The Wolverine

Hugh Jackman is back, and badder than ever as the most popular superhero in Marvel's stable. Mutant might be the more appropriate term so as not to confuse with the Avengers and dozens of other "superheroes", but either way, Jackman is The Wolverine. Since 2000, there have been six films featuring this character, and a seventh on the way. Fans just can't seem to get enough, evident through the cool $55 million take on opening weekend. With a production budget at a meager $120 million, it has surpassed that globally at about $157 million and counting as I write this. People love the idea of an emotionally tormented, reluctant hero with rage issues, regenerating powers, and retractable indestructible claws. It's cool to the core. And Jackman is so perfect for the role from his bushy sideburns and cigar to the bulging muscles in his arms. It's the Marvel home-run of casting (Downey Jr. wasn't so bad either).

As with most X-Men films, we are given a taste of back story to start us off. Nagasaki, a week or so before the end of WWII. You can guess what happens. The story finds our hero in the Yukon, enjoying his manly life of solitude as the epitome of a survivalist. He only walks into town to get more whiskey and batteries for his radio. He sleeps on the ground with just a blanket, and has long hair and a thick, shaggy beard. Does it get any more manly? If you don't catch my rhetoric, the answer is simply "Doubtful". Wolverine is pulled out of the wilderness by a young Japanese woman who has a spotty gift for seeing the future, but her job is to bring Logan back to Japan where he saved a young soldier's life all those years ago. Wolverine doesn't age by the way, he's over a hundred years old. The adamantium claws and skeleton was the result of a rogue military science experiment. Come on people, keep up on your Marvel lore.

Anyhow, Wolverine meets this wealthy, elderly Japanese man who promises him mortality in exchange for his regenerating powers to help with his own ailing conditions. Wolverine ponders this, and finds himself involved with the Yakuza and political powers in Tokyo. He is given a taste of humanity as his powers are sapped by the evil, and terribly cast Viper. She's a mutant with an immunity to toxins, and can spit venom that behaves exactly how she wants it to. It's gimmicky and cheap, and she doesn't make a very compelling baddie. Played by Svetlana Khodchenkova (I know, right?), she couldn't be more unrecognizable. This was a wasted opportunity to create a rich side character and the casting director should have gone a tad more mainstream. Maybe not A-list, but definitely a friendly face and some acting talent. This was definitely the biggest mistake of the film.

Wolverine then claws his way through countless Yakuza until he is nearly killed. Nearly. The third act starts with some serious gusto, then fizzles as we meet the final nemesis, the Silver Samurai. His existence is a bit of a head scratcher at first, but makes perfect sense as the battle scene comes to a conclusion. Stay through the credits to get a taste of the next X-Men endeavor, which is slated for a summer 2014 release and gives a pretty clear glimpse of the next threat to the X-Men. None other than... Peter Dinklage. I know, me too.

X-Men: First Class didn't count, as Wolverine had a very small cameo, but his previous headlining film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a bit of a disappointment. No fault of Jackman, he portrayed the character well, the story was just lackluster and poorly executed. The Wolverine comes with a fresh attitude, centering fully on our protagonist and his curiosity to tempt his own fate. The animalistic instinct to ponder ones own mortality is too much for a creature that can't be killed. It's a bold move, that doesn't just put him in the stratosphere above all other mutants or superheroes, but makes him seem deeper and more relatable. He is just plain cool, and the director nailed the character aspect of the story.

Jackman is right in his element, seemingly at home with the mutton chops and white tank top. He's a very macho and charismatic character actor, and for my money, I think he does the best work as Wolverine. The bulk of the supporting cast are Japanese, and there is a lot of traditional samurai/ronin/ninja action, which is a fresh change. No disasters here (except the bombing of Nagasaki), just good old fashioned sword/knife/bow and arrow/Wolverine claw fighting.

James Mangold as a director hasn't done a film like this before, stopping just short in the action genre with 2007's 3:10 to Yuma. His earlier work of Girl, Interrupted, Walk the Line, and one of my underrated favorites, Copland are much more serious fare, but he's hitting his blockbuster stride after the 2010 Tom Cruise bomb, Knight and Day. He doesn't do anything fancy, but definitely blows away Gavin Hood's 2009 Origins: Wolverine film with more attention to the post-production detail. The Silver Samurai is cool, if not a bit irrelevant.

Marvel, although separated by studios, is a veritable goldmine of story ideas. People will never grow tired of superpowers, just as they seemingly never grow tired of zombies, or vampire love stories. Running the Avenger universe concurrent with the X-Men universe is a smart idea ripe with crossover potential. 2014 brings a third part of the universe with Guardians of the Galaxy, a lesser known band of heroes led by one of my current favorite funnymen; Chris Pratt. They will do battle with the massive red creature named Kronos, who you will recognize from the end of The Avengers. I wish I was involved with the Marvel film idea discussion right now, they are making millions hand over fist, and it won't stop anytime soon.

Back to The Wolverine. It's better than the last one, but really only because of Jackman's ability to own the character and make it believable and real (as much as it can). The bad guys were a bit underwhelming, particularly the poorly cast Viper. All in all though, the action was fun and full of fights, particularly the one on top of the train. I could have done without the one liners though, bub. 7/10.

2014 Oscar Watch

It might be a bit premature, as it's only late July, but I wanted to be able to say I told you first. There are 22 films I've identified as Best Picture Oscar hopefuls, but there can only be 10, and this year there will be 10, and I'll tell you who will win and why. If trending means anything, it will be The Monuments Men or Inside Llewyn Davis, both of which will be on the final ballot. Why you ask? Because John Goodman is in them. He's been in the last 2 Best Pictures (The Artist, Argo), and is establishing himself as one of the most important role players in Hollywood when it comes to critical success. I am halfheartedly joking. Here are the 22 films with a brief synopsis and prognostication:

Currently in theatres, there is a small scale film that is getting rave reviews for both story and acting. Fruitvale Station and likely Best Actor nominee Michael Jordan (not that Michael Jordan) are one of three racially charged films (a la The Help) that has an outside chance of a nomination. My thoughts are that the odds are against them being released in July, but Michael B. Jordan is the next Denzel Washington.

August brings us two films that are also longshots, not likely to end up on the ballot, but will receive buzz. First, Elysium. I know what you're saying - "it's a sci-fi action film". True, but so was District 9, and this is Neil Blomkamp's follow up to the sharp and deep political themes of futuristic apartheid. Elysium is going to be District 9 with a big budget. The battle of the classes has never looked so cool, and expect an deep philosophical message to linger long after it's over. Of any blockbuster, this stands the best chance of success. The other August release, The Butler, is an early release as well, which diminishes its chances significantly. It might be a bit too racial for some, as it's a biopic of longtime White House butler, Cecil Gaines. Possibly enough to give Forest Whitaker another Oscar nomination. Not a frontrunner by any means, but helmed by rising director Lee Daniels (Precious), this will get some buzz. If the critics rave, it may be on the ballot.

September brings us just one likely nomination, and I have it on my final ten. Rush, by Ron Howard gives Formula One an artistic look, and will surely be an epic. Set in the 1970's in the height of F1 racing, it is a modern day Rocky IV with the Austrian against the British. OK, maybe not Rocky IV, but much more adrenaline-fueled. Expect a fun ride.

October has seven of my picks, but only two will make the final cut. First up is Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity. I'm expecting a Best Director nomination for this one. Think Life of Pi. The entire film takes place in space and has Clooney and Bullock floating. Sounds boring, right? Wrong. It's Cuaron's first film since the absolutely brilliant Children of Men, so it will be good. Unfortunately, audiences won't appreciate it enough to give it the support needed to make the top 10. I have very high hopes though. Then we have Runner, Runner. It's getting a lot of hype, but will be a bit too much action to maintain momentum. It's much easier for action films to get neglected come awards season. Next up is Captain Phillips. Tom Hanks is certain to get a nomination this year, and it's either as Captain Phillips, or Walt Disney. I like the idea of this story, and Paul Greengrass (United 93) is a master of non-fiction. Expect it to polarize audiences due to content and violence, but it will be amazing to say the least. Captain Phillips makes the top ten. The Fifth Estate is next up, and a longshot. The biopic of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange gives us Benedict Cumberbatch front and center. Will he be enough to ensure success? Time will tell. I predict it gets lost in the shuffle. Spike Lee brings us a curious tale of a man held captive for 20 years only to be released unexpectedly. Oldboy follows Josh Brolin down the path of vengeance, and I think it will be more Taxi Driver, and less Do the Right Thing. Think ultra-violent. Might be one of the more fun films in October, but won't get enough steam behind it, or enough mainstream support. The Counselor on the other hand, is going to blow audiences away. A stellar cast, Ridley Scott directing, and written by my absolute favorite author of all time; Cormac McCarthy. This is his first original screenplay, so he may be making the move to Hollywood for good. The Counselor will be a great indicator of his viability, and this is one of my current frontrunners.

November has a couple of heavy hitters, namely August: Osage County and The Wolf of Wall Street. These are going to be two solid films, and I'm hoping to see Leo win his much-deserved Oscar, although I think a nomination is all we can expect from him. August: Osage County brings together one of the best casts of recent memory, and will deliver the Best Actress or Supporting Actress almost automatically. It's the strongest current Best Picture candidate, and has everything an audience looks for, particularly Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts in a family dramedy. Director John Wells hit the jackpot, and is the next David O. Russell. The other longshots are Nebraska, and Mandela: A Long Walk to Freedom. Both will serve up strong male performances, but Nebraska (black and white, and Alexander Payne) will be too small-scale, and Mandela will be a bit too redundant after Invictus just a couple of years ago. I really do like Idris Elba though. Oh, there's a little film called Catching Fire coming out in November as well, expect it to shatter box office records. It will become a top 5 grossing film of all time, behind just Avatar, Titanic, and Avengers.

December holds the biggest group of likely nominees. Let's start with the quirky Inside Llewyn Davis. The Coen Brothers are perennial favorites of mine, and this homage to 1970's folk music might be just touching enough to make the final cut. We also have The Dallas Buyer's Club, which is interesting, but might fall flat, despite what might be Matthew McConaughey's best performance. Then, American Hustle. David O. Russell takes his Oscar nominated family and mixes them together pairing Jennifer Lawrence with Christian Bale, and Amy Adams with Bradley Cooper. It's a stellar cast regardless of the story, but with Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter over the past few years, does it really even matter what it's about? Monuments Men. George Clooney goes all-in much like Affleck did with Argo last year, and we see a Nazi themed historical fiction story. This is one of the few that could actually win. Saving Mr. Banks might be a bit too light, but then again, it is Tom Hanks as Walt Disney. This is my number 11 right now, and I would choose it over Grace of Monaco, but I have a feeling that a European royalty story will need to be included in the mix. And for some reason I just can't figure out, people love Nicole Kidman. This will make the final cut just to appease the uppity academy members. 12 Years a Slave will be the racially charged Academy nominee this year. Think Django without the gratuitous violence or quirky Tarantino perspective. It's a compelling true story, and will surely rivet audiences. Finally, I'm excited for the Peter Berg biopic, Lone Survivor. It has potential as a story to be this year's Zero Dark Thirty, but with Peter Berg behind it, and Mark Wahlberg as the lead, it will more likely be like Black Hawk Down. Either way, I'm really excited to see how they put the story of four Navy SEALs pinned down by over two hundred Taliban in Afghanistan on the screen. Great cast with Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster as the unfortunate other three.

This year is absolutely chock full of quality stories, acting, and direction. There is a lot of promise for this to be one of the better Oscar seasons in recent memory, and I think the Academy is finally rewarding the "right" nominees. Let's hope it continues.

Recap: The ten best picture nominees are...
September: Rush
October: Captain Phillips, The Counselor
November: August: Osage County, The Wolf of Wall Street
December: Inside Llewyn Davis, American Hustle, Monuments Men, 12 Years a Slave, Grace of Monaco

Real shots at Best Picture: The Counselor, Monuments Men, August: Osage County.

Who I would pick as an early winner: The Counselor.

Who will win Best Picture: August: Osage County.

R.I.P.D.

R.I.P.D, or "Rest In Peace Department" is more accurately "Relatively Interesting idea, Poorly Done". What initially was a very intriguing idea about a dead cop fighting the undead with the rest of the deceased law enforcement from throughout American history plays out like Men in Black Light. Even Jeff Bridges as Roy, the six-shooting Western relic can't save the film from failure. In fact, he has a bit too much fun with his character's gruffness and accented one-liners.

The film starts out with Nick (Reynolds), a morally conflicted maverick detective embroiled in a guilty conscience gold scheme that plays way too large of a role at the end. We are led to believe that there is a passionate relationship, but there isn't a noticeable spark and not enough of a relationship built to draw any viewer emotion when Nick dies. Enter the R.I.P.D. after a pretty cool 3D scene in which time freezes and he's taken up past limbo. He's told he can do a tour as a cop for the undead, or face judgment, in which case it's not entirely clear which way he'd end up.

Nick is paired up with Roy (Bridges), who stands out like a sore thumb in his ridiculous 10-gallon hat and mustache. There is tension from the start as Nick is left to figure out the rules of being dead while Roy judges him pretty harshly. The rules of being dead by the way are odd, the most stark being that they don't look or talk like themselves. They blend in with the crowds, and take the form of an old Chinese man, or a Victoria's Secret model. To make matters more difficult, when they try to speak (Nick to his wife) it comes out as gibberish.

This is the point that Men in Black takes over. The undead hiding in Boston are monsters with no real ill intent, but superhuman powers and nonsensical deformities. They simply want to avoid judgment and stay on Earth. Why you ask? Me too. How you ask? Me too. It was somewhere around here that I drifted off for a few minutes. How many I'm not sure, but you know it's bad when you fall asleep during a 3D action film. I woke up as the film was wrapping up, but didn't miss a thing. The duo are on probation for screwing up, and manage to save the world from catastrophic total destruction.

Directed by Robert Schwentke (RED, Flightplan, Time Traveler's Wife), this is the highest profile film on his resume, although 2010's RED was a surprise hit that even he didn't expect. The direction wasn't bad, and there were plenty of explosive scenes with cool, but choppy visual effects. Written by Matt Manfredi and Phil Hay, the team that brought you the awful Jackie Chan classic, The Tuxedo as well as Aeon Flux and Clash of the Titans, the story plays out as if they wrote it knowing that it would stall their careers. No originality or plot twists. Action scenes are contrived and leave unanswered questions. The relationship between Nick and his wife is weak, and the rules of being dead are both vague and complicated. The premise is great, but it could have been executed much more smoothly and cleverly.

Ryan Reynolds brings his action machismo, but fails to showcase either of his best qualities (quick wit and abs). He plays a conflicted character; both confused at his new life/death and cool and confident as a cop. It doesn't jive, and comes off making him look rather amateur.

Jeff Bridges is too good of an actor to be dragged into rubbish like this. Especially with a character so poorly written. Sure, he has some good lines, but he's getting too old for action. He's making some money after his Oscar, but he is in his prime, and should capitalize on that for critical work.

Kevin Bacon gets far too little screentime, which is probably a good thing for him and eerily looks like he should play Reynolds' brother/father. Stephanie Szostak, who made an impression on me in Dinner for Schumucks plays the widow with the light of an actress on the rise, even if her French accent is a bit too noticeable to be taken seriously as a Bostonian. Mary Louise Parker is the other big name as the welcoming committee for the deceased, and she deadpans without emotion or effort. Overall, the film was destined for weakness despite its fun idea. With a take of just $13 million or so to date, and a budget of $130 million, it might be the bust of the summer. 5/10.

The Lone Ranger

Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer reteam with Johnny Depp in a not-so-subtle attempt to capture the box office success of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Even the previews flash the Pirates' logo, which isn't typically an advertising strategy. With a budget of $215 million, it has been a disappointment, taking in only $80m at home, and $65m globally. It should be fine when it finishes it's run and counts its DVD sales, but it is a big disappointment for a film of that magnitude. Maybe the fickle moviegoer is looking for something a bit more oh, I don't know, Marvel?

The film starts with an uptight, non-violent, law abiding prosecutor named John Reid (Armie Hammer) making his way to Colby, Texas to meet up with his famous Texas Ranger brother and his wife who he secretly has always loved. It's a bit awkward without any sort of pretext about their more amorous relationship. It's OK though, because John's brother, Dan (James Badge Dale) understands and even seems embarrassed when his posse sees the two of them together, exchanging longing glances. Weird love triangle. Anyway, the railroad is coming through Texas to San Francisco, and outlaws and politicians want to get rich with secret silver mines. That's really about it as far as plot goes. Oh, there's a wanted outlaw named Butch Cavendish (played almost unrecognizably by William Fichtner) who has an agenda, and keeps getting away from the law while making Reid more and more vengeful.

Armie Hammer isn't a very good fit for this role. He does have the physical size and chiseled face of an action star, but I can't take his words seriously when he sounds so much like George W. Bush. Gore and Jerry took a big gamble casting him instead of someone more fitting of the role like... the next Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Because the film had strong overtones of humor, I would have liked to have seen someone who is a bit stronger with natural comedy. Maybe a Jason Bateman, Chris Pine, James Marsden if you're going for recognizable 30-somethings. Matthew Gray Gubler, Eric Christian Olson or Matt Lauria if you're going for lesser known actors. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback casting decisions, but Armie Hammer should have thrown off some red flags (maybe he did). Anyway, the gamble didn't pay off.

Johnny Depp's name is synonymous with quirky characters, and Tonto is a natural fit for him. Except that he's white. And that the racial stereotypes of the Comanchee Indians aren't as amusing as they might have been 30 years ago. The Lone Ranger is a tale from a simpler time that just doesn't really fit without a serious update, and that didn't happen. The stereotypes continued, and Depp clearly enjoyed the role and was much more the star than the Lone Ranger, which is a bit disheartening to me. He was the more heroic and clever of the two, and wasn't even the truly smartest of the bunch. That award goes to Silver, the genius white spirit horse that saves the day far too often. Depp continues his streak of strange anti-heroes, dating back to Edward Scissorhands. He shows great effort and makes for a few good laughs, but I wasn't hooked. There aren't a whole lot of Native American actors that come to mind, but maybe Adam Beach or Benjamin Bratt could have brought more realism to the role. Of course, Johnny Depp is the box office draw, so the film couldn't justify the budget (or even production at all) without a very strong lead.

I went to see this with my dad, who grew up in the 50's with the Lone Ranger as a superhero figure. Created in 1933, it was only 50 or so years removed from real life cowboys of the West. 1933 was 80 years ago, and I am not so sure that the nostalgic appeal can adequately or realistically exist in today's day and age. The idea of the cowboy fighting for justice was about as prevalent as anything in cinema during that era, and the Lone Ranger was a paradigm of vigilante justice that never, ever crossed the line, which sadly often was skin color. Think about it, savage Indians make for great villains. replaced in today's culture by zombies or even aliens, they are nameless, faceless beings that are just trying to harm the good guys and the pretty girls. There's some sort of human drive to want clear heroes and villains, but I couldn't get behind the Lone Ranger.

First of all, this movie is much too long at two and a half hours. For an action Western that doesn't have plot substance and relies on big budget special effects, it is more Wild Wild West or Back to the Future 3 than Unforgiven or True Grit (either version). It is a stylized special effects heavy Western, which left me feeling a bit deflated. Second of all, the humor and action intended for children gets a bit too violent for what really should be the target audience of Disney; a new generation of wide-eyed children who love heroes and horses. A man eating a heart isn't quite child friendly, and doesn't add anything to the villainy of his already despicable character. Second, the majority of the action took place on a train. Sure, some of the sequences are pretty cool, but for $215 million, I would feel a bit ripped off. Westerns to me seem to be a goldmine budget-wise. Sets and costumes are about all that's necessary. Third of all, The Lone Ranger didn't show up with confidence until the final fight scene, and he didn't even shine very brightly. Throughout the whole film, he was tentative, and not the beacon of hope and justice that he needed to be. I blame the writers for that, not Armie.

Written by Justin Haythe (Snitch, Revolutionary Road), Ted Elliott (Pirates quadrilogy, Zorro, Shrek), and Terry Rossio (see Ted Elliott), it was lackluster to say the least. It was unimaginative and formulaic. Too much of a vehicle for Depp to showcase his oddity. Tom Wilkinson was wasted as a railroad man out for exorbitant wealth, and the only real screen presence belonged to William Fichtner's Butch, who wasted much of his character's overhyped, but initially promising reputation with the cliche "talking too much while pointing a gun at someone".

Overall, this film was a disappointment, but it's been out for a few weeks, so I knew what I was getting into, and I was happy to see it because my dad was a big fan of the Lone Ranger growing up. I just hope he wasn't too disappointed. 5/10.

Pacific Rim

This may be one of the most difficult reviews I've ever written. Woven within a terribly cliche story with preposterous events, average acting, and pretty mediocre dialogue is one of the best CGI action films I've ever seen. I saw the film in a format called D-Box, which adds a 4th dimension to the film with seats synched to rock and roll with the action. It was amazing. And anyone who doesn't crack a smile when you say that "giant robots driven by humans will battle giant monsters" is lying straight to your face. Seriously. Not since Avatar in 2009 have I been completely immersed in special effects-laden action that sucks you into the childlike fun of a movie-going experience.

Where does Pacific Rim get it right when so many other blockbusters get it wrong? Because there is nothing else to Pacific Rim besides these Mech Warriors fighting for humanity. It's a superhero film supersized. And without the baggage of a hero's alter ego or back story. Sure, the characters who make the robots run get mildly bland back stories that either add to the story arc, or are lost amidst the Godzilla-sized battle sequences, but it's not really about characters at all, is it?

It absolutely is. But the characters in question are named Gipsy Danger, Crimson Typhoon, Cherno Alpha, and Striker Eureka. The monsters have names like Bladehead, Leatherback, and Otachi. Pacific Rim succeeds in creating personality within each of the robots and monsters. It's pure fun.

The film begins when the Kaiju (Strange Creature) show up out of an inter-dimensional portal that opens deep in the Pacific, and begin to wreak havoc on coastal cities around the world. The world responds with a global effort to create robots to fight the creatures. These are called Jaegers, the German word for "Hunter". They propel the drivers to celebrity status. Think astronaut, but combine with war hero. It takes two humans, linked by a "neural handshake" to share the load of running these massive metallic monstrosities. It's ridiculous, but literally awesome at the same time. Fast forward a few years, and the Kaiju are winning the war. The Jaeger program is being scrapped in favor of a "Wall of Life". The remaining Jaegers have one last effort to finish off the Kaiju once and for all.Really straight forward actually.

Charlie Hunnan, Rinko Kikuchi, and Idris Elba are the Alphas who strap in and risk life and limb in a fearless humanity-saving effort. They are full of testosterone (even Rinko in a weird way) and bravado, and that's where much of the cliche simmers. with a meandering subplot with the hilarious Charlie Day playing the intellectual side of the war effort as a scientist who has unique insight into the mind of the Kaiju, the film runs the typical parallel storylines. It can't really happen any other way. In ambitious action films, there is usually a tertiary storyline that breaks suspense and action. Think Return of the Jedi: Luke/Vader 1 on 1, Han and Leia on Endor, and the Millenium Falcon making the run on the Death Star with Billy Dee Williams and fish face. Possibly obscure reference, but serves the point. Pacific Rim avoids trying to be more than it needs to, and keeps the storyline simple. GIANT ROBOTS! and then Charlie Day running around for comic relief and a little bit of back story.

Charlie Hunnan isn't your typical leading man. He's best known for his role on the gritty Sons of Anarchy, so in a real way, Idris Elba is the star power of the film. He's got a massive screen presence, and has been rumored to be in line to succeed Daniel Craig as the next James Bond. I personally think he'll be too old by the time Craig (and Mendes) hang it up, and Elba's natural accent is about as thick as it gets. Might be too much. Anyway, he's the strong-willed, hard-assed commander of the Jaeger program, and straight out of every other action film in the history of cinema, he suits up himself for the final battle.

Guillermo Del Toro is impressive here. Not Pan's Labyrinth impressive, but Hellboy and Blade impressive. He is proving that he's a master of visual effects as he unflinchingly gives us close up after close up of his end product. He should be proud. Pacific Rim avoids typical trickery employed in films of this type; quick cuts to avoid the seams or integration frames, or fast moving cameras so you won't get a full glimpse of what your mind hopes is happening on screen. He boldly puts the CGI on screen for minutes upon minutes at a time. I can't recall another director whose name isn't Cameron who is that aggressive. OK, Michael Bay did a pretty nice job with the Transformers films, but this in many ways is better.

The team that brought you Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean (Industrial Light and Magic) did most of the visual effects, and advisers who did work on Star Trek, Independence Day, Iron Man's suit, and Real Steel were on board to help. My hat is off to the whole team. They made an incredible film.

So you see my dilemma. Do I rate the film on the sheer mind-blowing effects, and how giddy it made me while watching it (heretofore will be called "The Avatar Effect") or do I use my objective film critic standard and degrade it for its flaws? It's a tricky one, so I am going to average the 10 for effort/effects and the 7 that I am inclined to give it.

Go see Pacific Rim. It will blow your mind and entertain the hell out of you. 8.5.