Anyone who's seen the trailer for Pacific Rim knows that this is an awesome line delivered by the incredible and amazing Idris Elba, known for playing Heimdall in Thor and the title character in the BBC crime drama Luther. I'll cut straight to the point for once. I'm using it as the title because about five days ago I finally saw it. By the gods old and new, the Lords of Kobol and other appropriately geeky deities, it was frakkin' amazing! I mean, my gods...just...godsdamn. I don't know exactly what I was expecting from that movie when I went in, but I came out in awe.
And right now I'm listening to the soundtrack. I love the music. No surprise really - the composer, Ramin Djawadi, is also the composer for Game of Thrones. He has a knack for addictive, catchy and awesome music.
Now I could go into a review-style summation of the plot of Pacific Rim, but it's easy to describe. It's the near future, giant aliens are attacking humanity and we built giant frakkin' robots to beat the ever-loving crap out of them. Awesomeness ensues, as directed by the awesome Guillermo del Toro.
I feel a bit speechless about Pacific Rim. I'll admit, I'm not often tempted to go see a movie at the cinema twice. I'm usually content to see it once, wait for the DVD to come out. Even with Avengers, I was never this impatient for a movie to come out on DVD. Pacific Rim...just outstanding. Not mind-blowing or groundbreaking...just incredibly good fun to sit back and enjoy. I mean...giant aliens versus giant freakin' robots?! What isn't to like?
Moving on to more coherent discourse, it's time to chat a little about another rather good movie I saw the other day. Yesterday, in fact. It was called...
...The World's End.
That's right, ladies and menfolk. The final film in Edgar Wright's Blood and Cornetto Trilogy. After nearly ten years, it came to a final, glorious, blood and explosion-filled end.
Now I'll kick off by saying that Hot Fuzz remains my favourite of the three. There's no denying that Shaun of the Dead is amazing and The World's End is the worthy finale, but I think it's a bit of a Star Wars thing here. Hot Fuzz, for me, is like the Empire Strikes Back of the Cornetto Trilogy. But enough on that. It's time for The World's End to have a moment in the sunshine. Which we have had an awful abundance of lately. But hey-ho.
The World's End begins like any other movie of the Blood and Cornetto Trilogy. It's framed as a simple tale of ordinary folk - in this case, Gary King (Simon Pegg), a man who never quite got over a particular night (22nd June 1990), where he and his erstwhile school friends attempted Newton Haven's (their hometown) "Golden Mile" of twelve pubs. The final of which being The World's End. Only the Newton Haven of 2013 isn't like 1990 Newton Haven...it's been slightly taken over.
As always, our hapless band of heroes - Blood and Cornetto Trilogy regulars Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, joined by Eddie Marsan and Rosamund Pike - blunder straight into a hornet's nest that's far beyond them and Gary, unwilling to let the failure of 1990 repeat, is determined to see the Golden Mile through to the end (I would say bitter end, but the film makes ample use of this joke).
The World's End sees the triumphant cameos of Spaced stars Mark Heap (Brian) and Michael Smiley (Tyres), the return of many other Spaced/Blood and Cornetto cameo regulars and the inclusion of Pierce Brosnan in a small, but delightfully awesome role.
I'll admit to being slightly underwhelmed by The World's End. Let it not be said that I didn't enjoy it and it wasn't a worthy finale, but I was hoping for...well, for a little more. The movie delivered plenty, but I felt...felt like I was waiting for something more. Perhaps once I obtain it on DVD I will feel differently. Who knows, eh?
I'm afraid, however, that Pacific Rim has kinda stolen the thunder (which might explain where there was no lightning but plenty of rumbles of thunder early, early this morning). But the year is only half over. Many, many more movies await and many, many more awesome things await being rambled about. Until then, I leave you with a snippet of the Pacific Rim soundtrack:
(Song of the Mind: Canceling the Apocalypse - Ramin Djawadi).
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Thursday, 4 July 2013
You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat do you?
As today is Independence Day in the United States, it seems only fitting that the quotation title of this entry is a quotation from the 1996 film named after this peculiar occasion. It also seems only fitting to choose today to talk about said film, but more importantly...the dubious nature of this rather awesome film getting a FRAKKING SEQUEL twenty years later.
Now for the traditional context portion.
Independence Day is one of my favourite films ever. It's kind of a classic from my teenage years and a film I shared in common with one of my best friends from school. In fact, it was part of our bonding process, along with our shared fascination with UFOs and aliens. In fact, this lady is the reason I received the nickname "Alien Dave". So yeah, Independence Day is an absolute classic for me and my friend. We would quote it and a couple of other choice films that we shared a love for. I even got her hooked on Firefly and Serenity. But I digress, so back on track.
Roland Emmerich...once I thought he was brilliant. He gave us Stargate, he made Independence Day. But in more recent years, his credentials have become ever more dubious. Now, he's making a sequel to Independence Day (without Will Smith but still keeping Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman) and talking about going back to Stargate (which he originally conceived as a trilogy of films). I want to frakkin' scream.
A while back I talked about my scepticism of remakes. I was proven wrong with Total Recall and I still want to scream at them for what they're going to do to RoboCop. And now Hollywood are making angry about sequels. They're not bad as a general concept. Some movies are fantastic as trilogies, some would have been better if you'd left things well enough alone. Perhaps a top ten list with some pretty pictures will illustrate my feelings on this one day, but not now. No, for now I want to make this point. All these sequels that work well as trilogies and the ones that don't...they were made within a couple of years of each other. Admittedly, we've been waiting some six years for the final part of Edgar Wright's Blood and Ice Cream trilogy, but it hasn't taken them twenty years.
If it takes you twenty years...I think there's a subtle message in there.
Don't frakkin' do it.
Now I could be entirely wrong. Come 2015, I could be back on this blog admitting to everyone that I was wrong to nay-say and that Independence Day 2 is amazing or at very least a passably enjoyable movie. And perhaps, somewhere, there's historical precedent for a sequel being made twenty odd years after the original being absolutely fantastic. But I can't help but think of the Die Hard movies and George Lucas' reprehensible treatment of Star Wars and seriously contemplate weeping. The historical precedent does not look good, Roland Emmerich. Oh no.
I'm now going to digress entirely into a new topic, since I don't think there's much more I can say about my hesitance regarding the Independence Day sequel. Intriguingly enough, I've just realised it could be construed as somewhat tying in to the subject. Although I'm not going to chat about sequels, I'm going to be talking about a particular reboot. A reboot known...as Man of Steel.
For all my geekdom, I'm not actually a big reader of comic books. In fact, I don't really have any. I have some graphic novels, but as for comic books...no. None. Alas. So when it comes to the Marvel and DC comic book superhero movies, I have to ask my friends about the source material for more information. Or look it up online. So many glorious hours of procrastination...
So, Man of Steel. Bottom line, I enjoyed it. But it seems to me that it's an incredibly divisive film. Once upon a many Moon ago, I talked about the Marmite Principle. I think it applies here. You either love Man of Steel or hate it. Or you can go completely middle of the road. But still. I've spoken to people who love it, people who hate it. And one of the most interesting things I've come to learn about this movie and what divides people, is the nature of the source material. Superman is the perfect superhero. He's invincible, he has pretty much every superpower crammed into one human being. Oh wait, sorry, crammed into Kryptonian being. Ahem. Anyway, as I've been told, in the comics he's the square-jawed perfect hero. He always saves the day and he's always a jovial, lovely chap.
So for this reboot, they make him all dark and brooding.
Now I didn't necessarily have a problem with this, given that I don't have an attachment to the source material and know very little about it. But apparently, this is not a good thing. Superman is not dark, he does not brood or seethe with repressed issues. He glides through existence with an almost child-like fascination at the actions of humanity and continues to save them all the while. And this leads me to an interesting point that one of my colleagues made...
...if you do not want spoilers, do not read on.
In the finale of the movie, Superman and General Zod are having themselves a fine old brawl. While they are beating the ever-loving crap out of each other, they are simultaneously laying waste to Metropolis. Seriously. The amount of damage they perpetrate is quite astonishing. I didn't think too much about it at first. But then my colleague made the point that, as Superman is the perfect square-jawed superhero, he would have been trying to save everyone. Or, at the very least, the director could have allowed for a couple of brief scenes showing people escaping from the carnage and devastation that Superman and his nemesis were causing. I found this to be...well, quite a compelling point.
However...
An interest counterpoint was presented to me - while it is inevitably true that Superman caused untold carnage that is uncharacteristic for him, it could be part of the backstory for the sequel (there's that word again...) and its potential villain, the one and only Lex Luthor. The devastation wrought upon Metropolis would give Luthor an opportunity to step in, rebuild the city and use the events of Man of Steel to poison the people against Superman. As a premise, it's very intriguing and I can see it working out. So we'll just have to wait and see I guess.
On that note, I wrap up today's babbling with the final thought - Independence Day 2, I really hope you don't suck but I won't hold my breath and Man of Steel, you were a really rather enjoyable movie, even if you do have some plot falls here and there.
Now for the traditional context portion.
Independence Day is one of my favourite films ever. It's kind of a classic from my teenage years and a film I shared in common with one of my best friends from school. In fact, it was part of our bonding process, along with our shared fascination with UFOs and aliens. In fact, this lady is the reason I received the nickname "Alien Dave". So yeah, Independence Day is an absolute classic for me and my friend. We would quote it and a couple of other choice films that we shared a love for. I even got her hooked on Firefly and Serenity. But I digress, so back on track.
Roland Emmerich...once I thought he was brilliant. He gave us Stargate, he made Independence Day. But in more recent years, his credentials have become ever more dubious. Now, he's making a sequel to Independence Day (without Will Smith but still keeping Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman) and talking about going back to Stargate (which he originally conceived as a trilogy of films). I want to frakkin' scream.
A while back I talked about my scepticism of remakes. I was proven wrong with Total Recall and I still want to scream at them for what they're going to do to RoboCop. And now Hollywood are making angry about sequels. They're not bad as a general concept. Some movies are fantastic as trilogies, some would have been better if you'd left things well enough alone. Perhaps a top ten list with some pretty pictures will illustrate my feelings on this one day, but not now. No, for now I want to make this point. All these sequels that work well as trilogies and the ones that don't...they were made within a couple of years of each other. Admittedly, we've been waiting some six years for the final part of Edgar Wright's Blood and Ice Cream trilogy, but it hasn't taken them twenty years.
If it takes you twenty years...I think there's a subtle message in there.
Don't frakkin' do it.
Now I could be entirely wrong. Come 2015, I could be back on this blog admitting to everyone that I was wrong to nay-say and that Independence Day 2 is amazing or at very least a passably enjoyable movie. And perhaps, somewhere, there's historical precedent for a sequel being made twenty odd years after the original being absolutely fantastic. But I can't help but think of the Die Hard movies and George Lucas' reprehensible treatment of Star Wars and seriously contemplate weeping. The historical precedent does not look good, Roland Emmerich. Oh no.
I'm now going to digress entirely into a new topic, since I don't think there's much more I can say about my hesitance regarding the Independence Day sequel. Intriguingly enough, I've just realised it could be construed as somewhat tying in to the subject. Although I'm not going to chat about sequels, I'm going to be talking about a particular reboot. A reboot known...as Man of Steel.
For all my geekdom, I'm not actually a big reader of comic books. In fact, I don't really have any. I have some graphic novels, but as for comic books...no. None. Alas. So when it comes to the Marvel and DC comic book superhero movies, I have to ask my friends about the source material for more information. Or look it up online. So many glorious hours of procrastination...
So, Man of Steel. Bottom line, I enjoyed it. But it seems to me that it's an incredibly divisive film. Once upon a many Moon ago, I talked about the Marmite Principle. I think it applies here. You either love Man of Steel or hate it. Or you can go completely middle of the road. But still. I've spoken to people who love it, people who hate it. And one of the most interesting things I've come to learn about this movie and what divides people, is the nature of the source material. Superman is the perfect superhero. He's invincible, he has pretty much every superpower crammed into one human being. Oh wait, sorry, crammed into Kryptonian being. Ahem. Anyway, as I've been told, in the comics he's the square-jawed perfect hero. He always saves the day and he's always a jovial, lovely chap.
So for this reboot, they make him all dark and brooding.
Now I didn't necessarily have a problem with this, given that I don't have an attachment to the source material and know very little about it. But apparently, this is not a good thing. Superman is not dark, he does not brood or seethe with repressed issues. He glides through existence with an almost child-like fascination at the actions of humanity and continues to save them all the while. And this leads me to an interesting point that one of my colleagues made...
...if you do not want spoilers, do not read on.
In the finale of the movie, Superman and General Zod are having themselves a fine old brawl. While they are beating the ever-loving crap out of each other, they are simultaneously laying waste to Metropolis. Seriously. The amount of damage they perpetrate is quite astonishing. I didn't think too much about it at first. But then my colleague made the point that, as Superman is the perfect square-jawed superhero, he would have been trying to save everyone. Or, at the very least, the director could have allowed for a couple of brief scenes showing people escaping from the carnage and devastation that Superman and his nemesis were causing. I found this to be...well, quite a compelling point.
However...
An interest counterpoint was presented to me - while it is inevitably true that Superman caused untold carnage that is uncharacteristic for him, it could be part of the backstory for the sequel (there's that word again...) and its potential villain, the one and only Lex Luthor. The devastation wrought upon Metropolis would give Luthor an opportunity to step in, rebuild the city and use the events of Man of Steel to poison the people against Superman. As a premise, it's very intriguing and I can see it working out. So we'll just have to wait and see I guess.
On that note, I wrap up today's babbling with the final thought - Independence Day 2, I really hope you don't suck but I won't hold my breath and Man of Steel, you were a really rather enjoyable movie, even if you do have some plot falls here and there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)