Review: Pacific Rim Uprising

I watched this film immediately after Pacific Rim. In hindsight maybe I should have waited a while. I might have been able to enjoy it better if the first one wasn't so fresh in my mind.

Pacific Rim Uprising (sometimes punctuated as Pacific Rim: Uprising) is the 2018 sequel to Pacific Rim. It has a new director and new characters, two things that nine times out of ten mark a decrease in quality.

I only recognised one of the new actors:

John Boyega (Finn in Star Wars) as Jake

The film is set ten years after the first one. The Kaiju are gone, and the Jaegars are going to be replaced by drones. Unfortunately it turns out that (SPOILER!) Newt of all people has become a traitor and is working with the Precursors. Yes, you read that right. No, it doesn't make much more sense in the film. Cue Kaiju going on the rampage and Jaegars fighting them again.

It's a struggle to find anything good to say about this film. The special effects were impressive, but as for the plot...

Everything that made the first film good is sadly missing. No sign of Raleigh, Mako unceremoniously killed off, a collection of uninteresting new characters, far too many subplots, and a dearth of Kaiju-Jaegar battles. I watched the first film precisely because I wanted to see giant robots fighting giant monsters, and this film only has one battle in the whole thing! A fairly long battle, yes, but it's still not enough. As for Mako's aforementioned fate, few fictional deaths have been more pointless or more infuriating 😠

Sequels have a depressing tendency to be underwhelming. This is one of the most underwhelming ones I've ever seen.

Is it available online?: Not as far I know.

Rating: 4/10

Review: Pacific Rim

 Forgot to post on Wednesday, and then I forgot to post yesterday too 😑 

Pacific Rim is a 2013 science fiction film directed by Guillermo del Toro. Although not actually based on an existing work, it's inspired by the plethora of monster movies and anime about giant robots. A sequel was released in 2018, and is currently at the top of my to-watch list.

I only recognised three actors. Weirdly enough, I recognised two from Charles Dickens adaptations -- not exactly the sort of association you'd expect.

Charlie Hunnam (Nicholas in Nicholas Nickleby 2002) as Raleigh

Burn Gorman (Guppy in Bleak House 2005) as Gottlieb

Idris Elba (Heimdall in Thor 2011) as Stacker

Kaiju (giant monsters, in case someone somewhere doesn't know what that means) are invading Earth. Humans build and pilot giant robots called Jaegers to destroy them. Unfortunately some idiots decide to stop building Jaegers, so when the monsters next attack it's up to our heroes and a few old Jaegers to defeat them.

I watched this film solely because I was bored and it looked cool. Giant robots fighting giant monsters are bound to be entertaining, if nothing else. It must be said the plot is predictable. (I guessed what was going to happen in the climax about half-way through.) I had no high expectations for the film. So imagine my surprise when it turned out to be good. Very good. It's like a Marvel film from back when the MCU was made of actual films instead of money-making monstrosities.

As long as you don't expect an original plot and don't mind occasionally cheesy dialogue, this film is thoroughly entertaining and has some great moments. The battles with the Kaiju are among my favourite film scenes ever!

Is it available online?: It probably is somewhere, but I don't know where.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Logically a horror film from the 1960s should be cheesy and unintentionally hilarious. Who'd have thought one could be so terrifying?

Night of the Living Dead is a 1968 film made with an obviously very low budget, complete with unconvincing special effects. (Luckily someone had the sense to make sure there aren't many special effects.) In spite of that it spawned many sequels and remakes, as well as changing the entire horror genre.

I didn't recognise any of the cast, so on to the plot.

Nowadays the film is fairly predictable. Zombies attack, they trap a group of strangers, people die. But even being predictable doesn't stop it being frightening.

I have a rather embarrassing confession to make: I've never seen most of the classic horror films. Since Halloween is approaching I'm making an effort to change that. And since this is widely considered the zombie film, I thought I might as well start with it. To be honest I didn't have high expectations in spite of its fame. One look at the year it was made and I thought it couldn't possibly be scary.

Oh boy, was I wrong. It might be tame compared to later zombie films/series (the violence is never as graphic or convincing as Kingdom, for example), but it's still honestly chilling. Some parts of it really are the stuff of nightmares. The zombie child, for example. And the twist ending is in a way even more horrifying than the zombie attacks 😱

This is one of the best films to watch if you want to be scared out of your wits this Halloween!

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: Thor Ragnarok

The Marvel Cinematic Universe, like everything associated with Disney, has been steadily deteriorating. The warning signs were there in The Avengers, which in hindsight was one of the last good films in the entire MCU. Now the people in charge only care about making money, and the films are increasingly incoherent nightmares.

I couldn't be bothered looking up a screenshot of the title card. This ugly, chaotic, explosion-in-a-paint-factory-esque thing is a perfect summary of the film itself anyway.

Thor Ragnarok is a strong contender for "worst MCU movie". I'd say it's even on the list of worst movies ever made. It claims to be the third instalment of the Thor series while disregarding everything about the previous films. 

I first watched it about a year after it was released. Back then I found it mildly entertaining but a real let-down. Recently I made the mistake of watching it again. It was one of the most horrifying experiences I've ever had. I had to immediately rewatch Thor (2011) to remember what these characters are supposed to be like.

To quote my TVTropes review, written in 2018:

The first scene has Thor in a cage for reasons never fully explained, talking to a skeleton. Huh? Then he starts snarking at Surtur, something that would be more in-character for Loki than Thor. Actually, the first time I watched it I thought that was Loki, in disguise as Thor. But no, it's Thor.

Then, in the space of minutes, Thor goes back to Asgard, reveals Loki has taken Odin's place, and sets off with Loki to find Odin, who dies just after they find him, and whose death is immediately followed by the appearance of Hela, whose existence in the MCU was never mentioned before this film. Talk about fast-moving.

There was one thing that I absolutely hated, though. Loki, as usual, tries to betray Thor, and Thor responds by... electrifying him. And then walks off, leaving Loki in pain with no way of stopping the pain. And this is never brought up again! Loki -- Loki, of all people -- seems to completely forgive Thor for it!

...As you can tell, I didn't exactly give it a ringing endorsement back in 2018. Now, in 2020, my opinion of it is even worse. The entire film is one unfunny joke after another. Loki even makes a joke about his attempted suicide. The Warriors Three are unceremoniously killed off and forgotten about. Characters do utterly uncharacteristic things. The film's "heroine" kidnaps people and sells them to be forced to fight to the death.

What sort of idiot could possibly make a film this bad? Turns out the director (who plays a major character in the film, something that IMO just screams "egotism" and reminds me of terrible self-insert fanfiction) also made a comedy about Hitler. Yes, really. (I watched a one-minute clip because I couldn't believe it was true. That clip did what the goriest deaths in Jaws and Jurassic Park have never done: it made me physically sick.) That tells you all you need to know about him. And the fact Marvel ever hired him and allowed this film to be made tells you all you need to know about them.

I had already lost interest in the new Marvel movies. Rewatching this mess was just the final nail in the coffin.

Is it available online?: I hope not.

Rating: 0/10

Review: Black Beauty (1994)

Some people seem to think that films with animal characters can't be anything but cutesy froth. These people really need to watch this film.

Black Beauty is a 1994 film based on the 1877 novel of the same name by Anna Sewell. It takes some liberties with the novel, notably by making the animals unable to speak while still leaving Black Beauty as the narrator.

Recognisable actors include:
Jim Carter (Captain Brown in Cranford) as John
Andrew Knott (Dickon in The Secret Garden 1993) as Joe
Sean Bean (Boromir in The Lord of the Rings) as Farmer Grey
David Thewlis (Remus Lupin in Harry Potter) as Jerry
Peter Davison (the Fifth Doctor in Doctor Who) as Squire Gordon
Alun Armstrong (Inspector Bucket in Bleak House) as Reuben
Eleanor Bron (Miss Minchin in A Little Princess 1995) as Lady Wexmire

You probably already know the film's plot. The titular horse is sold from owner to owner, often being mistreated but very rarely finding a kind owner. Eventually he reunites with his old friend Joe and lives happily ever after. 

No one would think a film about a horse would be utterly heart-breaking, but this one is. Ginger's fate and some of Black Beauty's owners are especially nightmarish 😨 And then there's Black Beauty and Joe's reunion, which always reduces me to a sobbing mess 😭 As both a film on its own and an adaptation of the novel I love it except for one thing. The narration.

For some reason the director decided the horses wouldn't talk like they do in the book. Maybe someone thought it would be silly to see horses "talking" -- though that didn't stop the makers of certain films with talking animals (*cough*Babe*cough*). Instead they had the genius idea of having Black Beauty narrate the film. That might have worked if the narration hadn't been comically overblown. Worse, it often describes what's happening onscreen, as if someone was afraid the viewers might not have been paying attention. The result is as painful as nails on a blackboard. Sometimes I solve this problem by turning the sound down when the narration gets especially unbearable. Other times I just fast-forward the most cringe-inducing parts.

On the bright side, at least the film generally stays close to the novel. That's more than I can say for some "adaptations" of Black Beauty.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Mike and Psmith

For a short novel this has an abundance of titles. I've never read a novel with three to six (depending on how you count them) different titles before, and it's so confusing that I hope I never will again.

The novel currently called Mike and Psmith was first published under the name Mike in 1909. It was in two parts that were given different titles: Jackson Junior and The Lost Lambs. Both parts were later given new titles: Mike at Wrykyn and Enter Psmith. The second half, which had already had two titles, was then renamed again and became Mike and Psmith. What a mess!

Whatever you want to call it, the novel introduced one of P. G. Wodehouse's famous characters: Rupert Psmith, the hero of four novels. (His surname was "Smith" before he decided to alter the spelling, and it's still pronounced that way.) Apparently Wodehouse thought this book was his best work. I have to disagree. It's good, yes, but not as good as his Jeeves and Wooster stories.

The plot is a fairly straight-forward school story. Mike has been sent against his will to a new school, where he meets and befriends Psmith, has disagreements with a teacher, nearly gets caught climbing a drainpipe (it's a long story), is falsely accused of painting a dog (ditto), and eventually plays cricket for the school.

I greatly enjoyed the novel except for one thing. Too much cricket! As someone who knows nothing about any sort of sport, I was hopelessly lost during the lengthy passages devoted to the cricket games. When Mike talks about the results of a game he might as well have been speaking ancient Greek for all I understood. Unfortunately about half of the book is dedicated to cricket. I skipped as much as I could.

Apart from that this is a thoroughly entertaining novel with much of Wodehouse's trademark humour. The fiasco of Mike's shoes is my favourite scene, with the confusion over who actually painted the dog as a close second 😆

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 9/10

Review: Lost Love in Times

Dramas where someone gets amnesia and falls in love with the same person twice. This one puts its own spin on an oft-used trope: instead of amnesia, a character creates an alternate universe and falls in love with the same person twice.

Lost Love in Times (醉玲珑, AKA Zuì Líng Lóng, AKA "Drunk Ling Long" or "Exquisite Drunkenness") is a 2017 Chinese series based on the novel of the same name by Shi Si Ye. It has a sequel which I haven't watched yet, mainly because I can't find it on YouTube.

I only recognised two actors:

Shi Shi Liu (Xin Yue in Sound of the Desert) as Qing Chen

Yi Jun Liu (Xie Yu in Nirvana in Fire) as Yuan An

The series is set in a fantasy version of ancient China where sorcerers protect the royal family of Great Wei. Within the first five episodes our heroes, Qing Chen and Yuan Ling, fall in love and get married... well, try to. Yuan Ling's half-brother Yuan Zhan decides the middle of the wedding is the perfect time to stage a coup. Chaos ensues. Qing Chen uses a spell to create an alternate universe, only to discover that nothing is how she remembers it, no one knows who she is, and Yuan Zhan has undergone a complete change of character. The remaining fifty-one episodes are about Qing Chen adjusting to life in the AU and falling in love with Yuan Ling again, while dealing with endless schemes from the people living in the palace.

My main problem with the series is the costumes. Especially the truly bizarre headdresses. A few examples:

Qing Chen and a headdress that defies description.

Tao Yao and Xi Xie wearing what I've nicknamed "triceratops hats". (You have to admit, those things do look slightly triceratops-ish.)

Yuan Zhan with a flying saucer on his head.

Not pictured: the equally strange headgear Yuan Ling and Yuan Che don on occasion. Or the garish outfits certain characters wear. Seriously, costume department, what were you thinking? On the bright side the scenery is incredible. I can only assume someone used up so much of the budget on it that they had virtually nothing left for the costumes.

Once I managed to look past the ugly costumes and not be distracted by the breath-taking scenery I found myself enjoying the series much more than I expected from my first impression. Qing Chen and Yuan Ling are adorable together 😍 They were my OTP from the start, and not even in the AU when Yuan Zhan is 1) a decent person and 2) in love with Qing Chen made me change my mind. And Yuan Che is adorable. I was very confused when he disappeared without explanation towards the end. Apparently he's the main character of the sequel, but I wish there was some mention of him in the last episodes. Even if just to confirm he's still alive 😒

Yuan Ling

Yuan Che

Of course, then there are the villains. I absolutely loathe Yuan An. He's Xie Yu all over again. Apparently this actor specialises in playing scumbags who attempt to murder their adopted children.

Yuan An

Yuan Ming is no better. I wish he had died much earlier, before he got poor Yuan Ji killed 😢

Yuan Ming and Yuan Ji

Overall I loved this series, apart from a few minor quibbles, and I wish I could find the sequel somewhere. I want to know what happened to Yuan Che!

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles.

Rating: 8/10.