Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Review: Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘Pacific Rim’

by Rodrigo Perez
July 10, 2013 9:02 AM
  • |

Lines are being drawn in the sand as we speak and people are taking side—and if the chatter is to be believed, the entire fate of the movie industry rest in the hands of one very big, wet, hulking mass of a high-concept movie. It’s distracting, but one can’t really discuss Guillermo del Toro’s upcoming science-fiction action adventure “Pacific Rim” without addressing some of the baggage it's arriving in theaters with this weekend, at least for a certain (probably very small) sect of the movie going public. If “Pacific Rim” fails, if this “original” movie cannot win at the box-office and if it (gasp) loses to the nefarious, made-from-pure-evil “Grown Ups 2” from comedy Satan himself Adam Sandler, the cinematic universe will implode and will come to an end. The LucasBerg prophecies shall come to pass, theaters will topple to the ground and 3D will melt off the screens with a bitter hiss. James Cameron will plummet past you in flames screaming as he falls to his fiery doom. Ladies and gentleman, if you do not see “Pacific Rim” this weekend, you are not doing your civic duty as a movie-loving cinephile and you are therefore siding with the forces of reboots, remakes, reups, sideways sequels and other tools of the Hollywood Devil.

Melodrama aside (much of which is rather fitting), some of this might be true if “Pacific Rim” were actually original and not just a large-scale pastiche of different pop culture references including Japanese manga/anime ("Voltron," "Robotetch," etc.), video games (“Half Life”) and "Godzilla"-esque monster movies where creatures rise from the deep and try and destroy Tokyo (or in this case, the Pacific rim of Earth, which you bet, includes Japan). Not that there’s anything wrong with pastiches of any kind, but it’s a little glib to cling to the idea 'Rim' is a wholly singular work. Some of this might matter if original ideas were exclusive to good movies. Point being, Guillermo del Toro’s “Pacific Rim” is being touted, by some, as the make or break film to champion, lest original, true, honest and authentic cinema be burned to the ground for all time. Much of this partisan lobbying is conveniently blind to the fact that “Pacific Rim” is rather generic, familiar and cliche-ridden; ambitious ideas and spectacular designs wrapped up in a banal and tediously told story that’s as clamorous, loud and disorienting as any Michael Bay movie (though thankfully, not as vulgar).

Set in the near future of approximately 2023, “Pacific Rim” could stand to come with a field manual and a glossary. There’s kaijus (monsters), jaegers (big ass robots), a neuro-bridge called “the drift” and plenty of sci-fi mumbo jumbo that will confuse anyone not fluent in nerd-ese. As it is, the movie features a 20-minute opening to explain how monstrous Godzilla-like creatures from the deep rose out of the sea and threatened the very existence of mankind by wiping out some of Earth's most populated cities. The global response: fight fire with fire and build massive robots to fist fight with monsters. (Because obviously, how else would you stop monsters other than creating supersized robots to street fight with them on public streets? Seems rational...) Concurrently, the audience is told the backstory of Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam), a former Jaeger pilot now adrift after losing his brother (Diego Klattenhoff, Mike from “Homeland”) in a battle that saw their robot mostly destroyed.

Flashing forward six years, global bureaucrats are sick of funding Jaegers. This billion-dollar effort is failing and allied governments have decided to erect gigantic walls as counter measures instead. But Jaeger General Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) is not really having it, taking his remaining robots and dwindling resources and creating a resistance to fight back against these apocalyptic monsters. Of course, in uncertain times, with your back against the ropes, sometimes you have to call on unlikely heroes. Cue the “washed up” Hunnam, the scientist Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), who means much more to the General than anyone knows, and a thought-to-be obsolete model of Jaeger (they’ll be kicking it old school eventually, natch).

Initially, del Toro’s movie doesn’t seem interested in anything other than getting monsters to fight robots, eschewing how those sea monsters came to earth—other than a brief mention in the prologue that they’re travelling through an interstellar portal. But “Pacific Rim” quickly reveals that it’s actually interested in telling the story of the key humans tasked with fighting back these beasts from the deep. Rooted in character, beating human hearts and interpersonal dynamics, this would seem to be wise idea in a movie about monsters vs. robots, if it weren’t for the fact that every character in the film has the emotional maturity of a teenager.

Look, the audience understands that it’s the end of the world and stakes are high, but the film's angsty melodrama is a serious deal breaker. Most of the character conflicts within feel like high school drama, every situation dialed up to a panicky 11 and characters are constantly shouting in a small variation of distressed histrionics. And none of the characters (or caricatures rather) are particularly unique, involving or especially interesting (and Hunnam as the lead is flat). The two Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum scientists (Charlie Day and Burn Gorman) are obnoxiously shrill anti-comic relief and Day’s bleating is so piercingly odious you’re praying he’s going to get crushed like a bug. Every electioneering speech that comes out of Idris Elba’s mouth is seemingly taken from the hammy "Henry V"/”Braveheart” monologue auto-generator and Ron Perlman is once again playing the requisite eccentric Guillermo del Toro Ron Perlman character (Clifton Collins Jr. and Max Martini also co-star).

“Pacific Rim” also has cliches to spare. Many of them seemingly swiped rather obviously from “Top Gun.” There’s Charlie Hunnam’s maverick character—he’s too unpredictable, doesn’t follow orders and “improvises”—and all the other jarhead teams are worried his incalculable nature will spell their doom. One teammate (Robert Kazinsky) is completely frosty to Raleigh like an ice man, mocking and goading him on, but of course by the end of the picture his respect has been earned and he’ll be his Jaeger wingman any time. Of course the one man who believes in him is his chief pilot instructor Viper...errr, his former General Pentecost.

Guillermo del Toro is a masterclass world builder; his creature and mecha designs are impressive, even stunning to look at and a lot of “Pacific Rim” looks sensational (when you can actually see it). But it’s certainly not enough to make for a compelling movie. Milieu and visuals being del Toro’s forte, the director strangely loses ground with fight sequences; the one area he should always be excelling in. The murky 3D doesn’t do any favors to sequences set at night, in the rain, or under the dark ocean, but many of the battle scenes are surprisingly incoherent and muddled. Every fight scene contains an 11th hour rally back from defeat that feels tired and predictable by the final fight. (Oh, look they robots have an ace up their sleeve! Wait, why weren’t they using them the whole time?). The collateral damage levels are high too, but strangely enough, unlike “Man Of Steel,” constituents of the film don’t seem to care because its “fun” factor is much higher.

A movie seemingly specifically created to deliver a wet dream for the Comic-Con crowd, "Pacific Rim" is underwhelming and actually fairly unimaginative in its storytelling considering the amazing universe it creates. It remains to be seen if regular civilians are going to cotton to the movie like online audiences already have (and it seems very doubtful). “Pacific Rim” will be a total fun dumb blast if all you crave is the promise of a big messy brawl of gigantic robots and monsters from the murk with a scrappy crew of humans to save the world too. "Pacific Rim" rewards you with all that, but the implication of something more is deeply stifled. If your basic movie needs demand a little bit more—logical premises; interesting, marginally original characters; dialogue that doesn’t reek of throaty, aspirational monologue after monologue—“Pacific Rim” will leave you feeling hollow and wanting. [C-]

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Merhabi | July 29, 2013 5:47 PMReply

    This movie was absolutely fucking amazing.

  • Kidakor | July 17, 2013 2:11 PMReply

    If people can't be arsed to memorize THREE goddamned neologisms for 132 minutes they shouldn't go see movies ever again and do humanity a favor and remove themselves from the gene pool by bullet-to-the-brain.

  • lee | July 16, 2013 4:03 PMReply

    saw this in 3d at a cinema with 4k projectors, i was very happy with the film.
    great action scenes, the acting from some of the cast was a bit lacking but that can be forgiven because giant fricking robots.

  • KF | July 15, 2013 7:57 PMReply

    In 2D, the action scenes were very easy to follow. Maybe the 3D is an issue, but otherwise, they're certainly not incoherent.

  • dave | July 15, 2013 4:00 PMReply

    Man, if I was 10 years old this movie would have made me cream my jeans. But as a 25 year old adult I just couldn't handle some of the plot holes and lack of logic in the script. The fight scenes were awesome and really got my testosterone going. The sound was AMAZING. But all the character-driven stuff just fell flat. Kudos to GDT for taking a chance on Charlie Hunamm as the lead but I don't think he's cut out for it. If Jaeger pilots are rockstars then why is Raleigh slumming it out building a wall? Dude should be happily retired sipping top shelf margs on an island somewhere with all the coin he made his first go as a pilot.

  • AQN | August 4, 2013 12:26 AM

    Raleigh basically just lost his one and only brother. He's used to having 2 people sharing his mind but now hes alone. Of course he wouldn't return. He feels empty inside, if he goes into another Jaeger, his memories would kick in.

  • Kevin | July 14, 2013 10:58 PMReply

    Listen, I love terribly over the top and awesome action movies. I thought 6 Fast 6 Furious was awesome, and delivered everything I wanted. This was different. The action was dull, boring and repetitive was not spectacular like you would want, nay, need in a movie like this. The acting, and writing, were intentionally cringe inducing, which I can deal with on a limited basis if the film also delivers a large amount of fun. This did not.

    I've never wanted to get up and leave a movie while I was watching it before. I nearly did during this movie. Twice.

    I'll be honest, this is the worst movie I've ever paid to see. I couldn't have been more disappointed in it.

  • CJ | July 16, 2013 9:15 AM

    Fast and Furious was utter trite - I did get up and leave halfway through.

  • Felix | July 14, 2013 11:57 PM

    Agree. This movie was boring as shit. A nerd man-child's wet dream nothing more.

  • Weird Mike | July 14, 2013 12:24 PMReply

    Everyone wants something to "wow" them, but no one can step up to the plate like the people being criticized can because they're making no effort to go beyond the keyboard.

  • Nibblo | July 26, 2013 5:10 AM

    You are so absolutely right.

  • CWG | July 16, 2013 11:29 AM

    Well stated and true.

  • Nat Rivera | July 15, 2013 1:03 PM

    You're rigth!

  • RRP | July 13, 2013 8:47 PMReply

    Guillermo del Toro (finally one director) Decided to bring my childhood memories to the screen in a visual spectacular way. It has scenes that will remind a lot of people mecha anime series like Mazinger Z, Gaiking, Gundam and most recently Evangelion. Obviously this reviewer looks like he doesn't has a clue of where this movie came from. It is a great summer popcorn movie. I loved it and base on the overall reviews people and overall critics enjoyed it. Is understandable for me some people will not like this stuff but instead of wasting their time trolling, they can go to the theater and pick something else. There a lot of movies out there.
    Because I loved this concept when I was a kid and I was waiting like 30 years to see something live action, I went watch it first day and I was no dissapointed, The Special Effects are top notch, the story is typical but entertain and is a lot of fun. Guillermo del Toro delivered! But this movie is not to win the Oscar for best picture, maybe Sound and Special Effects, still a great summer adventure.

  • nadir | July 13, 2013 7:43 PMReply

    only reason Pacific Rim is flopping in America is because its not your typical blockbuster where America or an american is saving the world in America. Large parts of the movie is based in Hong Kong, with up to 5 actors from the film English and another Japanese. The american actors are a smaller minority in the film. American audiences cannot stand this, they want there Blockbusters to be patriotic to Uncle Sam like the Transformers movies

  • Haley | July 20, 2013 7:23 PM

    And all Muslims just want to watch movies about stoning women, blowing up buildings, and killing Americans. Get some fucking knowledge man.

  • RRP | July 13, 2013 8:54 PM

    The movie is not flopping in America, its hard to say right now is a flop after a probably approx 40 million weekend. The word of mouth (its being good so far) could keep the movie with some legs during its showing time. But with American audiences you never know. they still made Grown ups 2 (destroyed by critics) The first movie in America.

  • ska-triumph | July 13, 2013 4:26 PMReply

    I don't understand this review; in content and in its premise. I've been all over the other blogs and social media and, while the buzz for PR was challenging, there was hardly a mention of THIS film being The One that would make or break big-budget original sci-fi content. The ever-early-starting summer season already had OBLIVION and AFTER EARTH. Are you saying that those earlier original properties weren't talked about as much as this one, in changing the studio game?
    This is essentially a LEGENDARY film - at least 75% of the production - and they've moved over to NBCU to expand their media reach. So, with their track record, Tull and co. took, I'm sure a calculated risk in funding Del Toro's film.

    FYI, I've seen the film twice in IMAX 3D, on the real screen at AMC Lincoln Square. As I saw MOS and other big blockbusters that I thought worth my time. After seeing the promos/trailers for the film, I got the tone. I didn't expect it to be a brooding intellectual affair; not necessarily a thinking man's sci-fi flick. I expected it to be visuall bombastic and fun. Sure there were some logic holes - and surely the acting and dialogue left much to be desired (everyone played their role as an easy-to-read archetype) - but the thrill was in the joy behind the filmmaking. In the massive scope and interplay between flesh and metal. Working to essentially legitimize and personify these robot Jaegers.

    For those who won't see it based on this review, versus your impressions - or ridiculous comparison to MOS, in terms of collateral damage - that's too bad. The author was way off on his points, IMHO: the set pieces had pace and spatial awareness (I was never lost on what was going on) - and the 3D in our theater was just fine (okay it did seem to rain a lot); there weren't any obsessive long monologues (pure bullshit there, only Elba's PENTECOST has that repeated trailer moment).

    The destruction was massive but considered ahead of time. Moments were shot in the film to show how the cities were evacuated/had underground bunkers. Unlike MOS, I felt more for Charlie Day's NEWT and the scared Chinese around him then any random citizens in MOS or STID. The constant worry between the Jaeger players was keep the monsters away from the coasts. Not once did a 9/11 reference enter my head since the whole premise WAS OUTRAGEOUS in the first place. And there weren't glorious beats watching skyscrapers fall; but certainly Jaegers were thrown and bashed up into them - and I felt the pilots shake and struggle to overcome that destruction.

    Hello, what's effing original about ANYTHING coming out of the studios? Clearly, Del Toro, Beacham, ILM et al. were inspired by both the monster and robot/mech stories that came out of Japanese post-war and anime-pop cultures. The film is clearly a hybrid of those traditions but done with the biggest production toys to date. That's not a negative as written above; it's certainly risky. But hey GODZILLA is being remade - and a fifth JURASSIC PARK is in development - so that's okay right? Wonder what these same critics would've said if that live-action AKIRA was every put on screen... That is was derivative or that it was so "original." Bullshit bitching to me.

    As tired as this critic and some of his peers have in "these types" of movies, it gets really tired and lazy, to me as a regular reader and filmmaker, that they keep throwing in COMIC-CON and FANBOY in every conversation/post like they're ruinous parasitic and spoiled entities. An effin' generation ago, no one in mainstream media wanted to touch what the kotaku folks of the world were living and breathing. Well, many of them have grown up to write properties and/or direct them in multi-million dollar films that these media conglomerates seek to make their profit margins. Somehow these creative folks have to navigate between the nerds and the hoi polloi to make something worthwhile in dozens of markets.

    I for one thought PR to be the most fun sci-fi/superhero flick this year - consistently massive, tactile, and bold enough.

  • Kamille Bidan | July 13, 2013 12:46 PMReply

    "references including Japanese manga/anime ("Voltron," "Robotetch," etc.), video games (“Half Life”) "
    lol dropped the review right there, you don't know shit and are talking out of your ass Mr Perez.
    2/10 you made me reply

  • Gagarin | July 12, 2013 8:56 PMReply

    I had the feeling I was 'joining the movie already in progress' with Pacific Rim. No build up. Characters I'm supposed to care about but don't. A skip of '5 years later', the idea of a wall introduced and then disposed of in 40 seconds. Too fast, too much, and too little of what was important.

    Oh, and can we PLEASE get a wide shot sometime? Why is everything in these SFX movies a close up or medium shot? Why is everything so claustrophobic? Why was everyone Australian/British? Why would you not just keep aiming guns/nukes at the portal and just zap them as soon as they come through instead of being surprised every time they show up? Why would they stop building robots but instead build a giant wall (how would that be easier? why not do both?)

    Why was Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla (2002) a much better and effective film for 1/20th the budget?

    How many bombs can Legendary Pictures take?

  • RRP | July 13, 2013 9:11 PM

    Wow I never read somebody trying to find so much logic in a Sci-Fi movie. LOL
    #1 The movie got a lot of wide shots.
    # it was answered in #1 you have different shots in this movie
    #3 It is claustrophobic because we are talking about a Monster vs. Robot movie and still considered a disaster movie
    #4 The characters were from different nationalities and the movie is taking place in Hong Kong
    #5 Not all countries have the capability to get nukes and the guns to strike and if a nuke explode will kill a lot of people not only the Kaiju
    #6 The wall is the only thing with sense you are asking but the robot program was not working in that moment and it looks they were running out of choices
    #7 Probably not all countries have the resources
    #8 Godzilla vs. Mecha was done base on the budget of that time and those special effects worked back them, not now
    #9 Man of Steel was not a bomb it was a big success and PR is being a success so far in the foreign market and had a pretty good weekend in the US .....

  • Spike | July 13, 2013 6:22 PM

    Keep dropping nukes on one spot of the earth every week sounds like a great idea.That being said this movie is about giant robots fighting giant monsters quit trying to rationalize the world of a mech/kaiju movie.I saw this movie for one reason to see giant robots fight giant monsters

  • Armando Valle | July 11, 2013 1:42 PMReply

    What a hipster garbage review. Guess it's not a Cannes Film Festival award winning film so the reviewer takes a shit all over it. Guillermo Del Toro is a very talented filmmaker and he based this on many iconic anime from the 80s which many of us grew up with. Our experience was just as cinematically important as any self-important art films this reviewer holds up. Not only does he take a shit on Del Toro, but also on James Cameron. What an obnoxious, deeply biased review.

  • Nat Rivera | July 15, 2013 1:10 PM

    What's wrong with this people?

  • Rony | July 10, 2013 2:22 PMReply

    Hey Playlist, shut the fuck up!

  • STACKER PENTECOST | July 10, 2013 3:53 PM

    You showed 'em!

  • Piotr | July 10, 2013 11:53 AMReply

    Everyone's like, "How come we can't have giant fighting robot movies? They're cool. I want them." But if I came to your house and said, "I'm going to take all your money and use it to make a giant robot fighting movie," what would you say in response? "Yes, please." I don't think so. I think you'd say, "Am I going to get my money back?" To which I'd say, "Who knows? I hope so." To which you'd say, "Maybe can you spend my money on something that's GUARANTEED to make my money back? So I don't have to worry about losing all of it?" To which I'd say, "Nothing's guaranteed in this business. But, people do like Adam Sandler. That's been proven." To which you would (hopefully, if you have any brains) say, "In that case, let's make an Adam Sandler movie instead." Follow the $$$, like Lester Freeman said. Think of it as your money and all this will start to make sense. Sure, you want a giant robot fighting movie, fine - but think of it as your money and you'll start to see that it's a business, not a backyard pinata party. Would YOU spend YOUR money on this? And not just a "safe" KickStarter amount. ALL your money. EVERY PENNY you own. Would you do it? Probably not. You'd go with what's safe, with what's proven.

  • Piotr | July 10, 2013 11:57 AM

    Also, tell me this guy is actually named STACKER PENTECOST. There's your first problem, nerds. "Hey Mom & Dad, how about I treat you to a nice dinner and then take you to a movie? The price of three movie tickets would go a long way toward helping the cause of original cinema stories." Your Mom & Dad: "Is the lead character's name STACKER PENTECOST?" You: "Yes, it is." Your Mom & Dad: "Count me out. That sounds like bullshit."

  • David Peñasco Maldonado | July 10, 2013 11:06 AMReply

    Surprise, surprise... It's a crap, yeah? I can't imagine why Guillermo del Bobo has been received a blank check from WB and Legendary Films to make the most expensive fan film of the history. Godzilla vs. Robots? Seriously, were they drunk when approved this mess?

  • Alan B | July 13, 2013 9:46 PM

    No, that is a false dichotomy. There is PLENTY that people can do besides choosing between two tired films: you know, there is other things in life than just watching films.

  • RRP | July 13, 2013 9:17 PM

    Cool! So don't watch it and go see animals peeing on kids and people, guys farting, burbing, etc in Grown ups 2! LOL
    Blank check? Please!

  • CB | July 10, 2013 12:47 PM


  • SunPapushi | July 10, 2013 10:40 AMReply

    Those first 2 paragraphs are spot on. This is why I read this site.

  • Malcolm | July 10, 2013 10:07 AMReply

    CRAZY IDEA: You guys should have a separate set of writers to write reviews, but they stay COMPLETELY insulated from the blogosphere and other reviews. Just review films and go back to their normal lives.

    This constant toggling between groupthink and severe contrarianism in these reviews is killing me. I don't care about what Comic Con crowds will think about this or what your fellow bloggers have been saying about it. Review the motherfucking work, and try to leave the opinions of others out of it.

  • BradZuhl | July 10, 2013 10:06 AMReply

    White House Down wasn't based on a pre-existing property, so why didn't the fate of movies rest on that one? To say that if the movie going public rejects Pacific Rim it means they don't want original films is absolutely ridiculous. This movie has looked dumb and cheesy from the get-go and that's why people aren't going to go see it. And del Toro has even said he saves his "adult" type movies (i.e., something with a brain behind them) for his Spanish language work.

  • Alan B | July 10, 2013 4:54 PM

    I think Hollywood has ALWAYS been risk-averse, and that only directors with serious cachet are able to do what they want however they want to do it.

  • cory everett | July 10, 2013 11:07 AM

    But would you agree that studios are by nature risk-averse? And that if they can hedge their bets on an existing property they would prefer to do so? If you saw a bar graph of the number of large budgeted movies each summer based on pre-existing material vs. those which are not, I'm sure you would see that line falling pretty steeply.

  • Alan B | July 10, 2013 10:56 AM

    Yeah, don't you know that the two highest grossing films of all time were based on comic books, right? Weren't they?

    Fucking blogger groupthink ...

  • cory everett | July 10, 2013 10:40 AM

    Off the top of my head I can think of 3 blockbusters this summer not based on pre-existing material: "White House Down," "Pacific Rim" and "Elysium." WHD flopped, if Pac Rim and Elysium do too, I think studio execs would definitely think twice about making huge films not based on established properties in the future. You don't?

  • James | July 10, 2013 9:48 AMReply

    goddamn finally someone pointing out the hypocrisy of dooming man of steel for its massive action and destruction, just to, a mere month later, jump all over pacific rim. Also, and maybe I'm just cynical, but I find del Toro, Rian Johnson and Edgar Wright's constant mingling- and "buddying" - with the bloggers really troublesome. You its for PR and soliciting good reviews, and I wonder how many are in del Toro's pocket, at least unconsciously.

  • Vincent | July 13, 2013 4:11 PM

    I'm right with you re. the buddying up of those filmmakers. Edgar Wright just had everyone of the film blogging community flown to London and put up for two nights for the The World's End premiere. Like the reviews are going to be anything other than favourable after that. It's shameless.

  • Alan B | July 12, 2013 10:13 AM

    Who needs an argument when you can repeatedly write "context" ... as if the term EXPLAINS EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

  • Cory Everett | July 11, 2013 5:18 PM

    Context is everything.

  • Alan B | July 10, 2013 5:01 PM

    So your problem is that 'Man of Steel' features causality - in which there are consequences to human beings when these buildings are destroyed - whilst 'Pacific Rim' doesn't and simply presents the mass destruction as without any serious ramifications.

  • Ken Guidry | July 10, 2013 11:48 AM

    Yeah, that's basically the point I was trying to make. The context is different.

  • Cory Everett | July 10, 2013 11:05 AM

    I think another difference is the way in which those scenes are presented. Metropolis is a modern-day largely populated city and the sequences of destruction (gray/ashes/buildings falling) are meant to evoke 9/11 pretty deliberately. "Pacific Rim" is set in the future where most of these cities have been evacuated and the destruction is taking place at the knees of these giant machines/monsters. Except for one sequence (a flashback, which is admittedly pretty chilling) it's not focusing on people on the ground being caught under buildings as they fall.

  • Alan B | July 10, 2013 10:54 AM

    Yeah, Superman caused ALL THAT DAMAGE ... like when he was on the other side of the planet trying to stop a world ending machine, when Zod admits he has a death wish and wishes to kill all humans on earth. I mean, he CAUSED Zod to try and kill those people, right? In 'Pacific Rim', "clunky robots fighting monsters" which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT because Ken Guidry says so ... and for no other reason. *sigh* I get embarrassed for people who are THAT desperate to hate a film that they'll find ANY bullshit reason to do so.


  • Ken Guidry | July 10, 2013 10:42 AM

    I don't feel it's hypocrisy, but rather how both films treat its destruction and massive action. See, for me, "Man of Steel" doesn't work because the majority of the destruction is completely senseless and unnecessary. Superman shouldn't be allowing so much destruction to go on. I mean, he's literally destroying buildings as he fights General Zod, it's completely irresponsible. With "Pacific Rim," these are clunky robots fighting monsters who are hellbent on destruction. The only way for them to defeat these monsters is to fight them, and while it causes a lot of destruction, it makes more sense in this scenario. For me, it's all about context. For me, as long as there is purpose behind the fight scenes, the destruction doesn't bother me.

  • MG | July 10, 2013 9:43 AMReply

    Terrible review (not for the score, that's just a matter of personal opinion; it's a terrible review because the review of the movie was crowded out by reviews of critical injustice that the author felt the need to use his platform to rectify). Are you angling for Rex Reed's position?

  • No | July 10, 2013 9:43 AMReply

    As much as I love Idris Elba, I'm going to pass on this. I'm sick of destruction porn. Saw that in Man of Steel.

  • CB | July 10, 2013 9:38 AMReply

    Officially not seeing it now. Sounds kinda awful? I can always catch it sometime later. If the film is what you present it to be (stupid, dumb, cheesy, ridiculous, Michael Bay-esque) then it baffles me how it gets relatively good reviews? Assuming your opinion is the same as mine, I think the level of goodwill Guillermo del Toro has amongst critics (largely because of Pan's Labyrinth) is what's keeping Pacific Rim from being panned across the board.

  • Ken Guidry | July 10, 2013 12:15 PM

    I think I would like to see a good Playlist roundtable discussion/podcast on this film.

  • cory everett | July 10, 2013 12:01 PM

    Yes but judging from the first paragraph here you did not walk in without any baggage.

  • Rodrigo | July 10, 2013 11:51 AM

    Speak for yourself, Cory. I didn't walk into it skeptically. I'm always open to a good movie no matter what. A great teacher one said your start school on day 1 with an A+ and its yours to keep if you want it. That's how I enter all films. They've got an A+ to start.

  • cory everett | July 10, 2013 10:07 AM

    I walked in just as skeptical as RP and really dug it. It's definitely got issues (tons of them, across the board) but it was so much crazy overstuffed fun that I didn't care. It moves really quickly, it looks stunning and at a certain point I just surrendered myself to thinking that del Toro would ever become an A list filmmaker and just started to enjoy his gigantic B movie.

  • Glass | July 10, 2013 9:34 AMReply

    Didn't you guys just give this a B+? This site has gotten so fucking confusing

  • Ken Guidry | July 10, 2013 1:25 PM

    That sentiment is understandable, but it's also understandable for people who like the movie to want to root for its success. I admit I may have went overboard with my initial reaction to "PR", the pratfalls of twitter I suppose, and I hate talking about a movie's box office returns as the ultimate barometer of the movie's success. But, in this case, like with every other movie I enjoy, I would love for the film to be successful. I'm not even a big fan of Del Toro, but if he's behind another $150 million blockbuster film, based on my positive experience watching Pacific Rim, I will go see it opening day.

    That said, I completely respect your opinion, and expected the negative reviews to look similar to yours. I don't think it's a bad thing that people either love or hate this movie.

  • Rodrigo | July 10, 2013 12:46 PM

    "Yes but judging from the first paragraph here you did not walk in without any baggage."

    I address the baggage it comes with because it had to be addressed, but it makes no difference to me whatsoever and baggage isn't skepticism.

    'PR' comes with a lot of people taking sides, but it doesn't make a lick of difference to measuring whether the movie works or doesn't. It's just color commentary to its backstory.

    In my opinion it wasn't great. The baggage has absolutely nothing to do with it and I normally don't bother even addressing that stuff in reviews (mostly despise it), but it was worth discussing here if only because it's threatening to eclipse the conversation about the film itself and that particular chatter is extremely loud at the moment.

  • Kevin | July 10, 2013 10:10 AM

    Yes, that was by Drew Taylor who led the Del Toro retrospective piece. Different writers, diff opinions.

  • Marko | July 10, 2013 9:36 AM

    That B+ was probably given by Drew Taylor.

  • Marko | July 10, 2013 9:33 AMReply

    Now there's the Playlist we've come to know and expect! I was kind of worried that Kevin was turning into a drooling fanboy when he wrote that article about why we can't have nice things. Or maybe he still is, and if so I hope he gets the help he deserves.

  • Andres | July 10, 2013 9:27 AMReply

    "...and plenty of sci-fi mumbo jumbo that will confuse anyone not fluent in nerd-ese..." That's enough read for me. Thanks.

  • Stacker | July 10, 2013 9:13 AMReply

    Half this review is about other reviews -- can't The Playlist ever just focus on the movie itself? Also, you guys seriously need to hire a copy editor. It's embarrassing.

  • Eponymous | July 10, 2013 12:14 PM

    Hear, hear.

  • jen | July 10, 2013 9:12 AMReply

    "if the chatter is to be believed, the entire fate of the movie industry rest in the hands of one very big, wet, hulking mass of a high-concept movie"

    wtf? Where do you people hang out that this is the "chatter" you hear? This movie has no buzz except among del Toro fanpeoples, the fate of nothing rests on it.

  • jen | July 10, 2013 9:13 AM

    Whoops. My bad. I should read.

Email Updates