Showing posts with label Godzilla. Show all posts

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Godzilla’ lacks the fun of a monster movie

I’ve always liked the idea of the “Godzilla” movies more than the movies themselves. Because much like porno, there’s something appealing about watching large, rubbery objects collide into each other until something finally explodes. But, unlike porno, the “Godzilla” movies don’t seem to understand their audience. Nobody goes to a “Godzilla” movie for the dialog or the characters or the compelling plot; they go to watch large, rubbery objects collide into each other until something finally explodes.

Yet this is the one element that’s doled out sparingly. 85 percent of any “Godzilla” movie is made up of dry exposition, military jargon, and extreme close-ups of very concerned faces. There’s too much pretense in any “Godzilla” movie and not nearly enough fun. In the franchise’s 60-year history, it’s dumbfounding that nobody tried to fix or – better still – completely eliminate the films’ human element. Even right now, in the year of our Lord 2014 AD, as evidenced by director Gareth Edwards’ overlong and far from compelling “Godzilla” reboot, there’s still an unnatural compulsion to push Godzilla into the background and drag, boring cardboard characters front and center.

Here’s the thing, ladies and germstlemen – it’s summer time. I need you to give me a big green pop-shot as quickly as possible and without any preamble. I didn’t pay to watch a man who looks like a slightly warped cardboard cutout of Jake Gyllenhaal (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) wander around Japan as he attempts to excrete emotion-like substances through that beige outer-casing he probably calls a face.

Nonetheless, “Godzilla” starts out deceptively strong as Bryan Cranston plays an unstable nuclear engineer who never seems to stop weeping openly and fills his pants with a combination of urine and fear at the slightest provocation. Cranston has discovered that a pair of giant cockroach-like monstrosities is the real cause behind a series of seismic anomalies. Because of this, Cranston must die. Mind you, it’s not because Cranston has uncovered a massive conspiracy; it’s because he’s the only interesting character in a “Godzilla” movie that wasn’t a stuntman in a rubber dinosaur suit.

With the status quo maintained and the only compelling character safely eliminated, Cranston’s son (Taylor-Johnson) is called in to destroy the cockroaches because he’s, I don’t know, an army guy or whatever who touched a bomb at one point in his life or something? It’s all very hazy and oh so uninteresting. Besides, you don’t care about that anyway. “Where’s Godzilla?” you ask, and does he creep and stomp about on the heads of the giant cockroaches? Yes, he’s here and he’s creeping and stomping about. But it’s in very measured, almost disappointing doses.

“Let them fight,” Ken Watanabe’s plot point-spewing scientist solemnly intones at one point. It’s good advice because that’s why all of us are here, to watch a friendly dinosaur blow radioactive flames down the throat of a mutant cockroach. Unfortunately, “Godzilla” rarely practices what it preaches. Some critics have compared “Godzilla” to “Jaws” in the way it builds suspense by delaying Godzilla’s appearance. However, critics seem to have forgotten that “Jaws” was more than just about a shark. It was a thriller, a character study, and an occasional black comedy. “Godzilla,” on the other hand, is just about Godzilla. The storyline is slight and the characters exist almost solely to look sadly into the camera. About the only thing “Godzilla” has going for it are the fight scenes, and those are frequently interrupted in order to bring us more stillborn melodrama.

Granted, “Godzilla” eventually stops teasing us and finally gives us the giant monster showdown we’ve been asking for, but it doesn’t come until well after the two hour mark, at which point it’s too little too late. On other hand, even though “Godzilla” is a frustrating, inert, and ultimately joyless film, it’s still better than Roland Emmerich’s “Godzilla” reboot. Then again, Emmerich set the bar so exceedingly low that Edwards’ could’ve re-imagined Godzilla as a wisecracking cartoon cat that farts up gold coins and it still would’ve been a better film than Emmerich’s “Godzilla.”

Source:

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Godzilla’ lacks the fun of a monster movie

I’ve always liked the idea of the “Godzilla” movies more than the movies themselves. Because much like porno, there’s something appealing about watching large, rubbery objects collide into each other until something finally explodes. But, unlike porno, the “Godzilla” movies don’t seem to understand their audience. Nobody goes to a “Godzilla” movie for the dialog or the characters or the compelling plot; they go to watch large, rubbery objects collide into each other until something finally explodes.

Yet this is the one element that’s doled out sparingly. 85 percent of any “Godzilla” movie is made up of dry exposition, military jargon, and extreme close-ups of very concerned faces. There’s too much pretense in any “Godzilla” movie and not nearly enough fun. In the franchise’s 60-year history, it’s dumbfounding that nobody tried to fix or – better still – completely eliminate the films’ human element. Even right now, in the year of our Lord 2014 AD, as evidenced by director Gareth Edwards’ overlong and far from compelling “Godzilla” reboot, there’s still an unnatural compulsion to push Godzilla into the background and drag, boring cardboard characters front and center.

Here’s the thing, ladies and germstlemen – it’s summer time. I need you to give me a big green pop-shot as quickly as possible and without any preamble. I didn’t pay to watch a man who looks like a slightly warped cardboard cutout of Jake Gyllenhaal (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) wander around Japan as he attempts to excrete emotion-like substances through that beige outer-casing he probably calls a face.

Nonetheless, “Godzilla” starts out deceptively strong as Bryan Cranston plays an unstable nuclear engineer who never seems to stop weeping openly and fills his pants with a combination of urine and fear at the slightest provocation. Cranston has discovered that a pair of giant cockroach-like monstrosities is the real cause behind a series of seismic anomalies. Because of this, Cranston must die. Mind you, it’s not because Cranston has uncovered a massive conspiracy; it’s because he’s the only interesting character in a “Godzilla” movie that wasn’t a stuntman in a rubber dinosaur suit.

With the status quo maintained and the only compelling character safely eliminated, Cranston’s son (Taylor-Johnson) is called in to destroy the cockroaches because he’s, I don’t know, an army guy or whatever who touched a bomb at one point in his life or something? It’s all very hazy and oh so uninteresting. Besides, you don’t care about that anyway. “Where’s Godzilla?” you ask, and does he creep and stomp about on the heads of the giant cockroaches? Yes, he’s here and he’s creeping and stomping about. But it’s in very measured, almost disappointing doses.

“Let them fight,” Ken Watanabe’s plot point-spewing scientist solemnly intones at one point. It’s good advice because that’s why all of us are here, to watch a friendly dinosaur blow radioactive flames down the throat of a mutant cockroach. Unfortunately, “Godzilla” rarely practices what it preaches. Some critics have compared “Godzilla” to “Jaws” in the way it builds suspense by delaying Godzilla’s appearance. However, critics seem to have forgotten that “Jaws” was more than just about a shark. It was a thriller, a character study, and an occasional black comedy. “Godzilla,” on the other hand, is just about Godzilla. The storyline is slight and the characters exist almost solely to look sadly into the camera. About the only thing “Godzilla” has going for it are the fight scenes, and those are frequently interrupted in order to bring us more stillborn melodrama.

Granted, “Godzilla” eventually stops teasing us and finally gives us the giant monster showdown we’ve been asking for, but it doesn’t come until well after the two hour mark, at which point it’s too little too late. On other hand, even though “Godzilla” is a frustrating, inert, and ultimately joyless film, it’s still better than Roland Emmerich’s “Godzilla” reboot. Then again, Emmerich set the bar so exceedingly low that Edwards’ could’ve re-imagined Godzilla as a wisecracking cartoon cat that farts up gold coins and it still would’ve been a better film than Emmerich’s “Godzilla.”

Source:

‘Godzilla’ Director Knows What He Wants From A Sequel

For a movie about a giant lizard, you might be surprised to hear that one of the greatest strengths of “Godzilla” is its restraint.
It’s all in the way director Gareth Edwards decided to handle the classic monster. To make Godzilla seem even more powerful, the audience only hears about him for the first 40 minutes, and then he’s kept just off screen until the grand finale.

The result is one of the most rewarding summer movie experiences in a long time, and it was all by design.
“It was always the intention to incrementally build…” Edwards told MTV News. “Nowadays, you can do absolutely everything in a computer. A lot of films do. Even though, individually, you look at that shot in the trailer and you go ‘Aww, that’s amazing.’ You take this shot, ‘Aww, that’s amazing.’ If you put a thousand of them together, you kind of get a fatigue where you stop caring about what you’re seeing. I was more worried about committing that crime than the crime of ‘It’s 40 minutes. Where is he?’ ”
Edwards has taken up the same method of restraint in regards to any sequel talk as well. He said that he has an idea of where a potential follow-up might go, but he’s waiting for people to see and enjoy “Godzilla” before going down that road.
Perhaps… Mothra?

Source:

‘Godzilla’: A visually striking monster movie rises

A three-star movie review of “Godzilla,” the latest American-made take on the iconic Japanese creature.

Thus does the newest, American-made “Godzilla” acknowledge the origins of the King of Monsters, putting those words into the mouth of a Japanese scientist (played by Ken Watanabe) who knows a thing or two about the nuclearized origins of the great scaly beast. His father was in Hiroshima when the bomb dropped.
Not long afterward, awakened, irradiated and mad as hell, the prehistoric gargantua arose from the ocean depths, a fire-breathing symbol of Japan’s well-founded atomic phobia.
So Godzilla returns in “Godzilla,” bigger than ever, 355 feet of reptilian menace (he was 164 feet tall in the 1954 Japanese origin movie), and badder ... well, hmmm.
Definitions of terms like “good” and “bad” get a little slippery when discussing the big guy. Early on, he was truly bad, shredding Japan and its armed forces repeatedly. But in later movies, as he became a pop-culture icon, he fought monsters even badder than himself and evolved into a kind of ally of humans. Still, in those battles he shredded Japan and its armed forces repeatedly. With friends like that ...
There’s plenty of city shredding in this newest “Godzilla.” Honolulu, aloha ‘oe. Sorry about that, San Francisco. Oh no! Not the Golden Gate Bridge again!
Godzilla is in what passes for his “good” mode here because there are a couple of other creatures on the scene even meaner than him, and they get way more screen time than the big guy. So much, in fact, that Godzilla is practically a supporting character in his own movie.
Apparently, director Gareth Edwards decided to do a “Jaws” with Godzilla, hiding him from view for much of the picture. He teases the audience with a close-up of a big lizard foot here — Stomp! — and multiple peeks at spiky dorsal fins sliding through the sea to pique our curiosity about the beast’s appearance.
Godzilla’s adversaries look like the hellish spawn of Rodan and the Alien with their slime-oozing, fang-packed mouths and big leathery wings. They maraud across the planet searching for their favorite food: radioactive materials. They gobble nuclear warheads like M&Ms.
Ineffectually opposing their rampage is the U.S. military. As the Japanese learned long ago, neither tanks nor jets nor missiles do anything other than annoy Godzilla and his ilk.
Watanabe’s character knows what must be done: “Let them fight.” And then finally we see Godzilla in all his state-of-the-art CG glory, going claw-to-claw with the nuke-eaters, blasting them with his radioactive fire breath and deafening them with his trademark bellow.
Edwards hits the anti-nuclear angle hard. He works diligently early on to humanize the issue by concentrating on the efforts of a traumatized engineer (Bryan Cranston) to expose a government cover-up of the monster menace and its atomic origins.
But although the actors — including Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the Cranston character’s Navy officer son — are better at their craft than their counterparts in the Japanese movies, the dialogue they’re obliged to deliver is still quite hackneyed.
The Japanese “Godzillas,” with their awful acting and cheesy special effects, have a campy quality that makes them oddly endearing. Edwards’ “Godzilla,” far more technically impressive and more realistic-seeming, isn’t quite as much fun. As cities are reduced to dusty ruins and fleeing survivors jam highways, echoes of Sept. 11 resonate unmistakably, and that significantly dilutes the fun factor.
Soren Andersen: asoren7575@yahoo.com

Source:

New 'Godzilla' brings modern sensibility to iconic Japanese monste

"Godzilla," director Gareth Edwards' $160 million reboot of the classic monster, hasn't even opened yet and already the movie is under attack.
According to The Japan Times, diehard fans of the creature have taken to the Internet to complain the United States has done a "Super Size Me" number on the giant fire-breathing lizard. "He got fat in America on Cola and pizza!" is a typical complaint. "Couch potato Godzilla" is another.
But Edwards is taking the criticism in stride.
"I don't know which pictures they've seen, but I don't think he's fat," the filmmaker says, chuckling. "He's just big-boned. Plus he's middle-aged. You tend to get a little bulky."
This is not meant to suggest that "Godzilla," which opens May 16, is in any way campy or humorous. Unlike the last time Hollywood tried to revive the popular monster (Roland Emmerich's 1998 jokey, reviled misfire), the new film is dead serious in tone and mood, treating its central character and the theme of man vs. nature with the same gravity and seriousness director Ishiro Honda brought to the 1954 Japanese original.
"In the mid-1950s, Hollywood started a trend of films that addressed Cold War fears with science fiction allegories, but Japan had a special edge when it came to doing the same thing," says David Kalat, author of "A Critical History and Filmography of Toho's Godzilla Series." "When the first Godzilla film was made, Japan had endured wartime firebombings of Tokyo, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the H-bomb tests in the Bikini Islands that killed Japanese citizens in peacetime and irradiated a significant amount of the food supply. They must have felt like the world was coming to an end. But because the country was still coming out of post-war censorship imposed by the American occupation forces, there was no way to talk about the massive cultural trauma openly.
"Godzilla was a way for Japan to address some of these traumas, safely disguised as a monster movie so no censors would get upset."
Although he was originally intended as a metaphor for apocalyptic terror, Godzilla grew tamer and sillier in subsequent sequels and spinoffs over the decades, becoming a cartoonish, kid-friendly version of himself. Even Hanna-Barbera, the animation studio that spawned "The Flintstones" and "Scooby-Doo," created a cartoon show in the 1970s built around the monster.
"There is no one Godzilla," says Max Borenstein, who wrote the screenplay for the new movie. "The first film is an allegory for nuclear warfare, and Godzilla is explicitly a walking manifestation of the atomic bomb. That evolved into so many reiterations over time that every movie has a different take on the monster and what he represents. The common denominator is that Godzilla has always represented a force beyond our control. In the 1960s, it got a little campier, but he represented the fear of alien invasion. In the 1970s, he became a symbol for environmental fears, fighting smog monsters. We had to look back and find the common denominator in all of his incarnations and ask 'What feels resonant now? What are the visceral fears of today?' The answer we settled on is that Godzilla is a vessel for the fears of all humanity - a force of nature that is so beyond our control, he reminds us we are mere insects on this planet."
"Godzilla" centers on Navy officer Ford Brody ("Kick-Ass'" Aaron Taylor-Johnson), who has just returned home from a tour of duty to his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son in San Francisco when he's asked to fly for an emergency to Japan, where his parents (Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche) worked at a nuclear power plant alongside a scientist (Ken Watanabe). The reason for the distress call - and what Ford finds when he gets there - is one of the film's many surprises, few of which have thus far, miraculously, been spoiled by trailers.
Unlike Michael Bay's "Transformers" franchise, which features giant robots duking it out in fights so frantically edited they're often incomprehensible, Edwards uses a refreshingly different approach to "Godzilla," holding on the monster for long shots so you can process the larger-than-life action that's taking place on screen (the film works even better on a 3-D IMAX screen; this sucker is huge).
But Edwards also makes you wait, teasing you with glimpses before you get to have a good look at his main attraction, the way Steven Spielberg teased the audience with the shark in "Jaws."
"I speak with an English accent, because I grew up in England," Edwards says. "I also grew up watching certain films, and the effect is the same: They rub off on you. 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' really broods and builds incrementally. The movie takes its time, but when they finally show you the spaceship at the end, they really hold on it, so you can take it all in. That was the only way I could think of doing 'Godzilla.' I watch modern movies and can appreciate the contemporary style, but the movies we talked about the most while on the set were things like 'Jaws' and 'Alien' and 'Apocalypse Now.'"
"Today there's a sense that audiences have less tolerance for development and a shorter attention span," Borenstein says. "If you see everything right from the beginning, what do you have to look forward to? You get tired and bored. So we really tried to build suspense into every set piece. You know it's coming, but you don't know how or when. We studied things like 'Jurassic Park,' in which you see aspects of the creature and you feel its presence, but you don't really get to see it until halfway through the film."
"Godzilla" is so well directed and assured - one highlight is a sequence depicting a train crossing a trestle bridge at night in which a monster is hiding in plain view of the characters and the audience - that you assume Edwards has been making films for a long time. But at 38, he has only one previous movie to his credit: 2010's "Monsters," a sci-fi thriller about two Americans trying to escape a region of Mexico invaded by giant extra-terrestrials. Shot at a cost of $500,000, with Edwards doing all the special effects work on his laptop, the film grossed a measly $237,301 in the United States - hardly a calling card for a giant tentpole studio picture.
"The truth is there was no direct connection between 'Monsters' and this movie," says Thomas Tull, founder and CEO of Legendary Pictures - which produced "Godzilla." "We were looking for someone who would have a fresh perspective on the genre but would also emphasize the human connection to the characters, which is the most important thing of all. When I found out Gareth had made 'Monsters' for such little money, we had a meeting and then I invited him to my house to watch the original film and told him to go off and come back with some ideas. When I saw the pre-visualizations and sketches he made, I knew we had found our guy."
Edwards' sudden leap from unknown, low-budget filmmaker to big-league player may have set a record - has any other director ever risen so quickly in Hollywood? - one that caught even him by surprise.
"I never expected this in a million years," Edwards says. "When we were filming 'Monsters,' we were driving around Mexico in a van wondering if the movie was even going to work. If someone had said at that point the next movie you're going to make is 'Godzilla,' I would have had a heart attack. But when I got the offer, I had to take it. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. What's the point of life if you don't take any risks? The hard part was just blocking out all the pressure and public opinion and concentrating on the movie we wanted to make."
Although "Godzilla" plays everything straight, the picture is peppered with playful Easter eggs for hardcore fans (keep an eye out for what's written on a piece of masking tape on an aquarium in the abandoned apartment Cranston and Taylor-Johnson visit early in the film).
"One of the things of having a monster this size is that it's really hard to be suspenseful, because you can't miss it," Borenstein says. "How does Godzilla hide? He's too big! You have to be really clever. It's also difficult to create a human story that is impactful when your monster is, by definition, impossible to defeat. What's the plotline? How do you create a story in which you feel the hero has an impact on the ending? He can't just swoop in with a penknife and stab Godzilla in the eye."
Regardless of how it fares domestically, "Godzilla" is practically guaranteed to be a huge hit overseas when it opens there in July. And although Edwards is proud of the end result, he admits the amount of work that goes into a production of this size was greater than he imagined.
"It's like running a marathon," he says. "My dad came to visit when we were filming in Canada. He stayed for three weeks and I saw him for a total of three hours. It's nonstop work the moment they pull the trigger on the movie. It's the hardest thing I've ever done in my life.
"I really enjoyed conceiving this movie, and I hope audiences have the same reaction to the film that I did while we were making it. The hairs on the back of my neck were standing up. But I will never be able to see the movie the way you do. I can only see the places where we put the backlight or which take we used in any particular scene. I'm just too close to it to sit back and enjoy it."

Source:

Bryan Cranston reveals his vocabulary gap on 'The Tonight Show'

yan Cranston can act up a storm, including his current run on Broadway as Lyndon B. Johnson in the play "All the Way" and in the upcoming summer blockbuster film "Godzilla." But even the man who was once Walter White has a few gaps in his education, which he inadvertantly revealed on Monday night's "The Tonight Show."
Cranston was on to promote "Godzilla" and played the Word Sneak game with host Jimmy Fallon.
yan Cranston can act up a storm, including his current run on Broadway as Lyndon B. Johnson in the play "All the Way" and in the upcoming summer blockbuster film "Godzilla." But even the man who was once Walter White has a few gaps in his education, which he inadvertantly revealed on Monday night's "The Tonight Show."
Cranston was on to promote "Godzilla" and played the Word Sneak game with host Jimmy Fallon.

Source:

Popular Post

Blogger templates

Blog Archive

Sample Text

Pages

LinkWithin

Flag Counter

Pages

Powered by Blogger.

Social Icons

Followers

- Copyright © Quickly Entertainment News -Metrominimalist- Powered by Blogger - Designed by Johanes Djogan -