it out). If you’ve come this far, then you’re probably aware of the the events that close Chronicles – our man Richard found himself in a very interesting place indeed.
Which leads us to the third live action film in the series, the succinctly titled ‘RIDDICK’.
A film of three acts, RIDDICK opens with its eponymous protagonist alone, injured, and in danger – deserted on a planet inhabited only by blood-thirsty killers creatures that live in the water, on the ground, and in the air. A walk in the park this will not be. But (and this is no spoiler) Riddick heals, Riddick gets bad ass, and Riddick gets a pet dog… This last part clearly a nod to the fans who wanted more of Riddick getting on with this kind of animal, if you remember the scaly felines from Crematoria in Chronicles, you’ll know what I mean.
Act two: two sets of bounty hunters arrive. One set wants his head (literally). And another wants him for something else.
Act three: Pitch Black: Redux.
There’s a quote that I’m going to lift from iO9 and it’s spot on:
There’s a standard sort of scene in these movies, which goes like: 1) Everybody underestimates Riddick. They think they’ve outsmarted or outnumbered him. 2) Riddick says something cryptic, like “don’t forget the anchovies,” and everybody laughs at him. 3) Something dramatic happens, the tables are turned, one or two mooks die. 4) Riddick says, “I told you not to forget the anchovies,” and suddenly everybody realizes that Riddick knew what was going to happen all along.
However, I’m willing to forgive it for this because Riddick is Furyan and – as far as we know – he’s the only one left. They might have this weird crazy super vision thing, or something. I don’t know.
Anyway – what of the actual film?
Well y’know what? I really liked it. I’m a fan of the Riddick films and think we need more interesting sci-fi like it. Vin Diesel is a compelling leading man (shh there at the back) and its actually a real treat to catch up with one of his more popular characters after all this time. Also, this is a very different flavoured film to those that have gone before. The opening 30mins is enough to tell you that. Twohy has taken revised his adventurous Chronicles thinking, stripped it back to Pitch Black bare bones, but has gone one step further than that and stripped its leading man back too.
A move that can only be applauded.
The supporting characters are a mix of good and forgetful. Katee Sackhoff is basically Starbuck from an alternative universe, but still manages to stand tall. And the rest are meat, with a few surprises.
Like I said, it’s very much a three act film. Act one almost gets a little too much, act two is amusing, the bounty-hunter team banter combined with the Riddick-is-just-messing-with-them to-and-fro proving to be genuinely funny in places. And when act three turns up the tension with the introduction of other, more murderous planetary inhabitants, all hell breaks loose.
I enjoyed it. If you’ve seen Pitch Black and you enjoyed Chronicles too (hell, even if you didn’t), you’ll definitely enjoy RIDDICK. I really like where they’re taking this character and, at the end of the film, you get a rough idea of where exactly that will be.
Riddick has scores to settle, but he also wants to go home.
On the strength of this latest outing, I’ll be first in line for tickets when that time comes around.
About Time is an adorable Richard Curtis film that I didn’t know or realise was a Richard Curtis film until the credits rolled.
Although I do remember thinking throughout the film, ‘Oh, that’s a bit like that Richard Curtis film’ and ‘The writing is really good and it totally reminds me of the kind of stuff that Richard Curtis does’. So yay for me, I can spot good writing. But more on that shortly…
It should be worth mentioning at this point that, if you choose to go and see this film (and by the end of this review you should be in no doubt 0n what my opinion is on that), I whole-heartedly recommend you go and see it with your partner OR your father. Seeing About Time with one of those two people will not only help you get the best out of this film, but also re-affirm the relationship with said person you decided to have sat next to you.
In short: About Time deals with love, life, and everything that goes along with both. It is beautiful and it is nice – and it is traditional Richard Curtis. Not soppy like Love Actually and not over-played like The Boat that Rocked. This is back-to-basics Curtis – and About Time is a better film because of it.
The writing is amazing. Demonstrated, in the main, by the outstandingly good banter between the two leads which leaves you with no doubt that they are very much in love and indeed, meant to be. London looks pretty darn good too and, as an extra bonus (for me at least), it’s shot in and around north and central. Which is pretty much where I live and socialise – (an extended scene in Maida Vale station, which I pass through pretty much every day, particularly made me smile).
I could wax on about great Bill Nighy is, or even make a big deal about the wonderfully simple sci-fi central conceit (watch the trailer below, you’ll see) but none of it would do it justice. About Time is a brilliantly put together romantic comedy and if you’re thinking about wanting to see something lovely at the cinema this week, then you could do a lot worse then spend time with Richard Curtis’ latest contribution.
I laughed out loud, I gasped, and I cried.
You will too.
PS. I’ve stuck the trailer at the bottom because I said I would, but it really doesn’t sell the film that well – in my opinion at least. So don’t judge it on that alone.
Elysium is the sophomore picture from director Neill Blomkamp, and if you’ve never seen his first film, District 9, and you’re about to go and see Elysium then I’m sure you’ll enjoy it a fair bit and you’ll have a great time. However, if you have seen District 9 and you’re about to go and see Elysium, then you might be a little bit disappointed. Not massively under-whelmed, but maybe just a little bit… oh. I mean, you might be left wanting a little bit more, that’s all.
District 9 is/was a gritty allegory on the apartheid regime in South Africa of recent history. Yes, it had aliens. But the message and story was clear; and it was a revelation. Elysium on the other hand also deals with segregation, of a sort. This time it’s the poor and lower classes that are dealt the bum hand with a lack of decent housing and – at the main crux of the film – medical care. Blomkamp shows us what could be our future. In some ways it already is (and he agrees).
Matt Damon plays Max, a blue-collar guy with an aggressive history and, after a rather grim work-place accident, a fairly short future. To get fixed, he needs to get the best medical care. The best medical care isn’t available on Earth, it can only be found on the orbiting space station for the upper classes – Elysium. Onboard, Jodie Foster rules with an iron first and she is not a fan of (amongst other things) unwanted visitors from Earth. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work what happens next but, nevertheless, it’s still quite fun watching how it plays out.
Sharlto Copley (star of D9, and also Howling Mad Murdoch in the A-Team film a while back)Â turns up, as a bad-ass sleeper agent, and really throws the cat amongst the pigeons. Creepy, dark, and murderous – Copley brings believability to what could be a one note and one dimensional bit part character.
But look, I know I started off saying that Elysium isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, and I stand by that. On its own, Elysium is a fairly decent sci-fi flick that ticks a good few entertaining boxes while casting an interesting light over the discrepancies between the rich and the poor. The problem is: I can’t see Elysium as a film on its own. It is forever going to be in the shadow of District 9.
I mean, the opening shots, the scenery, the robotics, the cinematography – all of it, you may as well be watching District 9 again. Hell, they could even be set in the same universe – and that’s no bad thing. Except, when District 9 blew me away I hoped and hoped and hoped that Elysium would too. It didn’t.
I’m not in the habit of giving scores for films that I see but, if pressed, I’d give Elysium a 7/10. It’s not terrible. But if I had to see anything again at the weekend I’d probably pick something else.
I know I went nuts about Pacific Rim a while ago, but it really has to be said: The Way Way Back (TWWB) is one of my favourite films of the year.
It really is that good.
Following the (mis)adventures of a 14yr-old boy, Duncan (played brilliantly by one Liam James), TWWB tells the story of what happens when a geeky kid, who can’t take being around his mum and soon-to-be-stepdad’s jagged relationship much longer, sets off and tries to find his own way. This isn’t fantasy, this isn’t Pan’s Labyrinth levels of youth-based escapism – this is purely about one boy’s attempt to find some respite, and what he discovers along the way.
GAH! – SO GOOD.
Cast-wise, I’ve already mentioned Liam James, TWWB also features Sam Rockwell, Steve Carell and Toni Collette. Rockwell, as ever, kills it as the irresponsible water park manager that Duncan befriends; I laughed out loud a lot at his constant one liners (which I don’t doubt were result of much improv).
Toni Collete plays worrisome/stressed/straggled mum really quite well. Not as haunted as 6th Sense, and not as on edge as About A Boy – I’d put her performance somewhere in between with a smattering of broken-heartedness. In this context, it works.
Which brings us to Steve Carell.
I don’t know why but, I left the cinema thinking that TWWB could possibly be one of my favourite Steve Carell performances ever. Yeah, I know. Why? Because by the end of the film I ended up hating his character, Trent. Just absolutely despising him. Brilliantly under-played, Steve Carell brings a nuanced distrust to the film that is the cause of much stress and pain for more than just one or two characters. It’s just so darn subtle that you don’t even realise how much he’s effing things up until long after the film. Great work, Steve.
Oh! I nearly forgot Allison Janney! Remember CJ from The West Wing? Yes, her. Janney turns up in, I guess you could call it an extended cameo, and pretty much steals every she appears in. AMAZING.
TWWB reminded me, at times, of The Descendants. But this time, told from the kids’ perspective. It’s a beautiful summer town, there’s major stuff going on in the adults’ lives, but this time ’round we get to see what the young ones get up to, how they react and ultimately, how they grow. God this film is good. It’s an old school coming of age movie, that warms you to your bones.
If your’re missing the sunshine a little bit (and if you can find a cinema that’s still showing it) then go and see The Way Way Back. It’s a good end of summer movie that I thoroughly enjoyed It made me laugh, it made me sad, and it made reaffirmed my faith in the human race.
I think it’s one of those films that will be a little bit of a sleeper hit. It’ll do okay at the cinema but will eventually be amazing on home release and people talk about it and recommend it at parties – ‘Oh, did you see The Way Way Back? You have to see this film’ – then everyone will see it and then everyone will realise that it’s full of the best of everything.
Go see it.
PS. Big love and thanks to Luc Pestille: without his recommendation, I doubt I would’ve gone to see this. Thanks bud.
@LucPestille just seen it; it was perfect. I doubt I would’ve seen it if it wasn’t for your recommendation. Thank you.
Right, let’s get one thing absolutely clear: the first solo Wolverine film, or to give it its full title: X-Men Origins: Wolverine, was terrible. Arguably, second only to X-Men 3 (or X-Men: The Last Stand, depending on what side of the Atlantic you’re on) as being the worst X-Men film to date and it was not going to take much to do better.
And yet, what with early dicking about on the director front (we’ll come back to this later) and one of Marvel’s most ferocious characters being restrained enough to fit under a 12A rating, I stepped into the cinema with a touch of concern. I’d read a few (but not many) reviews, and early signs were good(ish); with an open mind, I sat down for The Wolverine.
For those that haven’t been paying attention, Wolverine is one of my all time favourite comic book characters. Wolverine #90 (Google it) was the first comic book I ever owned, and ever since he’s been my mainstay and anchor to the Marvel Universe. Fans of the comic books will know that the character has deep links with Japan, both in story and mythology, and so it follows that the land of the rising sun is the back drop for Hugh Jackman’s latest outing as the adamantium-clawed X-Man.
About Mr Jackman…
The Wolverine marks the sixth time the Aussie has played Logan and he has never looked better. Since seeing the film  I’ve been revisiting the earlier X-Men films and it is, quite frankly, incredible how much bigger he is. How much more Logan he is. Swagger, confidence, ‘Bub‘, it’s there. He has never been more Wolverine and this is best take on the character to date. I’ll say it again: he is HUGE, and it works.
– Wolverine from The Wolverine could eat two Wolverines from X-Men for breakfast –
Back to the film…
Directed by James Mangold, The Wolverine picks up with our eponymous hero dealing with the fallout of the events of X-Men 3 – hiding away from the world, and himself. However, when an old friend from Japan comes calling to repay a favour, things just go from bad to worse.
I mentioned earlier about the directorial ‘issues’ that faced the film. James Mangold is a competent director – I really enjoyed his take on 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line is pretty darn good too – but the problem, or what I thought would be a problem, is that he’s no Darren Aronofsky.
Indulge me for a second, a couple of years ago Aronofsky was signed onto direct The Wolverine. I wrote at the time (during my 1400 word love letter to his film-making) something like:
As a character, Logan deals with many, many problems within; memory loss, heartache, blood lust, a constant battle with the feral side of his nature that he keeps locked up and away from the human race, a healing factor that, while keeping long term injury at bay, does not shield him from any pain he might endure… This is what excites me.
–
These themes, these issues if you will, in the hands of Aronofsky are all ripe for his visceral style of film-making. In the very first X-Men film, Rogue asks Logan [about his claws]: “When they come out, does it hurt?â€Â Logan’s response is almost muted through the pain he is so numbed to by now; “Every time.â€
– That one response. Those simple two words. They – to me at least – signify everything that could be great about an Aronofsky take on this flawed, yet supremely (anti-)heroic comic book character. The pain. The anguish. The day to day struggle with the ‘red mist’…
It was set to be unlike any ‘comic book film’ you had ever seen. And I was busting a gut to see it.
As history now tells us, Aronofsky did six months work on the film, then pulled. Citing not wanting to be apart from his family as his reasons, rumours were afoot that it was in fact ‘creative differences’ that led him to part ways with FOX (reluctant to put an R/18 rating against their golden goose)- and Mangold was brought in in his place.
It was hard to watch a film, knowing what might’ve been BUT – and this is a huge BUT – there are still elements of Aronofsky there. Hugh Jackman was a big champion of Darren’s work (having worked with him previously on The Fountain) and worked solidly with him to deliver a worthy vision for the second Wolverine film (and genuinely wanted to make it up to the fans post Origins), so it is with thanks to the film’s star that the quality of that original vision remains at the core.
The Wolverine is not your traditional comic book film. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that The Wolverine is an action film. It’s a character study, really, of our hero – what makes him tick, how he works and, ultimately, how he reacts under pressure. We’ve not seen this character in this situation before and, especially so far away from home, it makes for an enjoyable watch.
There are a few missteps, of course there are, but they can be forgiven as The Wolverine really does reward as the Wolverine film we have been all waiting for. Who cares if it’s lacking in mutants? Ghostly apparitions from previous films don’t bother me either. All I can say is, by the time the credits roll, you’ll be left feeling that you’ve actually been shown the level at which all future Wolverine films should be set. It’s just a shame that a) we had to sit through Origins to get here (that aside, the book is one of the best damn things I’ve ever read – so you should get that, like now) and b) we lost out on seeing the Aronofsky take.
Ah well, there’s always next time…
In closing, out of the six X-Men universe films to date, I would put The Wolverine in at a close number two (just under First Class). By that measurement, that means you should go and see it – right away. Right?
Whatley out.
PS. The mid-credits teaser is a doozy, definitely stay for that.
PPS: If you’re new to the X-Men franchise, which my plus one was, I strongly recommend watching the video below. Hell, even if you’re not new to the franchise, it’s still worth a watch. It’s funny, and it’s a decent refresher too.
And I’m not kidding. PACIFIC RIM was incredible. Just incredible. It’s everything you could want from a GIANT ROBOTS vs MONSTERS movie and more. Much, much more.
First off, if you only take one thing away from this review make it be this:
SEE PACIFIC RIM AT THE CINEMA. SEE IT BIG. SEE IT LOUD. BUT SEE IT HOW IT IS MEANT TO BE SEEN.Â
Both the Kaiju (the monsters) and the Jaegers (the robots) are huge. Monstrous even. And they have to be seen in IMAX to fully appreciate the magnitude of it all. But the spectacle of it all isn’t the only thing worth investing your time in, oh no. The story is actually fairly awesome, as is the emotional centre that sits within, underneath all that armour. As much as the trailer(s) would have you believe otherwise, PACIFIC RIM is not 131mins of non-stop gigantic city battles. It really isn’t.
There is humanity and story underneath and that itself is brought to life by a trio of decent leading actors. First, Charlie Hunnum, as our number one guy, Raleigh Becket, holds the film together really well and is not only our way in but also our way through this brave new world that we live in; supporting him we have the bloody fantastic Idris Elba (as Jaeger veteran Stacker Pentecost) and Rinko Kikuchi (as mystic Jaeger research assistant, Mako Mori). All three are great independently, but par excellence when thrown together – and it’s fortunate that that happens often.
The supporting characters are slightly one dimensional and, in places, seemingly only around for light relief. However each has a bearing on the story in some respect (again – I mention story – there is a lot of it here, and some smarts behind the Why? too) and each is given their time to shine… just.
The Good:
ALL OF THE GIANT THINGS (I may have mentioned this already)
The lead characters are, as mentioned, all really well fleshed out.
The title sequence: when it hits, it blows you away how much prologue you’ve just been given.
The CGI is second to none; you will believe these robot,s and these monsters, exist.
On a related note: this isn’t Transformers. The fight scenes are clear, there are rarely any cutaways and basically, you get to see EVERYTHING.
The Bad:
The story might be pretty good but the script, in places, is shockingly bad. If you’ve seen any of the trailers then you know that CANCELLING THE APOCALYPSE is possibly the singular most ridiculous line you’ve heard all year (well, outside of ‘UNLEASH THE WORLD ENGINE’ anyway). While they are few and far between, there are some humdingers in there and they CLUNK when they hit.
I mentioned one-dimensional characters earlier, there are a few – given the effort that goes into making so much of this world believable (especially the monster-ravaged China Town), it’s frustrating to experience so many unbelievable characters – and the acting isn’t super either.
There’s a bit, that I can’t talk about because it’s a bit spoilery, but when it happens you will, like me, scream at the screen: ‘WHAT?! WE HAD THAT THE WHOLE TIME?!’ – you wait, you’ll see.
The good news is, the bad is so far out-weighed by the awesome you can forgive PACIFIC RIM its shortcomings. It is an astonishing film and it is, without doubt, the best giant robots vs monsters film you will have ever seen.
I’m going to close off with something I read recently over by Tyler Cowen (on a blog post about how China is reshaping Hollywood):
You will note that in Pacific Rim they do not kiss, respect and loyalty to family are major motives in the plot, and there is nothing approaching a nude scene, except when the female lead sneakingly admires the torso of the male lead.
In a summer of mega-superheroes and leading men who always get the girl, PACIFIC RIM is a respectful giant of a movie, that stands up not only against the blockbusters of its ilk, but also against the better natures of some of the more lower budget efforts floating around too.
I first wrote about Oblivion back in December of 2012. I was excited about the premise, and I made five predictions on why it would be awesome. So, was I right?
Prediction 1: Tom Cruise does good sci-fi.
Yes, he does.
Prediction 2: It’s ‘WALL-E with guns’.
It is, and it isn’t. But as I said before: that’s no bad thing. This film borrows from many great sci-fi flicks actually, and the end result is better for it.
Prediction 3: It’s directed by Joseph Kosinski, so it’s bound to be good.
Kosinski’s last film was Tron: Legacy (which I loved) and there are echoes of that futuristic world scattered throughout. Again, this is no bad thing. The elder Kevin Flynn would live well in this universe, and he would approve of the decisions ultimately made there. Kosinski has a great eye and everything from the light used in the flying craft (see image above) to the base stations where our protagonist lives, has the touch of a talented sci-fi director. Good work sir.
Prediction 4: This future is imagined properly.
The year is 2070, the Earth is a barren wasteland, and yet the small areas we see are fully-fleshed out. To go into more detail would give away key plot parts of the film. Let’s just say that you believe that the Earth could end up this way; the vision of the Moon in this future is incredibly realised.
Prediction 5. I am a geek, so I’m definitely going to like it.
Right and wrong. I didn’t like this film because I’m a geek. I didn’t like this film because I’m a massive Tom Cruise fan (there, I said it). I liked this film because, as much as I was annoyed about the Morgan Freeman reveal shown in some (most/all) of the trailers, it still had so much left to show me. It just kept going, and going, and going, and going…
In closing, I really enjoyed Oblivion. Tom Cruise is great as Jack Harper and Andrea Riseborough is great (if not, better) as his tech-partner Victoria. Olga Kurylenko is OK, and the rest just serve to keep the plot moving forward.
For the nay-sayers out there you’ll be pleased to know there isn’t much TOM CRUISE RUNNING and there isn’t much TOM CRUISE BEING TOM CRUISE either. Oblivion is a well shot, well-directed, and well-thought through piece of sci-fi and definitely worth seeing big and loud.
The end.
Also in cinemas: TRANCE [terrible film, don’t bother].
whatleydude.com 