Five Reasons Why You Should See 'Pacific Rim' (seriously)

Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Rating: 3.5 out of 4 stars ★★★☆
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Burn Gorman
Rated PG-13

When I first saw the trailers for Pacific Rim, I thought it would be another dumb explosion-y action movie. I was very wrong.

01.) Fair Balance of Plot, Action, & Development. I have to hand it to Guillermo, he delved into more character development than most current action flicks. Though some critics would argue the characters aren't that likable, I beg to differ. 

(source)

Our main protagonists Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) and Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) are both excellent hero-material with their individual marred past affected by the Kaiju. They have drive, motive, and skill. Marshall Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) is also a sharp, commanding, and charismatic character that you can't help but root for, especially with his heroic backstory.

What was also unique was the concept of the Drift, where the two pilots of the Jaeger do a "neural handshake", causing their minds to meld and sync up for optimal fighting coordination. It's essential to the film's plot and adds an interesting dimension to the movie.

Of course, it's not perfect and there's more depth to be desired, but it's still something!

02.) Diversity! In a refreshing turn of events, there was racial and gender diversity in the leading roles! Idris Elba teaches all the younger actors how it's done and plays a multi-dimensional commanding officer of the Jaeger defense force, which are the mind-melding, copiloted fighting machines to combat the Kaiju.

(L to R) Kikuchi, Elba, and Hannum

Rinko Kikuchi plays a brilliant, strong, and powerful woman named Mako Mori. She's not overly sexualized and is respected by her peers. She even copilots one of the Jaegers with Raleigh. I'm definitely a fan of hers. Another character of color is Ops Tendo Choi, who's the command center whiz as he monitors the Jaegers and the Kaijus, played by Latino actor Clifton Collins Jr.

Not to mention writer and director Guillermo del Toro is hispanic himself.

03.) Talented but not "star-studded" cast. What I really liked is that the actors are known, but not mega-super-stars. Idris Elba is probably one of the most well-known actors in the cast, partially due to his extensive filmography. 

They COULD have picked people like Jessica Alba as the sexy love interest or Channing Tatum as our dashing hero to draw crowds, but they didn't. It helped the audience immerse themselves in the story more. 

Also, adding Charlie Day and Burn Gorman into the mix really helped for much needed comic relief after the back-to-back intense Kaiju battle scenes.

04.) No Gushy Romance. Praise the Lord Jesus. Romances in action movies
tend to feel forced and predictable. There's suggestion of something between Raleigh and Mako, but nothing is really initiated. Hey, just because the two of them understand each other doesn't mean they have to be in love, okay? 

And no big finale kiss in sight. And the peasants rejoiced.

05.) Eye Candy galore.

This part speaks for itself. Just look at them. Look.

I'm more than okay with this (source)

Aww so cute Rinko (source)

A+  (source)

Lord have mercy (source)

The unfortunate thing is that this movie doesn't pass the Bechdel Test, since there's only one woman with a major speaking role. Also I'm not thrilled with the other writer, Travis Beacham. He wrote actual flop of a movie Clash of the Titans, among other overloaded action flicks that I was no fan.

Don't believe the critics who say this movie is "stupid" or that it's "a flop" when it really is not. Guillermo del Toro's amazing directing has shone through once again. It makes the film a fun, adventure-filled thrill ride with characters you can cheer for (despite what other people say *ahem*).

So go see Pacific Rim! If you have already, what did you think of it? Tell me in the comments below.

Till next time xx,

Sierra

The Chick Flick Stigma

Image made by Sierra, courtesy of IMDB for movie poster images

It's common knowledge that films, when being written and directed, either have a target audience in mind or naturally evolve one during the creative process. One of the most popular, and supposedly "embarrassing" categories of films are known as "chick flicks." 

Some prime examples that I came across of these types of movies are 27 Dresses, The Notebook, Pride & Prejudice, Legally Blonde, Under the Tuscan Sun, and Sleepless in Seattle.

A chick flick is a movie usually focused on romance, with occasional comedy, tend to have female leads, and have a handsome love interest for our heroine. The label suggest that they are considered for all women and only women to enjoy.  Because movies such as these are automatically labelled as such, men and women alike tend to automatically avoid them.

Why are people so ashamed to like these kinds of movies?

Some say they're "predictable" and follow the same formula. Though many have similar themes and plot lines, that doesn't automatically make it as a bad movie. Originality is difficult, anyone who writes fiction (or creates any other medium of art) knows this firsthand. It's not a bad thing to take similar ideas from other movies and model them after that. It will eventually evolve into something of its own. In a good film, there will be facets that stand out and make it great.

The term "chick flick" has a connotation of being of horrible, predictable, and lovey-dovey.

But these films have value. For example, Legally Blonde is about a college girl that follows her bonehead boyfriend to Harvard Law School in order to win him back, but soon she finds her passion in helping others and studying to become a lawyer herself. Elle Woods (played by Reese Witherspoon) is an intelligent, confident woman who doesn't compromise her own values and style to conform to her colleagues, and kicks lawyer ass while doing it. Her relationship with her new boyfriend (a huge improvement over the last) at the end is only a footnote. I think more people should watch movies like Legally Blonde, because it features a confident, bubbly, smart female lead that can hold her own in the cutthroat lawyer world without sacrificing her femininity. 

Reese Witherspoon looking fabulous as leading lady Elle Woods, image c/o Rotten Tomatoes

For those who claim these movies aren't intelligent enough, guess again. Some of these films are based off classic literary works by William Shakespeare and Jane Austen, such as Clueless (Emma by Jane Austen), She's The Man (Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare), and 10 Things I Hate About You (The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare). Pride & Prejudice, the novel and direct film adaptation of Austen's novel, is severely criticized at first glance because "it's all about romance", despite it being wildly popular among women. This is said like it's a bad thing. Austen's characters are complex and tell a masterfully, wittily crafted commentary on her society's ridiculous pomp and circumstance. She challenges these ideas through a romantic story, and uses Elizabeth and Darcy's relationship to make a statement.

Many of these romantic/romantic-comedic films make their own kind of statements, whether it's being true to yourself, believing in love, despite the circumstances; not judging someone without getting to know them, or finding that what you want has been right in front of you all along.

Yes, more often than not these movies get a bad rap right off the bat. "They're not realistic" they say. "They're too romantic" they complain. And my response to that is this: so what? These movies are touching, emotional, and often downright hilarious, if you give them the chance.

It's okay to have preferences, of course. Maybe romance isn't your style and you prefer action and adventure movies. That's totally okay. However, action and adventure movies could also be considered "chick flicks" as well, based on the fact that A LOT OF WOMEN LIKE THEM.

See the problem here?

People would even say that inspiring movies such as A League Of Their Own, a movie about women's baseball and breaking down traditional gender roles, as a "chick flick" because it's mainly starring women and focuses on the relationship of two sisters.

Really? Are you serious right now?

Riddle me this: why do we belittle movies with emotional elements labeled as "chick flicks" automatically? Is it because we think that having faith in love is silly? 

Or is it because women like them and women are the main characters, and whatever women like must be inferior? I know many guys that won't even look at a certain film twice because "it's for chicks", or are embarrassed to admit that they genuinely enjoy films like Love, Actually or Dirty Dancing. This includes other women who don't "want to be like other women". That's a downright shame, for people that think that way.

It's part of the classic stereotype that women are mainly emotional and men are more action-oriented and logic-based. This is a gross misrepresentation, since human emotions and logical decisions are all basic human qualities despite gender.

The term "chick flick" should be removed from our vocabulary. Everyone is entitled to liking any movie they wish, despite it being a "girl movie" or a "boy movie" (both ridiculous labels with sexist criteria). Romantic comedies can have male leads, and action/adventure movies can have (and should have more) female leads.

Not every romantic comedy will be a winner, but there are definitely more diamonds in the rough than many of us are giving credit to, buried under the stigma of the "chick flick" label. 

Let's start getting past that and enjoy a movie for what it is, despite what the main demographic it was geared towards.

Here are a list of my favorite so-called "chick flicks":

• The Princess Bride (I didn't know this was considered a "girl movie" since I've seen it over a hundred times, but it's my favorite movie of all time so it's going on here)
• When Harry Met Sally
• 10 Things I Hate About You (seriously, one of the best movies I've ever seen)
• Clueless
• Made of Honor
• 27 Dresses
• Sleepless In Seattle
• An Affair To Remember
• My Fair Lady
• Miss Congeniality
• Sixteen Candles
• Legally Blonde
• Pretty Woman

What's your favorite romantic/romantic comedy movie? Favorite movie from another genre?

Why do you think we shun these "chick flicks"?

Tell me in the comments below!

Till next time xx,

Sierra

REVIEW: "The Heat" (2013)

Directed by: Paul Feig
Rating: 2.5 out of 4 stars ★★☆☆
Starring: Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthey, Taran Killam, Demián Bichir, Marlon Wayans
Rated R

Finally, an action, buddy-cop movie with two female leads! About time. 

Image courtesy of Flixster

From the director of Bridesmaids (2011) comes The Heat, the story of an uptight FBI agent Sarah Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) and off-the-rails, foul-mouthed Boston cop Shannon Mullins (Melissa McCarthey) team up to hunt down a dangerous druglord. The comedy duo's chemistry is excellent and creates a lot of laughs (from Ashburn's awkwardness and Mullins' language, mostly).

The thin plot line tends to be predictable at times, but the humor makes up for it. The main reason for the R rating is language. The violence and sex levels are relatively low in this film. Set to the background music of many a female rap track and hardly uses the crutch of romance for character development, this film works fairly well in a feminist perspective (and there are even several actors of color, too). 

Some problems with this film that prompted the rather low rating lie mostly in the strength of the plot. Druglords seem to be a go-to theme in cop movies, so in that respect it was rather typical. Ashburn being a foil to borderline-goofy Mullins worked with these two actresses, especially with Bullock's seemingly effortless switchback from serious cop to goofball depending on the scene. Often the story went in a rather predictable direction, but still enjoyable nonetheless. There are no shortage of hilariously, borderline-vulgar scenes. I laughed through most of this movie, and heartily.

Image courtesy of Flixster

This film also passes the Bechdel Test time and time again, portraying these women in a rather positive light as independent ladies and referencing men romantically only several times. Romance is mentioned but is not a significant plot point. One of the more misogynistic characters in the film is actually pointed out as misogynistic (by one of the bad guys...but it's something). Though Mullins is rather rough around the edges and does her own thing, her integrity to her job and herself is definitely respected (by Bullock's character and the director, anyway). 

Unfortunately, movies with female leads are few and far between, especially in the action and comedy genres. Most movies with female leads are automatically branded as "chick flicks," meaning that it is geared toward women and only women would enjoy a film like that. That stigma makes people feel guilty for liking these films in the first place, even if these so-called "chick flicks" are wonderful films! This needs to change. The Heat is a good start, and illustrates that movies with female leads can be funny and enjoyable for all audiences.

However, these actors deserve better writers and plots than this one (though it's a good movie, it's not great).

So for all of those people who still think women can't be funny, I'd like to point you to this film.

If you're still not convinced, there's no hope for you.

The Heat is now in theatres. Read the Rotten Tomatoes reviews here.

Let me know what you thought of the movie in the comments below!


Till next time xx,

Sierra

REVIEW: "World War Z" (2013)

Directed by: Marc Forster
Rating: 3 stars (out of four) ★★★☆

Starring: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, Matthew Fox, James Badge Dale, Fana Mokoena

Zombies + Brad Pitt = Instant blockbuster success? Quite possibly.

Image courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes

World War Z is the story of Gerry Lane (Pitt), an ex-UN employee who's roped into stopping a mysterious zombie-inducing pandemic that's infecting the entire population. 

It beings in Philadelphia, where Gerry, his wife Karin (Enos), and his two daughters are sitting in a traffic jam which soon turns deadly, as the fleeing citizens become a legion of infected zombies all around them. They escape and are taken away by helicopter by Gerry's former UN employer Thierry Umutoni (Mokoena). However, though Gerry believes this is a favor for his past work, he quickly discovers that he must lead a team to search for a medical cure to stop the quickly-spreading plague.

I know you might be thinking "wait, ANOTHER zombie movie?!", but this film has it's own bite (pun definitely intended). These aren't your typical slower-than-mollasses zombies, either. They are fast, ferocious, and not to mention persistent creatures. They're sufficiently terrifying, especially when in large swarms.

If you're anything like me, your heart will be racing through 80% of this movie, the action and suspense deliver. However, some moments were quite funny, more unintentional than not. The zombies by themselves at times were too crazed and bugged out to be taken seriously. The film was definitely more action than gore, tastefully played with minimal blood and guts (but just enough to remind you that, yes, people are dying), an interesting move from Forster that some would call a flinch. There were also moments and situations that were barely plausible (legion of zombies aside) that no one, even our handsome but human zombie slayer, could have probably survived. But hey, it's the plague of the undead. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug, I guess.

Image courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes

It was a rocky road to get this movie made, going through many writers and a last minute editing change after the initial filming. But with the steady resolves of Pitt as a producer and Forster, they pushed the movie forward. All of that pushing definitely paid off. The zombie-apocalypse flick sure did well in the box office, raking in over $111 million, possibly Pitt's most successful blockbuster of his career.

Forster's creepy take on the zombie genre portrays the monsters as infected hosts searching to spread their disease like a malicious virus. Though this isn't an original idea, the way to the cure is certainly one I had not seen before (don't worry, I won't spoil it). I can't help but compare it to Warm Bodies, another undead-themed book-to-movie adaptation that entertains the idea that the zombies can be "cured" and turned back to their former selves. Don't look for this kind of hope in World War Z. 

The movie is filled with excellent acting from most of the cast, though Pitt especially shines as the hero of the story, the chosen one to save the world, if you will. This is definitely not a movie in Brad's normal genre range, but he plays his character with enough grounded emotional connection, humanity, and heart while simultaneously shooting zombies in the head. What could be better? Pitt was more or less the highlight of the film, as was most likely the intention.

World War Z is (loosely) based off the book of the same name by Max Brooks. 

And for those who saw the ending: yes, there is talk of a sequel.

--------------------------------

Loved it or hated it? Leave a comment telling why!

Till next time xx,

Sierra

REVIEW: “The Great Gatsby” (2013)

Rating: 3 1/2 stars (out of four) ★★★☆

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Isla Fisher, Joel Edgerton

Mulligan and DiCaprio in their portrayal of a classic

Highly anticipated since its original announcement last year, “The Great Gatsby” directed by Baz Luhrmann (“Romeo + Juliet”, “Moulin Rouge!”), now out in theatres, starts you out in a whirlwind and leaves you grounded, albeit a little dizzy. I was fortunate enough to have gone to the premiere on Thursday night of the premiere, but more on that later.

Luhrmann’s “Great Gatsby” is a modern-esque take on the classic novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald geared toward a 21st-century audience. With it’s loud, almost gaudy setting, it differs greatly from Fitzgerald’s novel but does emphasize the illustrious spell the Jazz Age casted over its victims. “Gatsby” falls flat in some areas and shines in others.

The film is definitely a spectacle and beautiful to look at. The first act in the movie is jerky and fast-paced, leaving you in a rush by the time Daisy (Mulligan) and Gatsby (DiCaprio) reconnect and begin their affair, when the film starts to slow down. The soundtrack was also cleverly incorporated in the movie. Luhrmann’s classic utilization of weather to reflect the moods of the characters throughout the film.

DiCaprio’s performance as Gatsby shone through the heavy glitz and glamour that at times was a bit overwhelming. In his performance, he captured the spectrum that is the Jay Gatsby, transitioning well from the puppy-love stage of chasing Daisy to his growing obsession that eventually consumes him. In my opinion, he was a fantastic casting choice. One could compare him to James Franco’s Gatsby in an earlier lit-to-film translation, but in the end DiCaprio comes out on top. 

Mulligan’s portrayal of Daisy was also true to the book and to how I envisioned Daisy: a beautiful but spoiled, air-headed woman who epitomized the Jazz Age blissful and careless attitude. Aussie actor Joel Edgerton, who played Daisy’s jealous but unfaithful husband Tom, is a close contender with DiCaprio for the best performance of the bunch. Honestly, I had little to no faith in Tobey Maguire as narrator Nick Carraway, but in the end he delivered.

“Gatsby” has notes of humor amidst the drama, romance, and lavishness, making it a well-rounded film overall, despite it occasionally getting in the way of itself.

Share with me your thoughts on the movie in the comments below!

Till next time xx,

Sierra

Follow me on BlogLovin'!