[5aces]

Never saw this until today.

Funny watching a 10 (now 50) page thread grow on another forum, everybody rabid to collect the McDonald's Minion Toy Set that comes with a Happy Meal.
Someone just listed a complete set up here for $75 on Kijiji ha ha!
Probably spent half that in fuel driving around to find them all.

 

[Focker]

Quote:

I might check this out 73% critics/88% audience on Rotten Tomatoes, not bad for an action pic, and Del Toro is a genius. Now I have to decide between 3D IMAX or 2D RPX or 2D regular screen. 

 
Same here...I usually avoid 3D unless there is something about the film that really calls for it. Just seems like more often than not it's not all that impressive. I don't mind dropping the extra money if the experience is really enhanced, but we have such nice theaters here in Atlanta that the 2D experience is still a lot of fun and very comfortable. 
 
Agree about Del Toro...I was reading how he really lobbied the studios to dump some money into this so he could do it exactly as he wanted with no restrictions...that bodes well for the final result, methinks. 

 

[KCxSmacker]

Pacific Rim will have to be on my watch list. It looks like Toro took the mecha theme from anime in the last 20-25 years and decided to make a sick live action version of it. ^_^)b

 

[tdockweiler]

Three Monkeys -6.25/10
 
I've seen three movies by the director of this (Nuri Bilge Ceylan) and they kind of grow on you. They're usually extremely slow but then after you watch them they get stuck in your head a little bit. I love the cinematography in them. I think most people won't have the patience for them though. Lots of scenes with what seems like nothing happening.
 
This one I managed to finish in one sitting. The tone of the movie feels kind of dark and depressing like something really bad is going to happen. Disliked most of the characters. The husband in this movie seemed to treat his wife like dirt. The movie could have easily been a silent movie since nothing is ever explained in dialogue.
 
I'd suggest watching "Uzak" (aka Distant) instead.
 

 

[Johnnyhi]

[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/8vMKN1tYknE[/VIDEO]

Best fight scene ever...

 

[Achmedisdead]

 
I was amused. Kind of like a Syfy production with a real budget....lol. 5/10

 

[alv4426]

You forgot to add points cause Gemma is really hot so 5/10  9.9/10 

Quote:

 
I was amused. Kind of like a Syfy production with a real budget....lol. 5/10

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

You forgot to add points cause Gemma is really hot so 5/10  9.9/10 

She is hot, I'll grant you that....but 9.9/10 is stretching things a little bit....lol.

 

[metalsonata]

Pacific Rim (2013): 7/10
 
Loud, dumb, and unoriginal; but in Guillermo's hands it easily transcends most similar summer fare. For starters, he foregrounds his characters, giving us time to get to know them and like them. The characters here are not lost in the CGI spectacle: they remain a strong focal point throughout, even during the climactic battles. That they are occasionally made to utter really awful lines of dialogue is rendered mostly moot by the actors taking their roles seriously, without tipping over into melodrama. And when tragedy seeps into the picture, it's genuinely affecting stuff. The comic relief, unfortunately, is a bit less successful. Charlie Day, in particular, is given way more screen time than he needs or deserves; I'd rather we'd have seen more of Ron Perlman.
 
Let's admit it though--the real reason anyone wants to see this is for the robot on giant monster fights. And they are gorgeous. I really do mean gorgeous. Here, with a huge budget and a talented crew, he brings to the screen a wonderfully realized world that trades in the chaotic whiz-bam from schlock like Transformers with generous helpings of detail and creativity. Sure, it may be overly familiar at times, with themes and scenes feeling like they were ripped straight out of Armageddon, Independence Day, Godzilla, and even Neon Genesis Evangelion, but it comes together so well that it's hard to fault it too much, even if it stumbles a bit at the end. And there are other faults, as well: the pacing is a bit off for the first half of the film, the side plot involving the doctors is irritating at best (one or two moments aside), and it's *way* to easy to pick out who the fodder characters are right from the get-go.
 
Still, this is very much a summer blockbuster worth making time for. If I can make one suggestion: I'd recommend seeing it in 2D, if you can. I have not actually seen the 3D version, but can tell you that this is a very dark film for the most part, with the majority of the action sequences themselves taking place at night or in murky environments (or both!). Unless you know the staff of your local theatre to be quite capable of ensuring that the film's brightness is at the appropriate levels for a 3D screening, then just do yourself a favor and see it in 2D. Save a couple bucks and admire all that extra kaiju and jaeger detail. 

 

[rparmar]

Just re-watched "L'avventura" and have to say it's now my second-favourite Antonioni film. Must have been freakin' radical in 1960.

 

[proton007]

Watched Pacific Rim again on a big screen. I'd say its one movie that needs to be watched on a big screen. The bigger the better. IMAX 2D would be best.

 

[oqvist]

Have you seen both 2D and 3D and have no problem with 3D? Seeing both versions on cinema is a 35$ investment but it´s perhaps worth it .

 

[mutabor]

My Joy ( 2010)
 
Director: Sergei Loznitsa
 
Genre: Life is evil 

 
 
 
 
 
My Joy is the most significant and profound Russian movie I have watched so far rivaling the great Russian literature ( Leo Tolstoy, Feodor Dostoevsky, Nikolai Gogol). I have  a very little knowledge of Russian art house cinema as I've generally watched mainstream. But My Joy is the first movie in my life which reflects my outlook on life. The vast majority of movies I have watched have nothing to do with my understanding or perception of the world. They entertain me, they help to forget about stresses of life. I considered cinema as an abstract art which portrays life or reality rather superficially and theatrically. The further cinema goes from reality the better. If you want something meaningful and real then you should watch documentary or read literature. Cinema is a pure visual art not capable to portray an inner world of consciousness. That's what I've thought before watching My Joy.
 
Sergei Loznitsa has a unique talent of blending documentary with cinematography. His documentaries are watched like movies and his movies are brutally honest in their realism. His talent lies in portraying evil as a force which penetrates everything and which you cannot escape. 
 
I found the movie highly accessible and entertaining. But after reading some English language reviews I was baffled that foreign viewers have difficulty in understanding or appreciating it. 
 
Review from some viewer: "First of all, I want to say that the film simply blew me away. This film, Sergei Loznitsa's first feature is not only the best film (and discovery) of the year, but one of the biggest and most important works in cinema of this century.

Before, Loznitsa was a documentary film maker and this effect can be seen in his fiction film. It is not only true and violent, but also very unconventional, different (truly ascetic, and here can be seen influence of Loznitsa's mentor, Robert Bresson), Loznitsa's use of long take is truly remarkable, in Russian cinema, long take has been used very ofter, beginning from Tarkovsky, then Shepitko, Sokurov, Zvyagintsev... but Loznitsa's use is different and unique, he absolutely refuses style (there is no disgusting exploitation of manner, that spoils Zvyagintsev's overrated, stupid and pointless "Vozvrascheniye"), he doesn't have style as a director, the film itself creates its style and language (and trust me, it's much difficult and much remarkable).

And Loznitsa does very bold thing: he destroys notion of deep shot. Yes, Kiarostami shot films with digital camera (as Loznitsa does), but his shot is extremely static and Loznitsa makes very long travelings with hand held camera, what's truly new thing and it also creates a feeling of claustrophobia, of closed circle, of No Exit and it's really conceptual use of primitive cinematic method.

It's extremely difficult film, but it's not art house and it's not the proud film, so called "not for everyone". It IS for everyone, but on the other hand, it should be watched very carefully: consider that you'll be shocked and maybe even depressed but I have one very useful advise: if you decide to watch this TRUE masterpiece, be patient and watch it till the end."

 

[proton007]

Quote:

Have you seen both 2D and 3D and have no problem with 3D? Seeing both versions on cinema is a 35$ investment but it´s perhaps worth it .

 
I didn't see it in 3D, because it was post converted. I'm always kinda apprehensive about post shooting 3D conversion.
 
That, and the fact that the last two times I watched Imax 3D, I ended up with a terrible headache and eye pain. But the second time I saw it was purely analog film projection on a huge screen. Very nostalgic.
 
Also, I noticed that the aspect ratio of the movie is 16:9 rather than whatever wide screen is normally followed. It'll look good even at 1080p.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

 
I didn't see it in 3D, because it was post converted. I'm always kinda apprehensive about post shooting 3D conversion.
 
That, and the fact that the last two times I watched Imax 3D, I ended up with a terrible headache and eye pain.
 
But my second viewing of Pacific Rim was purely analog film projection on a huge screen. Very nostalgic. Also, the aspect ratio of the movie is 16:9 rather than whatever wide screen is normally followed. It'll look good even at 1080p.