Godzilla (2014)

I thought the VFX were really good and the production overall. My issue was with the boring storyline of the family. Aaron Taylor has the right "look" I suppose, but his acting was very one dimensional in my opinion. I kind of felt ripped off once Cranston got killed because I really thought he was going to be the main character based on the trailer. I thought, at least with Cranston, there's going to be a strong actor to execute the storyline.....kind of like Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning in War of the Worlds.....but we're left with Taylor giving a wooden emotionless performance while just sort of hitching a ride with the military to get back to his family and Godzilla fighting in the background. I don't know, for me I enjoyed the VFX but the weak storyline could have been taken out altogether and wouldn't have made a difference to me. I honestly could have just watched the damn monsters fight for 2 hours and been good...especially since I watched it in 3D :)
 
KyleProhaska said:
It was just a fun popcorn movie with a bit more characterization than typical..
Click to expand...
We must have seen a different movie. The lead was so blandly characterized he barely registered as a person. The wife was just a pretty face in jeopardy. The Japanese guy was a stereotype spewing platitudes. Only Bryan Cranston seemed to have a spark to him, and well, that didn't bear much fruit. I don't mind people enjoying it as empty spectacle, as the empty spectacle parts are well done. But as a piece of dramatic writing it's very weak. The fact that they withheld Godzilla for so long didn't bother me. It's what they filled the other 3/4ths of the movie with I found severely lacking.
 
Batutta said:
We must have seen a different movie. The lead was so blandly characterized he barely registered as a person. The wife was just a pretty face in jeopardy. The Japanese guy was a stereotype spewing platitudes. Only Bryan Cranston seemed to have a spark to him, and well, that didn't bear much fruit. I don't mind people enjoying it as empty spectacle, as the empty spectacle parts are well done. But as a piece of dramatic writing it's very weak. The fact that they withheld Godzilla for so long didn't bother me. It's what they filled the other 3/4ths of the movie with I found severely lacking.
Click to expand...

When I say "than typical" I meant it. All of what you said was true about the characters lol. The main guy was super stoic and bland. The Cranston stuff worked well enough though. Compared to stuff like Transformers or 2012 and others of the same, this one was still stronger. I never said it was great characterization, but I found things to be better than usual for this sort of thing.
 
Off-topic but the main character looked so much like one of the actors in my next film that it was distracting me the entire time lol.

13_grab2_sm.jpg
 
I too felt ripped off when mr white died.

I have to say though, the parts with godzilla were fan-****ing-tastic. loved every frame of it, felt it did him great justice. he may only have maybe 4 moments, but they are beyond awesome and make me over-appreciate CGI (a rarity)

it wasn't an engaging story, you're just in anticipation of what you know will take place. I didn't mind the overall plot, but at some point the collective life just drained out of the human characters (get it?)

And i may not have any knowledge of how military/EOD works, but it seems very contrived just about every time the main character jumped into yet another military situation claiming he knows what to do while noone else does
 
KyleProhaska said:
When I say "than typical" I meant it. All of what you said was true about the characters lol. The main guy was super stoic and bland.
Click to expand...

I guess I thought even by the standard of dumb summer movies, the characterization was weak. It's funny how dull Aaron Johnson is in this because I felt he was a pretty engaging presence in Kick-Ass. I chalk it up to weak writing and directing more than anything. They didn't give him much of anything to play. If he had expressed more fear in the action moments it would have made him more relatable. This is one of the things Spielberg has never shied away from in his action sequences. From Jaws, to Indiana Jones to War of the Worlds he always made the fear and anxiety of his heroes amidst the action very palpable without concern for it undermining their heroics. In fact it only makes their heroism more satisfying when they overcome the obstacles.
 
Darren Levine said:
And i may not have any knowledge of how military/EOD works, but it seems very contrived just about every time the main character jumped into yet another military situation claiming he knows what to do while noone else does
Click to expand...

I felt the same way but didn't mention it because I started to feel like I was dogging the movie too much lol....but yea, I could see if he was Jack Bauer, but I'd rather him of been a screw up soldier or something....at least he would have shown some type of flaws instead of just being an expert in every situation he came across.
 
Well, as a guy who grew up on Godzilla and Gamera, I have to say I thought this was just about perfect as a Godzilla film. As an arthouse film? No. As an exercise in brilliant storytelling and human character development? Who cares? Heck, all the Godzilla films were filled with a bunch of contrived human scenes that were only there to take up space until the next scene with the guys wearing the suits and trashing the buildings...

As an homage and modernization of the classic Godzilla films, this was nigh unto perfect. The way Godzilla ended the final fight was, far and away, the greatest single moment in all Godzilla films.

The only character I cared about, was Godzilla himself. And that's the way it's always been in Godzilla films... and they got his character almost exactly right. The only thing they missed was the reluctance to come forth; usually the monsters had to go and find and irritate Godzilla before he joined in the fray, whereas here he just sort of volunteered, but even so... he did his job, nearly got killed for it, and people wanted to kill him for it...

Could it have been better, as a film? Of course. But the same could be said of any number of iconic pictures within defined genres; as a film overall, it may not be that great, but as a Godzilla film, this is definitely far and away heads and shoulders the best of the bunch since the original Godzilla/Mothra/Rodan/King Ghidora films of the '50's and '60's. Probably the most enjoyable time I've had in the theater so far this year.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, as a guy who grew up on Godzilla and Gamera, I have to say I thought this was just about perfect as a Godzilla film. As an arthouse film? No. As an exercise in brilliant storytelling and human character development? Who cares?
Click to expand...

Come on, Barry. Don't do that. You know NOBODY was going into this expecting an art house film. And don't say who cares? I care. A lot of people who pay money to see a well made film care. Just say it was a dumb, kind of crappy movie but I still enjoyed it. But don't say it doesn't matter. It belittles the craft of people who try to make movies like this that are actually well made. It's as offensive to a screenwriter or director to say 'who cares if a movie is well written or directed', as it would be to say to a camera maker; who cares if the image is in focus, or the compression is crappy, and the audio full of hiss, you can still see and hear something.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, as a guy who grew up on Godzilla and Gamera, I have to say I thought this was just about perfect as a Godzilla film. As an arthouse film? No. As an exercise in brilliant storytelling and human character development? Who cares?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be an arthouse film to be a competent well told story. Interesting or average is all I was looking for which is what I thought when Cranston's voice over was all over the trailers. I would have been fine watching two hours of just Godzilla tearing up the planet fighting his enemies. They're the one's who stuck bland characters in the forefront and interrupted all the cool VFX while Godzilla and his boys fought in the background.

Batutta said:
Come on, Barry. Don't do that. You know NOBODY was going into this expecting an art house film. And don't say who cares? I care. A lot of people who pay money to see a well made film care. Just say it was a dumb, kind of crappy movie but I still enjoyed it. But don't say it doesn't matter. It belittles the craft of people who try to make movies like this that are actually well made. It's as offensive to a screenwriter or director to say 'who cares if a movie is well written or directed', as it would be to say to a camera maker; who cares if the image is in focus, or the compression is crappy, and the audio full of hiss, you can still see and hear something.
Click to expand...

+1 :)
 
Barry_Green said:
Wow. Sorry for actually having an opinion and enjoying the end product.
Click to expand...

Sorry Barry, you just evoked my least favorite defense, the "It's just a _______ movie, who cares about _____". I've never liked it. I think it's a cop out. That you enjoyed it, I don't mind, as I agree the film has superbly executed elements. It was the 'Who cares' argument about the rest that rubbed me wrong. Perhaps if they were doing a deliberately campy homage, like Mars Attacks or the Grindhouse movies, where the weak quality of the writing is part of the joke, I could go along with it. But they were clearly aiming for an A movie so I think it's fair to expect the rest to measure up.
 
Just saw this last night. I agree with all the above the critiques of this movie.

Profoundly disappointing. I kept looking at my watch every fifteen minutes, I was so damn bored. The only moments I cared about was when Godzilla was on-screen, which just wasn't enough, given how uninteresting the rest of the story was.

The fact the trailer sells a different movie than we get (i.e., the trailer tells us it's going to star Cranston, and I was intrigued) shows that they knew they had a problem with their younger lead actor. He's boring. The writing is boring. The story is boring. One star.

Juliet Binoche is stunt casting. Talk about bait-and-switch.
 
Batutta said:
Sorry Barry, you just evoked my least favorite defense, the "It's just a _______ movie, who cares about _____". I've never liked it. I think it's a cop out. That you enjoyed it, I don't mind, as I agree the film has superbly executed elements. It was the 'Who cares' argument about the rest that rubbed me wrong. Perhaps if they were doing a deliberately campy homage, like Mars Attacks or the Grindhouse movies, where the weak quality of the writing is part of the joke, I could go along with it. But they were clearly aiming for an A movie so I think it's fair to expect the rest to measure up.
Click to expand...
I always try to view products in context of what they were designed for. To me there's a huge difference between a "popcorn" movie, and an intellectual movie. I went into this expecting, hoping, wanting it to be a "Godzilla" film. I think it executed the "Godzilla" formula better than anything since the late 1960's. On that basis, I was very happy with it.

As I said in my other post, the humans have always been disposable elements of a Godzilla film. I've seen those films dozens of times. I can tell you who every monster was in every film, what their power was, how they were defeated, etc., but I guarantee you I cannot name one human character in any of them. Well, that's not true, I can name Raymond Burr, but that's cheating, because he wasn't actually in the original film, the original was butchered to cut him into some scenes. Seriously, other than that one instance, I can't think of what any of the films were "about", what any of the human characters' "quests" were... I can tell you there were two singing miniature twin girls in a box that were the guardians or keepers of Mothra, sure, and there was some REALLY TEDIOUS little kid that was talking to the pathetic "son" of Godzilla, but other than that... nope.

Perhaps it's all down to expectations. You said they were aiming for an "A movie" -- I never viewed it in that light, I thought they were aiming for a "Godzilla movie", and I think they hit the nail squarely on the head for that. I never got the impression that these folks were out to win academy awards for best director and best screenplay with this adventure. If I thought that's the direction they were headed in, I'm sure I would have been roundly disappointed too. If the filmmakers say that's what they were trying to accomplish, then they failed. But I never got that impression; I thought from the first trailer that they knew exactly what side of the toast their bread was buttered, and they fulfilled my expectations completely.

You bring up a good point about Grindhouse -- I thought Tarantino and Rodriguez generally succeeded with what they were aiming at in those, but wildly divergently: I think Tarantino made a generally truly awful film, whereas I think Rodriguez made his film much too entertaining for the genre. As for Mars Attacks, I think Burton failed there, I think he set out to make the ultimate tribute to Ed Wood's bad movies, but I think he pretty much just made a bad movie. I don't think it had anywhere near the accidental genius that Plan 9 has. Although my revulsion for Mars Attacks is fading with time; when I first saw it I was horrified by it, but I've grown to appreciate it a little more over the years.

So -- there it is. My standards are -- if it's a comedy, it had darn well better be funny. I don't care about cinematography or wardrobe or camera movements or anything else in a comedy, I'm looking for laughs, and it better deliver them. If it has gorgeous cinematography, impeccable acting, deep human drama, and NO LAUGHS, then it's a failure, because it was supposed to be a comedy. It really doesn't matter to me how superb the effects are, or how clear the sound is, or how rich the orchestration is -- if it's supposed to be funny, and it isn't, then -- bzzzt, it's a fail. Similarly, if it's a horror movie, it had better be scary. I don't necessarily care all that much about other factors, I'm looking to see if it meets the central purpose. And if it's a Godzilla film, it better be a Godzilla film. The Matthew Broderick travesty was, in no discernable way, a Godzilla film. But this 2014 version most definitely was. I shouted out loud and cheered at the culmination of the final fight. That made it a success, to me, in my way of looking at things. So -- yeah, I didn't care that the central plot was fundamentally flawed or that the bomb defusing expert never actually defused the bomb or that they were telling me I was supposed to somehow care that he got home to his wife, that was all window dressing and filler. It was banal, but not offensive. Of course, put in context, I'm used to seeing the human characters yelling at each other in Japanese and being overdubbed by outrageously bad dialogue, so -- frankly, yes, the human element was largely irrelevant. It wasn't pathetic, but it wasn't so bad that it put me off the whole thing.

Let's put it another way -- if there had been no Godzilla, no monsters, and the entire film centered around Cranston and his son, trying to stop an overloading nuclear reactor? (as in, just cut the Godzilla parts and leave the rest of the human stuff exactly as-is)? Yes, that would be the worst film I'd seen all year. I would agree with you on that. So if that's the way you see it, I can see your point, but -- it really didn't bother me at all. I got my money's worth and got exactly what I wanted, and cannot wait for the sequel.
 
I see your points Barry, and in most respects i agree with you. When I see a film that is truly intended to be a comedy, then all I need to do is laugh a lot--I don't have to care about everything else. Still, I would prefer to like everything else. That's what makes a GREAT comedy.

I think we have to keep in mind, that these giant budget like Godzilla movies are intended to deliver more than a one-dimensional B-movie. I am happy to call that an "A movie".

And anyhow, even if it's just intended to be a hugely expensive B-movie...this one is still really boring. At least I found it boring. You liked it. But I feel ripped off. I feel it was sold as something like a smart, creative, fresh take on the original with massive special effects and recognizable stars. JJ Abram's Cloverfield raised the bar, but the new Godzilla barely crawls under it.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, as a guy who grew up on Godzilla and Gamera, I have to say I thought this was just about perfect as a Godzilla film. As an arthouse film? No. As an exercise in brilliant storytelling and human character development? Who cares? Heck, all the Godzilla films were filled with a bunch of contrived human scenes that were only there to take up space until the next scene with the guys wearing the suits and trashing the buildings...

As an homage and modernization of the classic Godzilla films, this was nigh unto perfect. The way Godzilla ended the final fight was, far and away, the greatest single moment in all Godzilla films.

The only character I cared about, was Godzilla himself. And that's the way it's always been in Godzilla films... and they got his character almost exactly right. The only thing they missed was the reluctance to come forth; usually the monsters had to go and find and irritate Godzilla before he joined in the fray, whereas here he just sort of volunteered, but even so... he did his job, nearly got killed for it, and people wanted to kill him for it...

Could it have been better, as a film? Of course. But the same could be said of any number of iconic pictures within defined genres; as a film overall, it may not be that great, but as a Godzilla film, this is definitely far and away heads and shoulders the best of the bunch since the original Godzilla/Mothra/Rodan/King Ghidora films of the '50's and '60's. Probably the most enjoyable time I've had in the theater so far this year.
Click to expand...

I wish there was a like button. Totally agree.
 
Barry_Green said:
Let's put it another way -- if there had been no Godzilla, no monsters, and the entire film centered around Cranston and his son, trying to stop an overloading nuclear reactor? (as in, just cut the Godzilla parts and leave the rest of the human stuff exactly as-is)? Yes, that would be the worst film I'd seen all year. I would agree with you on that.
Click to expand...

But that other stuff made up 3/4 of the movie! I could understand if they were subplots, but they were the majority of the running time. So yeah, that's why I didn't enjoy most of this film, because most of what it's made up of sucks. The monster parts actually don't make up that much running time. I think somebody timed it and figured out Godzilla is only on screen for seven minutes. And I actually watched the Japanese Gojira about a month ago. Is the human drama as good as Schindler's List? Hell no, but jeez, at least the protagonists spend the majority of the time trying to solve the major problem of the movie, and in the end, solve the problem. Just basic storytelling stuff even the Greeks knew about 2,000 years ago they couldn't pull off in this movie. I just can't give it a pass for such gross incompetence.
 
Just one other thought, I even question the idea that this is a comparable representation of those old Godzilla movies. The first film was pretty serious, but the subsequent ones got very silly and campy which makes the non Godzilla stuff enjoyable to watch on some level. The bad dubbing and general cheesiness has its own entertainment value. This was just dull for the most part. I guess this movie proves the old adage that audiences will forgive anything if you wow them in the end, and the last 20 minutes are some great spectacle.
 
BBBBBBBBBB grade. So many moments of the characters doing stoooopid things it was ridiculous.

If you're on a knife edge whether to see this at the cinema or not, go with or not.

2/5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top