Skip to main content

Yeah, Gipsy! Kick his ass!


Pacific Rim
2013

Guillermo del Toro’s emergence from a half decade of production hell might have resulted in his best-made movie. You can’t argue he hasn’t directed the hell out of Pacific Rim. Unfortunately, it’s also possessed of by far his dumbest script (I say his, as he has altered Travis Beacham’s screenplay sufficiently to win a co-writer’s credit; it’s not one he should be proud of). Anyone hoping for a glimpse of the depth and nuance of his Spanish language films is barking up the wrong Kaiju. But even the more feasible wish for the knowing sense of fun found in his comic book forays (the Hellboys, Blade II) is left wanting. Pacific Rim is a relentless assault of macho posturing and narrative clichés so extreme that they even overwhelm the extraordinary spectacle the director has cooked up.


Maybe del Toro was attempting to be too canny. He clearly felt it was necessary to take on material that was overtly commercial. He departed The Hobbit when it was stranded following MGM’s bankruptcy. Lo and behold, it wasn’t many months later that the train spluttered back into life and Peter Jackson admitted that he really was stuck in the Shire forever. And then there was the eleventh hour rug pulling from under his passion project At the Mountains of Madness, set to star the Cruiser. For all the geek love he illicits, del Toro had yet to prove himself as a blockbuster director. And that’s where it counts with studios. Blade II had given him some tinseltown credibility, and it was a director-for-hire affair that became one of the few sequels to outdo it’s predecessor. But the Hellboys only ever had middling success (enough to squeeze out a follow-up, but not to a wider audience).


So you can’t blame him for seizing on a robots-versus-monsters movie. It must have seemed like a smart bet, post-Transformers. And it tickled the guy, with his enormous love for all things Kaiju (let’s just call them monsters, though). It even gave him the opportunity to stir his Lovecraft fetish into the brew (he already slipped such unspeakable horrors into Hellboy, and the trip through the rift in Pacific Rim has a strong whiff of this obsession).


But I can’t for the life of me understand why his pandering to the teenage boy within (in the hope that teenage boys worldwide would respond; little did he know it would be mostly 30-something teenage boys who’d lap it up), required him to seal every delicate or refined sensibility he has in a box and bury it deep beneath the earth. Instead, he attempts to kindle his inner jock.


In terms of visual impact, this might just be the best film of the summer (and it can boast an excellent 3D conversion). The same skill set that stunned in Pan’s Labyrinth is just as present here, tirelessly poring over every frame to make it the best it can possibly be. The palate of the movie is nothing special; we’ve seen these rain-drenched greys and blues and greens a thousand times. Indeed, it’s starting from where Roland Emmerich’s much-savaged Godzilla left off. But del Toro’s attention to detail is mind-blowing. He brings an artistry to play that the script (and again I say, partially his script) absolutely doesn’t deserve.


Right from the off, Pacific Rim batters the viewer with stereotypical characters and hackneyed scenarios. It’s an interesting idea, in an age of origins stories, to begin with a prologue many years into this conflict with the monsters that have emerged from beneath the sea. But Charlie Hunnman delivers his voiceover with the same listless drawl he has in Sons of Anarchy, and plays Raleigh Becket with an even more pronounced swagger. By the time his cocky jockiness costs him dearly and he opts for the blue collar life (didn’t Superman just do this?) we’re already gagging on the stock devices of the hero’s journey. And the movie’s barely started.


This is a picture that reaches new levels of unintentional hilarity. Battleshit had the same thing not going for it in plot and character last year, and it also pitted the US military industrial complex against hopeless extra-terrestrial odds (Del Toro has a few token foreigners, including a couple of Russkies straight out of Rocky IV, but it’s surely as much to do with his being calculating about international box office; and who knows, perhaps the dialogue sounds better when its dubbed – it couldn’t be any worse). Crucially, though, Battleshit had absolutely no redeeming features. And del Toro is a much much better director than Peter Berg (not that he isn’t guilty of the occasional moment of misguided hyperbole; the angelic halo surrounding Elba at a significant moment might be the funniest shot in the movie).


Nigh on every line of dialogue is ripe and rotten, every character is rippling with macho bullshit (except for the token nerd comic relief scientists, who squabble like children rather than adolescents), every backstory is thunderously overcooked and cornball. In that sense, it could be labelled del Toro’s Avatar (but the same fans who are wetting themselves over the glimmer of hope for Rim sequels are unironically scorning the announcement of three Avatarquels).


The common factor this has with Cameron’s movie is that it is all so bloody serious and portentous. Say what you like about Michael Bay (and you can say a lot), at least his bombastic hyperbole verges on self-parody. His films may not be very good but they don’t need spoof versions to let you in on the joke. The debit of whacky del Toro does serve up (the aforementioned scientists) owes a huge amount to the autopilot comic relief found in a Bay movie, or in a DreamWorks animation.  You won’t find this lack of knowingness in a Roland Emmerich picture either, so prone is that director before the altar of classic era Spielberg. 2012 is so ridiculous it has to be taken as a comedy. Rim is so earnest that the ultra-masculine posturing can't be taken as satire, and it’s a complaint so prevalent that it nearly proves fatal.


A rundown of a few of the heroic tropes here (and I’m sure I’ve missed dozens) include faltering on the journey, losing a loved one and blaming oneself, being called back to the fight because you’re the best of the best, reliving childhood trauma and coming out stronger, Jedi-like abilities that set the hero apart (one of only two to pilot a Jaeger solo), the thorn in the side who eventually learns to respect the hero, the insubordinate whose success relates requires not doing things by the book, the guru with secrets of his own, the noble self-sacrifice, reclaiming the hero’s crown; we’ve seen these themes in many classics, and they’re essential story markers. But Rim is so crammed full of them, in such unfinessed fashion, that the results invite ridicule. This is a movie that even goes to an “analogue is better than digital” place to describe why an earlier model robot is better than a newer one (I mean, really!) You’re left wondering if there’s no stone of shame del Toro will leave unturned in his quest for vapidity.


Why would you give your characters such ridiculous names (Stacker Pentecost?!!) if you aren’t going to play to the absurd? At least Ron Perlman’s monster-remains black marketer has an amusing reason for being called Hannibal Chau (as well as being a Blade Runner reference). Perlman deserves a lot of credit, as he’s the only cast member to get exactly get how the tone should be; broad with a tinge of self-parody. The rest of the cast are too dour (all the jock types) or too whacky (those god darn boffins). Hunnman and Idris Elba, commanding presences as they can be on the small screen, are completely the wrong fit for this. They disappear into the rote growling and posturing of their characters and emerging slightly wooden (the epitome of this is Elba’s – or should I say Stacker’s – risible “cancelling the apocalypse” speech). Rinko Kikuchi does her best to make Mako sympathetic, but she’s saddled with the same uninterrupted cheesiness of her fellow heroes.


The comic relief is the surest sign of tonally how crude Pacific Rim is. The spectacle aside, they go to reinforce the feeling that this could be any hack director’s movie. I find Charlie Day moderately amusing. His delivery reminds me of a slightly less growly Bobcat Goldthwait and he has an appealingly off-kilter energy. But he’s playing a stock eccentric, and Burn Gorman’s spastic spawn of Norman Wisdom and Lee Evans is only more so. Their affected presence further reinforces how mechanically conceived this is.


There's the occasional glimpse of the fun prime Spielberg might have had; a giant metal fist smashes across the entire floor of a building only to gently tap a metronome at the extent of its reach. But, because del Toro’s been playing so hard, such a frivolous moment ends up looking out of place. The sequence with a baby monster is also full of pep (but then, it revolves around Perlman and Day so it stands far more chance of rising above the routine). Even then, I wondered if del Toro wasn’t about to pull a Godzilla third act and give us some creatures on a human scale. I’m not arguing for a reappreciation of Godzilla but I don’t really see why it gets tarred and feathered while this is venerated.


It’s also a problem of these big-giant-things-smashing-stuff movies that the antagonists lack personality. It’s why you need appetising side dishes like Perlman’s character. Del Toro suggests an unseen motivator behind all this carnage as the plot progresses, and it provides a kernel of genuine intrigue. But he basically reduces everything to big scaly beasties and, for all his talk of distinctly designed robots and monsters, they all seem much of a muchness (the Jaegers have names as stupid as the humans, though; Gipsy Danger’s is a load of arse).


As effectively executed as his set pieces are, the fights inevitably go on too long and are exhaustingly pedestrian in the mini-plot beats they contain. Admittedly, though, the virtual control of the pilots does come off much better than in the trailers, where it looked plain dumb. There aren’t any surprises, except that del Toro’s desire to mix things up with the Jaeger’s weaponry leaves you disbelieving; given how decisive the enormous sword attachment is, you wonder that they only brandish it out in the penultimate smackdown.


And I know the whole movie is the grand conceit of a kid in sandbox, but if it’s so desirous of suspension of disbelief a few questions must be asked. Who had the bright idea of robots anyway; are they really most effective? I can’t see them surviving any of the mash-ups they endure given how fragile the average man-made machine is. If you’re playing for realism visually, you’re scuppered when these great big robots plummet from the heavens or repeatedly get body slammed yet remain intact. Instead, how about a giant rotating corkscrew, an enormous spring-powered boxing glove, or a 250ft pump-action frying pan?


Maybe the best idea in here is the mind meld (although points are instantly lost for calling it that) It has a lot of potential as a concept (two pilots must link with each other in order to operate the machines) but unfortunately it is rendered through the most banal of hallucinations. For someone with such a great visual imagination, del Toro makes this sequence curiously uninvolving. Much better is the subplot of a scientist attempting to “drift” with an alien brain. It’s the vast, uncanny other realms that really get the director’s juices flowing. But, without all-important zest, the presiding feeling is one of over-familiarity. There’s nothing new here, no more than there was in Avatar. In del Toro you’ve got a very talented director making a much more invigorating picture than the material deserves.


Nothing del Toro has made before, even the messed-with Mimic, will prepare you for how aggressively dumb this movie is. The steroidal posing it contains seems like the opposite of anything he would usually be interested in, ought to be interested in. And one can’t help but wonder that he spent five years in the wilderness only to return with this. The scale, and the propulsive editing, keeps it watchable, even if although there’s inevitable battle fatigue (not as much as in Man of Steel, but the metropolitan carnage connection is there to see and the more-is-more approach to effects-laden set pieces is showing itself to be dead-end). I’m not looking to completely demolish the movie; it’s just disappointing to see a talented director put his energies into dreck. The vocal Internet fanbase who love Pacific Rim are drooling at the renewed prospect of a sequel, but I’d much rather del Toro went off and spent his time making something deserving of his vision.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.