Well I've been having a good time at the theatre lately! I thought Pacific Rim was great. The heart of a 90s blockbuster in a slick, shamelessly childish 2013 package. Everywhere Transformers, Cloverfield, and Battleship failed, Pacific Rim succeeded. I would call it, I think, sheer pop-stupid perfection.

The monsters and the robots felt massive, the characters were broadly drawn but just engaging enough, the supporting cast was hilariously campy, and if there's a better movie drinking game I don't know it, because the freakin' things are called Jaegers!

This was the first flick in years for which it really, really woulda been worth being 12 years old again. It's not a great film, but it's a phenomenally entertaining one.

Unfortunately I couldn't share the same enthusiasm.

Needed more monsters/robots/Charlie Day and less everything else. Action scenes were spectacular. Definitely worth seeing in Imax. But my god, did the dialogue suck. Pretty much the definition of "expository dialogue." Some people think that Del Toro can't make the cross over into English and I'm inclined to believe them.

Look, I didn't go into this film expecting character arcs, proper build up, etc. But we need a little bit more to latch onto. The protag was almost as bland as Superman. The whole film felt like a check list of dulled down cliches. If you're going to make a film like this, crank it up to an 11. Don't stop at 6.

And trying to destroy a portal into another world? Geez, haven't seen THAT before.

Despite all of this, you really need to see Pacific Rim in theaters. Movies like this need your money (so that they can make more movies like this). Just go for the action and take a s hit break whenever the mosters/robots stop fighting and the characters start talking.

I really enjoyed this one. It's the second film I've seen this year with a serviceable script where the director just runs circles around the material (the first was Stoker). I really don't understand the tepid response to it. Del Toro clearly labored over every single detail in the film from the biology of the kaiju to the gender and cultural dynamics of the Jaeger resistance but still maintained focus on the bigger elements that made up the pulse of the film at large. Given his track record, would you expect anything less?

If not the best out of the bajillion dollar genre this year, I don't know what is.

How long does Ron Perlman have screen time for?

Charlie Hunnam's character was the weakest part of the film. Cliched background, his performance was kinda wooden, and I only cared because I had to. Also thought the father-son thing was a bit of a cop-out too. However, Idris Elba was awesome as always. At points, I hated his character as much as I hated his Charles Minor on The Office. For some reason, I really, really liked what was done with Mako. It wasn't terribly original, but it was fun. Both the training scene and her backstory.

Charlie Day and Burn Gorman reminded me of R2-D2 and C-3PO. When I realized that, it made me wish del Toro had gone one further, by extending the Hidden Fortress reference by telling the story through their eyes, instead of introducing them so far into the movie.

After the disappointments the old franchises have been bringing this summer, I was glad to see something fresh that was actually fresh. This and The Heat have made this an okay summer for me (and the places in the area that screened FLASH GORDON and BACK TO THE FUTURE).

Quoted from DanBall Charlie Hunnam's character was the weakest part of the film. Cliched background, his performance was kinda wooden, and I only cared because I had to.

This was one of the things that I really liked about the movie, actually -- the perfect Luke Skywalker young humble white guy protagonist that's absolutely not interesting. This really gave it a 90s feel for me. Like a while ago it woulda been Chris O'Donnell or something (haha!) -- uninteresting part, uninspired performance. And then we have actual human interest with Kikuchi and Elba, so it was perfect, I thought.

Quoted from Heretic This was one of the things that I really liked about the movie, actually -- the perfect Luke Skywalker young humble white guy protagonist that's absolutely not interesting. This really gave it a 90s feel for me. Like a while ago it woulda been Chris O'Donnell or something (haha!) -- uninteresting part, uninspired performance. And then we have actual human interest with Kikuchi and Elba, so it was perfect, I thought.

I agree with you on the Luke Skywalker comparison. But it's now made me realize how silly this is. I mean, that's supposed to be the guy we relate to the most, but he's the weakest one in the movie. WTF. What could be the point of that?

Quoted from DanBall I agree with you on the Luke Skywalker comparison. But it's now made me realize how silly this is. I mean, that's supposed to be the guy we relate to the most, but he's the weakest one in the movie. WTF. What could be the point of that?

I take it there were better characters in action movies earlier this year? Certainly not in Man of Steel or World War Z. I thought the character was fine for what he was supposed to be and Hunnam's performance was fitting.

I think it's strange everyone jumped on Pacific Rim for having poor actors/characters when hardly any of the other action movies this year (or previous years) have had better ones. Many have been worse. I didn't see either of them but I'd wager only Iron Man 3 and Star Trek had even *good* characters, let alone great ones.

True action heroes don't come around as often as they used to and yet no one seems to care. Nowadays, people generally don't go to action movies for the characters; they go for "dumb fun," "popcorn," or whatever and don't seem to care when the characters are awful. Why, all of a sudden, should they care now?

Quoted from James McClung I take it there were better characters in action movies earlier this year? Certainly not in Man of Steel or World War Z. I thought the character was fine for what he was supposed to be and Hunnam's performance was fitting. I think it's strange everyone jumped on Pacific Rim for having poor actors/characters when hardly any of the other action movies this year (or previous years) have had better ones. Many have been worse. I didn't see either of them but I'd wager only Iron Man 3 and Star Trek had even *good* characters, let alone great ones. True action heroes don't come around as often as they used to and yet no one seems to care. Nowadays, people generally don't go to action movies for the characters; they go for "dumb fun," "popcorn," or whatever and don't seem to care when the characters are awful. Why, all of a sudden, should they care now?

Just because it was the best this year doesn't mean it's excusable to create mediocre characters that won't resonate for years to come. I'm one person who cares that movies don't have true action heroes nowadays. That's what made them fun in the first place.

Quoted from DanBall Just because it was the best this year doesn't mean it's excusable to create mediocre characters that won't resonate for years to come. I'm one person who cares that movies don't have true action heroes nowadays. That's what made them fun in the first place.

That's fair enough, man. I didn't think the characters were great myself but they didn't irk me and I loved the film so I went along with it. What frustrates me is that I really didn't find the characters to be that different from other action movies that have come out this year and yet somehow Pacific Rim got singled out for it. It's clearly better than those other films and yet fewer people seemed to have ill to say about, say, Brad Pitt's character in WWZ.

Honestly, I make too big a deal about these things. Generally, I try to promote what I like and leave everything else alone, as tempting as it is to do otherwise. This really isn't my stuff honestly. But every once in a while, something irks me. As much as I hate the cliche, it's all subjective. I suppose if everyone's being critical, it's good in the sense that people are keeping standards for what's good. The reaction to this one just really bums me out since it seemed like the one flick everyone would be on the same page for this year. We still have half a year to go but thus far, it'd seem there's no such flick.

I just think it's a bad time for movies, especially Hollywood. The people with the money and the power to do something about it are too concerned with getting more money and power, not making good art. From the way things are going, it seems like films are trying to homogenize more than they're trying to stand on their own. I don't support that at all. When you looked at films like Rocky, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Chinatown, The Godfather...you got a real sense that we're going somewhere, cinematically. But now the studio suits are hijacking that and diverting it into the crapper in the name of the almighty dollar.

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make art profitable, but I would like to know what they think isn't profitable about artistic integrity, though. Why not let writers and directors do their own thing instead of holding them to the save-the-cat formula?

Quoted from DanBall I just think it's a bad time for movies, especially Hollywood. The people with the money and the power to do something about it are too concerned with getting more money and power, not making good art. From the way things are going, it seems like films are trying to homogenize more than they're trying to stand on their own. I don't support that at all. When you looked at films like Rocky, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Chinatown, The Godfather...you got a real sense that we're going somewhere, cinematically. But now the studio suits are hijacking that and diverting it into the crapper in the name of the almighty dollar. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make art profitable, but I would like to know what they think isn't profitable about artistic integrity, though. Why not let writers and directors do their own thing instead of holding them to the save-the-cat formula?

People go to the cinema, to be entertained, not looking for artistic pleasure. That doesn't mean that cinema should be devoid of artistic and creative expression, but it is still a business.

You can't blame the suits for everything. No matter what you and I think, the sad fact is that even bad films, are considered entertainment. Bad films turn a profit. The only people to blame then, are the people who go to see them, not just the people who make them.

In fact, with the advent of social media, there's more of a reason for a 'bad' film to flop faster that 90 year olds morning glory - but that doesn't always happen, because the general public doesn't view and review a film like a writer does.

Shocked at the mostly positive reviews here.

IMO, this was absolutely terrible in pretty much every way.

I honestly don't know where the $190 Million budget went, as the Jaeger/Kaiju battles looked an awful lot like Ultraman and Johnny Socko and his Flying Robot battles from the 60's.

These battles were just downright goofy with the punching, flipping, and other ridicluous fighting techniques.  Why not simply fly in and blow the creatures up?  Seriously...WTF?

And what's with building these stupid walls?  Like that's going to keep these things out?  Really?

Character-wise and story-wise, what we have here is the ultimate cardboard cutout, cliche, stereotypes with some father/son, pseudo father/speudo daughter, brother/brother, and man/woman relationships.  The 2 goofy scientist dudes?  Really?  Terrible.

I didn't even think the Kaiju looked remotely good or real, either.  ANd, to make matters worse, the battles took place at night, in/under water and for me, offered little to nothing.

I'm obviously not the intended taget audience here, but then again, maybe that's why this thing bombed, here in the US. Give me a cool, updated Ultraman or Johnny Socko's Flying Robot and I'm all in, but Del Toro and Beachem sure missed the mark for me.

Total misfire as far as i'm concerened.
Grade - C-

Quoted from James McClung I take it there were better characters in action movies earlier this year? Certainly not in Man of Steel or World War Z. I thought the character was fine for what he was supposed to be and Hunnam's performance was fitting.

Charlie did OK, except he felt like Jax Teller in a Sci-fi movie.

Everyone else did OK too.  The stand out performance was from Ron Perlman.

Such a small role, but he really made that character unique and fun to watch.  Loved the flashy suit, the gold shoes, and the shades.

As for the movie itself, I thoroughly enjoyed it.  Looked great on Blu-ray.  There were a couple of scenes that looked really amazing.

Expanding on the topic of the actors/characters, the younger dude's Australian accent was abysmally bad. I'm surprised nobody thought they should mention that it needs a good rework, let alone the acting coach doing it.

Basically Dreamscale and Nawazm wrote the reviews I would have written had they not already done so. The only reason I can imagine people liked this film is because they saw it in the cinema and maybe that helped it seem better, but on the small screen it all just felt, well, small.

I thought the acting at best was very average and seemed like the characters all came from cliche city.

Expanding a bit on what nawazm said though, it seemed like most of the characters were putting on terrible accents. It's one of my absolute pet peeves when actors play people from a different country and put on horrendous accents. There must be actors out there who could of played the roles just as well/badly from the respective countries needed. I'm pretty sure one of the science guys was English, though he had an accent I've never heard from an Englishman. Maybe he learnt from Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins, or even what's her face in Bridget Jones. It really is something that bothers me a great deal.

Quoted from ArtyDoubleYou I'm pretty sure one of the science guys was English, though he had an accent I've never heard from an Englishman. Maybe he learnt from Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins, or even what's her face in Bridget Jones.

Or...

I love this movie. It's just a ton of fun. :)

~Zack~