Cindy Prascik's Review of Rebel Moon: A Child of Fire

My dear reader(s): Over the Christmas break, my plan was to catch up with some movies.

First on my holiday docket: Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon.

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers, except the exact second when Charlie Hunnam turns up.

Rebels rise up against an evil space empire. (No, not *those* rebels or *that* space empire.)

Out of the gate, I want to offer a couple disclaimers: First, though I've kicked science fiction fantasy to the curb almost entirely, I like Zack Snyder and I hoped/expected to like this. Secondly, Netflix has some super algorithms, because the Rebel Moon picture on my home page is all Charlie Hunnam, though he doesn't appear until 51:05 and enjoys only sporadic screen time after. Well played, Netflix. Well played.

While almost any story bears traces of tales that came before it, Rebel Moon is nothing but derivative, Star Wars with a Mad-Maxey vibe...if Star Wars and Mad Max somehow managed to become the most boring movies ever made. I fell asleep three times in the first hour and had to keep rolling it back so I didn't "miss" anything.

The acting seems almost universally awful, but the dialogue is so badly written it's difficult to pin blame. The cast is full of well-known faces, most of whom are generally at least decent, so it's possible Meryl Streep couldn't have done anything with this material. Charlie's is a cheeky role that's particularly well suited to him, so he fares better than most. Nice visuals are marred by the odd bad green screen moment. Fight sequences are dull, awkward, and painfully fake-looking. The story, so often (better) told before, doesn't begin to earn its two-hours-plus runtime. A disappointment all 'round.

Rebel Moon clocks in at 133 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of strong violence, sexual assault, bloody images, language, sexual material, and partial nudity."

The fact that Rebel Moon, part two, is coming next year feels more like a threat than a promise. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Rebel Moon gets three.

Rebel Moon is now streaming on Netflix.

Until next time...

MOVIE REVIEW: REBEL MOON PART ONE: A CHILD OF FIRE

 

When a colony on the edge of the galaxy finds itself threatened by the armies of the tyrannical Regent Balisarius, they dispatch a young woman with a mysterious past to seek out warriors from neighbouring planets to help them take a stand.

Director: Zack Snyder

Cast: Sofia Boutella, Djimon Hounsou, Ed Skrein, Michiel Huisman, Doona Bae, Ray Fisher, Charlie Hunnam, Anthony Hopkins

Release Date: December 15, 2023

Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Fantasy, Sci-Fi

Rated PG-13 for sequences of strong violence, sexual assault, bloody images, language, sexual material and partial nudity.

Runtime: 2h 13m

Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon Part One: A Child of Fire is a lifeless space epic that never truly finds its footing as it mines bits and pieces of Star Wars by way of Seven Samurai while bringing nothing new to the table.  All of Snyder's visual bravado and his unrelenting love of slow motion is still here but it all feels perfunctory and overdone paired with a rather listless, all too familiar story.  Characterization is at minimal as the story journey's to collection a ragtag crew of rebels whom we have little to no emotional connection to as we move from introductory set piece to another.  It would be easier to ignore some of these story issues if the action was fun or interesting.  There's a surprisingly blandness to the action which is something you wouldn't expect from Snyder with Bae Doona's Nemesis battle with a spider woman being the only one that registers as any sort of tangible fun.  Likewise the performances are all rather lifeless with Sofia Boutella's lead character barely registering as determined and driven much less inspiring.  Anthony Hopkins voicework for the robot introduced in the first act and offers a small tinge of life but he quickly disappears from the story only to reappear at the very without another line of dialogue.   It doesn't help matters that the entire film serves as nothing more than set up for the second part which would be fine if there were some time invested in character development and world building.  Sadly, this first entry feels more like a Sucker Punch level misfire from Snyder which feels like a major step back for him as a storyteller.  
 

D

Cindy Prascik's Review of Last Looks

 

My dear reader(s), last weekend I was blessed with one of my favorite film happenings: a new Charlie Hunnam picture. On the docket, Last Looks...not just any Charlie Hunnam picture, but one where he's the STAR.

Spoiler level here will be mild, presumably nothing you wouldn't know from a trailer if you saw one, which I didn't.

An ex-LAPD detective is called to investigate when a drunken actor is accused of murdering his wife.

Last Looks is a solid mystery that still feels like it might have gone straight to video even pre-Covid. While Charlie earns top billing, the biggest name in the cast is definitely Mel Gibson. Putting aside the baggage that now carries, Gibson is teriffic and manages to garner sympathy for a character who is pretty unsympathetic. Practice makes perfect, I guess. For Hunnam, this is a great role and he's great in it. A Charlie Connoisseur, I've endured some lemons on his behalf, so this was a very happy surprise. The rest of the cast is as good as it needs to be, if unspectacular. The story takes some interesting turns, and maintains a dry sense of humor that keeps it from being too grim. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if a streaming service decided to spin this off into a series; both cast and characters seem ideally suited.

Last Looks clocks in at 110 minutes and is rated R for pervasive language.

Last Looks spins an enjoyable yarn, with some laughs thrown in for good measure. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Last Looks gets seven.

Last Looks is now available to rent or buy on Amazon or your cable/dish provider.

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Review of Jungleland

 

My dear reader(s): Much to my delight, this weekend's home viewing options included a new Charlie Hunnam movie, Jungleland. 

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers. 

Having landed in debt to some very dangerous people, a boxer and his trainer-brother are forced to transport a young woman cross-country. 

Jungleland is an oft-told tale that doesn't really have much new or interesting to recommend it. The story is predictably miserable and moves at a snail's pace, and characters have about as much depth as paper dolls. Bland performances from the noteworthy cast, led by Hunnam and Unbreakable's Jack O'Connell, might be blamed as much on pedestrian writing as on the actors themselves. It's a grim movie about unpleasant people with barely a single redeemimg quality among them. 

Jungleland runs 90 minutes and is rated R for "pervasive language, some sexual content, violence, and nudity." 

Jungleland is a depressing exercise that's disappointing on every level. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Jungleland gets three. 

Jungleland is currently available for digital rental ($9.99) or purchase ($14.99 SD/HD or $16.99 UHD). 

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of Extraction & The True History of the Kelly Gang

My dear reader(s), I hope you are keeping well — physically and mentally — in these strange, strange times.

Following a prolonged and entirely unintentional hiatus, yesterday I attempted an at-home double-bill, just I like I used to do at the cinema except the popcorn's not as good and nobody's kicking the back of my seat.

On yesterday's agenda, the Netflix original Extraction and the True History of the Kelly Gang.

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.

First up: Extraction.

When a drug lord's son is kidnapped by a rival kingpin, a troubled mercenary is his only hope of survival.

Extraction is a serviceable thriller that's heavy on fighting, chasing, and bleeding, and light on surprises. The movie trades on the fact that most of us probably *would* trust Chris Hemsworth with our lives, making it less insufferable than it could have been, despite its not quite earning its runtime. If Hemsworth is a guy that brings you to the movies, you won't be disappointed; this is definitely his movie. Inhabiting broadly-drawn characters, supporting players are neither good nor bad enough to make a lasting impression. (But if there's an award for obviousness, please hand it to David Harbour now.) By-the-numbers fight scenes are likewise fine but unremarkable, peppering a seemingly endless race to the finish. There's been a bit of buzz about the single(ish)-shot chase scene, but all its technical prowess couldn't keep me from longing for its eventual end, while predictable twists and redundant action diminish the plot's high stakes. Outside an eyeful of Hemsworth, Extraction's high points for me were unintentional (probably?) nods to Gladiator and Crocodile Dundee II, but, you know, desperate times and all.

Extraction clocks in at 116 minutes and is rated R for "strong bloody violence throughout, language, and brief drug use."

Like Triple Frontier before it, Extraction proves that Netflix can play the action game with the big boys. Like Triple Frontier before it, Extraction also makes one wonder if that's a game worth playing anymore.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Extraction gets five and a half.

Next on the docket, the True History of the Kelly Gang.

The maybe-sorta-kinda-trueish story of Australian outlaw Ned Kelly.

It's imperative that I preface what follows with a disclaimer: No matter what I want or expect of a movie, and no matter how far from that it may land, I always try to keep an open mind and give it a fair shake. That being said...

Y'all know I watched this movie for Charlie Hunnam, right? If you're thinking of paying for this film expressly to see Charlie, here's the scoop: Charlie's not in it a lot, but there's a lot of Charlie in it. His character is relevant only to the first 30-or-so minutes, and after that it's a whopping 90 minutes of Charlie-less movie. Forewarned is forearmed.

1917's George MacKay headlines this biopic, following the infamous Ned Kelly from his horrifying childhood through his brief, criminal, adult life. MacKay was nothing short of brilliant in 1917, and he's equally so here, though the material is less impressive. Russell Crowe is great, as usual, in a small but pivotal role. The True History of the Kelly Gang plods along at a snail's pace, making it seem very long indeed. Punk musical stylings and trippy, strobe-lit frames underscore Kelly's unhinged descent into violent, unlawful behavior. The movie sometimes seems to shock just for shock's sake, with vile language, grotesque violence, and uncomfortable situations. I don't flinch from any of the above when necessary and deftly handled, but here they're only sometimes the former and never the latter. Ultimately, the movie serves as a nice showcase for MacKay's talent, but has little else to recommend it.

The True History of the Kelly Gang runs 124 minutes and is rated R for "strong violence throughout, bloody images, pervasive language, sexual content, and some nudity."

The True History of the Kelly Gang features strong performances, but it struggles with the complexity of an anti-hero that history both loves and hates. Of a possible nine Weasleys, the True History of the Kelly Gang gets five.

Until next time, dear reader(s), please keep yourselves safe and well, and I'll hope to see you at the cinema soon!

MOVIE REVIEW: THE GENTLEMEN

Mickey Pearson is an American expatriate who became rich by building a marijuana empire in London. When word gets out that he's looking to cash out of the business, it soon triggers an array of plots and schemes from those who want his fortune.

Director: Guy Ritchie

Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Henry Golding, Michelle Dockery, Jeremy Strong, Eddie Marsan, Colin Farrell, Hugh Grant

Release Date: January 24, 2019

Genres: Action, Crime

Rated R for violence, language throughout, sexual references and drug content

Runtime: 1h 55min

Review:

The Gentlemen is a fun return to the genre that made Guy Ritchie a name back in the early 2000s.  It’s easy to forget how fun his older films like Lock Stock and Smoking Barrel and Snatch were because his subsequence films have fallen into a general blandness that’s made unmemorable.  That’s not to say that certain films like his Sherlock Holmes movies or his underrated The Man from U.N.C.L.E. aren’t fun but they felt way too polished and glossy.  The Gentlemen is a film that’s far better than it deserves to be.  The plot isn’t quite as clever as it thinks it is but the cast of characters and actors make the film so incredibly fun and watchable that you can overlook some of those failings.  Each of the cast delivers performances that make it clear that they are having the time of their lives in this film.  McConaughey gives us a solid mix of charm and underling menace with Charlie Hunnam delivering one of best film work thus far.  The supporting cast shines throughout with Hugh Grant, playing against type with great gusto, and Colin Farrell leaving the biggest impressions.  The story drags here and there but when the cast is clicking it’s the kind of throwback that makes you remember why people noticed Guy Ritchie’s type of filmmaking in the first place instead of something like Aladdin.

B

Cindy Prascik's Review of The Gentleman

Yesterday it was off to the pictures for back-to-back screenings of Guy Ritchie's the Gentlemen.

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.

The kingpin of Britain's largest marijuana enterprise attempts to ease into retirement and finds there's nothing easy about it.

Dear reader(s), it's important for me to note that I saw the Gentlemen twice yesterday. While I often see movies more than once (hey there, Jack Sparrow!), seldom do I see them more than once before I write about them. In this case, it made a difference of a half to a full point improvement on the film's final Weasley score, so that's material enough to warrant a mention.

The Gentlemen is a rollicking tale that's as clever as it is crass. A wordy script is liberally seasoned with swearing and slurs, weaving its way from twist to unexpected turn. The movie gets off to a bit of a slow start (which I found much less noticeable the second time around), but once it gets rolling, it is ROLLING, through a tense, violent, funny, and often surprising tale. The Gentlemen is blessed with a cast that is perfect in every way. Matthew McConaughey is crafty, dashing, and just the right amount of menacing as the mogul with an eye on retirement. Hugh Grant is hilarious as a sleazy PI looking out for number-one, while Henry Golding impresses as an up-and-comer with his eye on the prize. Downton Abbey's Michelle Dockery holds her own with the guys, no refined Lady Mary, this one, but, per usual, it's Colin Farrell who steals the show with a smart, funny turn. Annnnnnnd...to my Charlie People (and all you future Charlie People): this is a GREAT role for Charlie Hunnam. He gets just about the most screen time of anyone in the terrific ensemble, and he absolutely nails it. One of the reasons I'm proud to call myself a Charlie Person (and why I continue to evangelize new Charlie People) is because, despite his obscenely good looks, Charlie Hunnam has never traded on that commodity. He takes interesting roles in interesting projects, almost always aiming higher than he really has to. As McConaughey's smart, stoic, sweatered wing man, Hunnam is given a great opportunity to shine in the Gentlemen, and shine he does. One of my favorite performances from him to date.

The Gentlemen clocks in at 113 minutes and is rated R for "violence, language throughout, sexual references, and drug content." (I really, really feel like the "drug content" should be first there, but oh well.)

The Gentlemen is a humorous, exciting, well-crafted, and perfectly-cast film that takes viewers on a wild ride and effectively corrals an almost impossible number of moving pieces.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, the Gentlemen gets eight. Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Review of A Million Little Pieces

Thanks to less-than-enticing cinema listings and a sketchy weather forecast, this weekend I elected to seek out a new(ish) movie for home viewing. A Million Little Pieces (with Charlie Hunnam) was two bucks cheaper to rent than The Courier (with Gary Oldman), so I went with A Million Little Pieces. Dear reader(s), sometimes you get what you pay for.

Spoiler level here will be mild, if anyone cares, which you really shouldn't.

A young man with a long history of addiction lands in rehab and discovers that the best drug is Billy Bob Thornton.

Directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson and starring her husband Aaron Taylor-Johnson, the weighty subject matter makes A Million Little Pieces feel like a vanity project, the couple hoping to show off a bit with the serious material. Unfortunately, it's a superficial exercise, and the only thing it really shows off is Mr. Taylor-Johnson's not-so-little Mr. Taylor-Johnson. Yep, you heard me. In the first of the film's incessant attempts to shock for shock's sake, A Million Little Pieces comes right out of the box with the equivalent of a Hollywood unicorn: full frontal male nudity. (It also hits that beat again later on, for good measure.) Taylor-Johnson fronts a reasonably capable cast, including (as mentioned) Thornton and Hunnam, Hunnam's fellow Sons of Anarchy alum Ryan Hurst, Juliette Lewis, and one of my favorite "that guy who was in that thing" actors, David Dastmalchian. There's really nothing wrong with any of the performances, but there's not much anyone can do with the lame dialogue and paper-thin characters. The tale plays out predictably, fleshed out by clumsy flashbacks and punctuated with all the gross bodily functions a rehab story could ever need. The movie does such a poor job painting the lead character's picture that you might end up rooting for the drugs. If you're looking for a film that effectively depicts the layers of addiction and the challenges of recovery, well, you're gonna have to keep looking.

A Million Little Pieces clocks in at 113 minutes and is rated R for "drug material, language throughout, some graphic nudity, and sexual content."

If I had to think of one nice thing to say about A Million Little Pieces, it's that Charlie Hunnam looks really, really good for the ten measly minutes he's onscreen.

Next time I'll pay the two extra bucks for Gary Oldman. Of a possible nine Weasleys, A Million Little Pieces gets one. Until next time...

MOVIE REVIEW: TRIPLE FRONTIER

Former Special Forces operatives reunite to plan a heist in a sparsely populated multi-border zone of South America. For the first time in their prestigious careers, these unsung heroes undertake this dangerous mission for themselves instead of the country. But when events take an unexpected turn and threaten to spiral out of control, their skills, their loyalties, and their morals are pushed to a breaking point in an epic battle for survival.

Director: J.C. Chandor

Cast: Ben Affleck, Oscar Isaac, Charlie Hunnam, Garrett Hedlund,  Pedro Pascal

Release Date: March 6, 2019

Genres: Action, Adventure, Crime

Rated R for violence and language throughout

Runtime: 2h 2 min

Review:

Triple Frontier is an engaging and well acted film that’s far better than it should be.  The plot is simple enough and you can see where things are going from the get go. A few surprises here and there keep things interesting but J.C. Chandor and the cast make it all watch able throughout.  J.C. Chandor directs the action confidently and delivers some impressively tense sequences that really make an impact.  Ben Affleck leads the cast and brings some real depth to his character.  Sadly, the script doesn’t delve enough into his character or any of the others.  It’s a shame because each of the cast members is fully committed to their roles and deserved far meatier roles than they were given.  As such, it’s an enjoyable and watch able but frustrating at the same time because you can’t shake the feeling there’s a far better film in there somewhere.  As is, it’s still a solid throwback to some of the manly 80s and 90s action flicks even if it’s not quite the top tier.

B-

Cindy Prascik's Review of Triple Frontier

Thanks to the Death Plague currently decimating my office, this week I was able to catch the Netflix original film Triple Frontier.

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailer.

Having various degrees of success readjusting to civilian life, a suspiciously-handsome group of ex-Special Forces soldiers plans to steal a drug lord's ill-gotten gains.

Triple Frontier is just the sort of picture that still gets me out to the cinema: a big, shoot-em-up actioner with testosterone to spare, kinda like the Expendables, only with smaller people who take themselves a little more seriously.

Given my dwindling tolerance for the movie-going public, it's my good fortune that Netflix gave me the opportunity to catch this in the comfort (and quiet) of my own home.

While they aren't all exactly A-List, the aforementioned smaller people--Ben Affleck, Oscar Isaac, Charlie Hunnam, Pedro Pascal, and Garrett Hedlund--have a fair bit of big-screen cred among them. Each has his moment(s) to shine, and none is better or worse than exactly what the material requires. Triple Frontier is certainly action packed, yet at times I was surprised how slow it seemed. It's good that there's more going on than just gunfights and explosions (she says, grudgingly), but somehow the bits that *aren't* gunfights and explosions don't quite earn their keep. Part of the problem is that the trailer sells a heist film, but the actual heist is a relatively small part of the story; the majority of the film's runtime is burned on what follows. Effects and action/fight choreography are solid, but even the movie's most meaningful dialogue is awkward and stilted. Despite any other failings, the film boasts a groovy soundtrack and does a good job of sustaining tension right up to a predictable finish.

Triple Frontier clocks in at 125 minutes and is rated R for "violence and language throughout." It may not be the best movie of the year, but Triple Frontier holds its own.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Triple Frontier gets seven.

Fangirl points: You guys...CHARLIE HUNNAM! Until next time...

MOVIE REVIEW: KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD

Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not. 

Director: Guy Ritchie

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Eric Bana        

Release Date: May 12, 2017

Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action, some suggestive content and brief strong language

Runtime: 2 hr. 6 min.

Genres: Action, Adventure, Drama

Review:

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword isn’t a terrible movie by any stretch of the imagination.  That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of missteps made throughout.  It’ll take you a few minutes to figure out that Guy Ritchie isn’t out to replicate John Boorman’s classic Excalibur.  Ritchie delivers a fantasy movie that’s lifted some of the names from the Arthurian legends and uses them solely for name recognition.  They’re very little that feels familiar to anyone who has more than a passing knowledge of the story.  Thankfully there are inspired moments to be had throughout even if they are never consistent enough to make for a strong film.  Ritchie can’t seem to decide if he wants to make a full on fantasy film or a more gritty on the ground take.  It makes for a jarring viewing experience since some of the great moments from the cast are immediately followed by some frantic overly CGI’ed action sequences.  These sequences detract from the overall enjoyment because the film doesn’t let its strong cast shine.  As such, most of the actors are lost in the overall scheme of things creating a film that feels long and rushed at the same time.  It’s a real shame Guy Ritchie couldn’t choose a lane because there’s bit and pieces in the film that shine and could have made up a better film.

C

Cindy Prascik's Review of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the latest proof that Hollywood is out of new ideas: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.

 

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you haven't seen in the trailers.

 

A young King Arthur is forced to reclaim his birthright from his traitorous uncle.

 

As I'm sure you've heard (and heard and heard), King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has many problems. In the interest of finishing strong, we'll get those out of the way first. The movie's biggest issue is that it isn't comfortable in its own skin. It desperately wants you to take it seriously, but offers you no real reason to do so. Modern language, clothing, and haircuts constantly belie its medieval setting...never mind some astonishingly white teeth! Charlie Hunnam--bless his beautiful, beautiful self--is just not that great a dramatic actor. Don't misunderstand me, dear reader(s), I love this guy and have seen and will continue to see everything he does, but he'd be better served by taking more interesting roles in smaller movies than by attempting to carry huge expectations on his strong, broad shoulders. Wait...what? Sorry, I was distracted by the thought of Charlie's shoulders. The supporting cast is reasonably solid, but only Jude Law seems to grasp the silliness of this retelling of the classic tale, delivering a baddie who's a mere moustache-twirl shy of cartoonish. That's the bad news, and I'm surprised and delighted to report none of it is fatal.

 

On the plus side, Legend of the Sword features some pretty nice creature and battle effects. A couple quick-cut narrative bits are hilarious--the movie's best parts, really--though they seem out of place with the intended tone. The film runs a hair long for what it is, but it never seems too long...which regular readers will know is quite a compliment coming from me! Daniel Pemberton's score is utterly magical. Do get out and buy or download or stream it or whatever you kids do with your music these days. Finally, SPOILER ALERT: Charlie Hunnam is shirtless. More than once. Feel like that's worth the price of admission any ol' day.

 

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword clocks in at 126 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of violence and action, some suggestive content, and brief strong language." King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is less authentic legend than it is garden-variety action fantasy, but it's a surprisingly good time with some lovely eye candy. Of a possible nine Weasleys, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword gets six.

 

Fangirl points: Aidan Gillen (*swoon*)! Freddie Fox! Annabelle Wallis! 

 

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik’s review of Pacific Rim

Dearest Blog, today it was Godzilla versus Transformers as I hit the cinema for Pacific Rim.

Spoiler level here is mild, mostly limited to what you'd know from the trailers, though I must get specific on one point. In an attempt to remain as unspoilery as possible, I won't name the characters involved.

In the not-so-distant future, alien monsters dubbed "Kaiju" have come through a fault deep beneath the Pacific Ocean and are attacking Earth. Mankind creates giant robots called "Jaegers" to defend itself and fight back.

Pacific Rim is not a perfect film. It's not even a special film. It is, however, an enormous, entertaining summer blockbuster that not only MUST be seen at the cinema, but should be seen as soon as possible on the biggest screen you can find.

Dear reader(s), it says nothing very good about me that, since discovering Charlie Hunnam was going to be in a movie called Pacific Rim, at least 85% of my brain has, at all times, been occupied with finding some play on those words to bring up Hunnam's early work on Queer as Folk. Reader(s), it is to your benefit (or your great disadvantage) that I got nothing...but I still giggle a bit every time I think "Pacific Rim."

Anyway, getting the bad news out of the way first, here are Pacific Rim's (heheheheheh) weaknesses.

Too long, too long, too long! Pacific Rim is barely over two hours, but would have been better at 1:30-1:45. Might have stopped them shoehorning in so many......forced emotional moments. Father/son. Hero/heroine. Mentor/protégée. Person/dog. There's about as much chemistry as between me and my cat. (Hint: my cat hates me.) Sometimes it's the writing, sometimes it's the acting, sometimes it's a li'l of both, but it's extra-annoying because the movie stands well on other merits and could have done without any of it.

Charlie Hunnam is the weakest link in a pretty strong cast, and I wasn't impressed by his leading lady, Rinko Kikuchi, either. Sadly, the same is true of Hunnam in his TV series, Sons of Anarchy. A good actor never appears to be acting, but with Hunnam, it's always obvious how hard he's working. He's not a terrible actor, by any means, but he's not strong enough to front a project of this magnitude, and he's consistently outshone by lower-billed cast. Kikuchi's longing looks in his direction are inappropriate for the character and for the circumstances and set me off right out of the gate. (But who hasn't looked at Charlie Hunnam that way a time or two, right??)

Some of the monster/robot fight scenes drag on too long, and jiggly, super-close-up shots make it difficult to see what's happening....not to mention making me a bit seasick.

Finally, there's one dippy moment where a character is unconscious and possibly dead, and rather than...oh, you know, DOING ANYTHING TO HELP...another character sits there sobbing, "Don't go! Don't go!" I wanted to throw something at the screen.

The good news is there's plenty of good news to outweigh the bad.

Pacific Rim looks spectacular in every way. My cinema doesn't have IMAX or any other special technology--hell, I didn't even see it in 3D--but those giant monsters and huge robots are overwhelming and seem almost ready to come off the screen. I love that the monsters are actually scary, credit I'll very rarely give, and the robots so intimidating. Very, very impressive technical and design work.

Pacific Rim boasts a super supporting cast, led by the incomparable Idris Elba. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Charlie Day and Torchwood's Burn Gorman are terrific, together and separately, as a pair of scientists among all the military personnel. Clifton Collins, Jr. gets more screen time than I anticipated, and more Clifton Collins, Jr. is always better than less Clifton Collins, Jr. And...Ron Perlman's brief but entertaining turn totally steals the show. Let's be honest, too: Charlie Hunnam is easy on the eyes, and I won't complain about looking at him for two hours under any circumstances, even if he's not Oscar worthy!

Pacific Rim tells a solid, original(ish) story that reels you in from start to finish. It presents characters you're rooting for because the movie's made you care about them, and not just because you're supposed to be pulling for the "good guys."

Pacific Rim clocks in at 132 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief language." It's a top-notch summer blockbuster, and there's something very wrong with a world where the movie-going public fails to make it summer's biggest hit.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Pacific Rim gets seven and a half.

Until next time...




Wait...what was I saying?

MOVIE REVIEW: PACIFIC RIM

Filmmaker Guillermo del Toro teams up with Legendary Pictures to bring audiences a unique take on the monster film with this sci-fi production. Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) stars as a washed-out controller and pilot of a series of robots called Jaegers, which are put into production after Earth is invaded by a species of giant monsters, the Kaijus. Thor's Idris Elba leads the rest of the starring cast, which includes Charlie Day, Rob Kazinsky and Ron Perlman. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Charlie Day, Rinko Kikuchi, Ron Perlman.

Release Date: Jul 12, 2013

Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief language

Genres: Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Review:

While I know Pacific Rim is meant as a loving homage to Godzilla films personally I had my head floating in thoughts of other repurposed anime cartoons from my childhood (Robotech, Voltron, etc…). Whether it was intentional or not Pacific Rim tapped into those much loved recesses of my memory with such verbosity that I literally got chills when a Jaegers pulls out a sword in the outreaches of the atmosphere. Guillermo del Toro has delivered something that was missing from the robust manically excess of Michael Bay’s Transformers film, consistent fun. Yes the characters are broadly drawn and closer to cartoon character than real human beings but that never keeps the entire thing from being 2 and half hours of jaw dropping intensity and fun. The cast, a mini FX channel reunion, does a solid job of grounding the action while never getting in its way. Charlie Hunnam, still carrying that Jax Teller walk and sound, is a solid lead and has a decent if not great connection with his costar/love interest Rinko Kikuchi. Idris Elba is appropriately stoic and inspiring when needed. Personally I think Guillermo del Toro has created a modern day classic which will age very well. It’ll leave a generation of children fills with dreams of robots and monsters. I’ll just keep praying someone will make me a Robotech film, I’d love to see that before I die…

A

[Trailer] PACIFIC RIM

The official trailer for Guillermo Del Toro’s Pacific Rim has been released and it’s full of geektastic scenes.

It is a bit strange hearing Charlie Hunnam narrate the trailer, if you’re a fan of Sons of Anarchy you’ll know what I mean, but the visual look strong even if the CGI is just a tad suspect.

Having Idris Elba close out the trailer with a great rallying speech was a wonderful choice.

I’m a big Del Toro fan to begin with and this looks like he’s just going to be having a great time delivering a monster movie he wants to make….







Filmmaker Guillermo del Toro teams up with Legendary Pictures to bring audiences a unique take on the monster film with this sci-fi production. Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) stars as a washed out pilot of a series of robots called Jaegers, which are put into production when Earth invaded by a species of giant monsters, the Kaijus. The Brothers Bloom's Rinko Kikuchi co-stars as a trainee whom Hunnam is psychically paired with in order to pilot the last beacon of hope - a decommisioned Jaeger aimed to stop the Kaijus once and for all. Thor's Idris Elba leads the rest of the starring cast, which includes Charlie Day. Rob Kazinsky and Ron Perlman. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Release Date: Jul 12, 2013

Genres: Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Charlie Day, Rinko Kikuchi, Ron Perlman