I did definitely think of that when I was thinking about how I just didn't like his character.
Of course he's a soldier, he's obviously not meant to let emotions get the better of him. But if we're supposed to be following humans for the sole purpose of seeing the emotion from their vantage point of view, picking a character whose occupation is in "hiding" (for the lack of a better word) emotion is really not the best idea for a character.
The downside to that is that having a random civilian be the focal point of the story instead wouldn't get him in any of the important setpiece situations in the time that they happened. I mean, he could get from place to place that fast because he was a soldier.
i have a right to be bitter, and humanity is not useless in these sort of events but supermodels like aaron taylor johnson sure are
science and technology is not useless and it would have been a great element to emphasize scientists involvement for this "serious" approach but instead we get to follow around kickass with his phony concerned face through the whole thing
that arrogance of man thing is complete bullshit, we have the ability to manipulate nature at an atomic level youre goddamn we're arrogant but maybe not as much as that fucking posture
this movie had the chance to be great but instead we get this
I don't know if this best place to bring it up but I didn't know Edwards also directed Monsters. I've been wanting to check that out for a while. Is it worth it guys?
As someone who sought that movie out after hearing about it back when it originally released AND as someone who loved Godzilla, the answer is no.
It's meandering and painfully boring, and the performances of the leads are just amazingly bad. It's actually kind of funny because they have zero chemistry together on-screen even though they're married in real life. The giant aliens just kinda show up in the background and ultimately only end up serving as a heavy handed metaphor at the end.
Saw this film with my girlfriend last night, it was a fun, enjoyable movie, we both liked it. Im not a follower of the other Godzilla stuff so i didn't really have any expectations when going into the film.
can someone explain the energy beam thing that Godzilla shoots out of his mouth? Is that ability in other films?
While I think this sort of argument is beyond silly when discussing a movie like Godzilla, I would also like to point out that on substance, it is also bullshit, hilariously so, like, I can't even be sure this is not a troll levels of bullshit.
And I served many years in the military.
While I think this sort of argument is beyond silly when discussing a movie like Godzilla, I would also like to point out that on substance, it is also bullshit, hilariously so, like, I can't even be sure this is not a troll levels of bullshit.
And I served many years in the military.
I think we can lock down the main issue with some of the more vocal detractors is that they didn't quite understand what Gareth Edwards was trying to do with this film. And how the original films (and lauded Disaster films in general) were the major inspiration.
This film was not supposed to be a balls to the wall action film with 30 monsters duking it out on top of buildings. This was also a reboot/origin film, so it needed to set the grounds for a franchise, where the 98 attempt failed (which people magically forget).
To be frank, I think that's a little bit unfair and quite condescending. It boils down "if you didn't like it, you just didn't get it".
The film, as a standalone project (outside of the Godzilla franchise), is a mess. The main issue that folk have with the film, even those who like it, is that the "human element" falls somewhat short. If Gareth Edwards was going for a disaster movie, then he fell on the most important hurdle. As you implied, Disaster Movies are rarely about the disaster itself and all about characters dealing with those situations. But where are those interesting, distinctive characters and their satisfying arcs, like (say) Rev. Scott from Poseidon Adventure?
The closest we get is Cranston's bitter old conspiracy theorist, the one character with any thing approaching a satisfying emotional centre
who Edwards stupidly decides to off in an unceremonious manner
. Cranston does a fairly good job considering he is working with a script that is of average video game quality. By that I mean, it seems like every line is a series of expositions or, in the case of Kickass confronting Cranston (or indeed Cranston's earlier misfire of an emotional scene), a bunch of platitudes and cliches. The characters are such ciphers for exposition that you could easily exchange most lines of the script between them and it wouldn't make a difference to the film. There was no real distinction between them, no personality quirks, no depth. None of the characters were resolving deep seated issues with the disaster in the background (barring Cranston), they were trying to kill the monsters whilst the monsters were in the background.
So, if Gareth Edwards failed on the "Human Element", perhaps he can hit the other important part of the Disaster Movie, the spectacle? Unfortunately, no.
I'll give him this, he has a post-rock band's eye for building up an entrance. I was slumped defeated in my cinema seat until the tsunami. Godzilla's introduction was magnificent, but he failed to deliver on his filmic promises, not once, not twice, but consistently till the last reel (and even that was a disjointed mess, although that's not really the point I'm making here). Now, a Disaster movie's first reel is all about the teasing of it's main event. Towering Inferno spends a good deal of time making it's audience aware of the various events that lead to the building becoming nigh inescapable and what causes the fire, but when everything goes off, the audience is treated with an amazing spectacle, not a background event.
No one was necessarily looking for a film about Godzilla beating up 30 monsters, but we were there to see Godzilla. I see what Edward's was trying to do, whip his audience into a froth, but he paced it poorly and it simply made the viewing experience frustrating and unsatisfying. When we did finally get to see Godzilla at work, we've seen so little of him that there was no emotional connection to him beyond my nostalgia for the older films. That's not good film making.
Now, I may not have seen or I may not prefer the "right" Godzilla movies for any fans here to take my opinion seriously and not mistake my generally light hearted nature for trolling, but I don't think you can simply dismiss people's opinions as "not getting it". It's an absurdly elitist notion.
If it's a good enough blockbuster film, you shouldn't have to "get it", a successful film should be satisfying without reference to anything outside the experience. Those who know the structure of a Disater Movie or have seen the "right" Godzilla movies should get an extra kick from it, not be the only ones who get it.
I get it. I get the films he is harking back to. I've seen plenty of Godzilla movies. It was still gash.
I took my younger daughter to it on Saturday, my second watch. I ended up enjoying it a great deal more on the second watch, which I didn't expect. For me, the way the action is framed and the clarity with which it's staged largely overcame the lack of human connection in the last half of the film, and I enjoyed the overall story a great deal. The climactic battle and the cutting of the military mission into it was really superbly shot and edited. No confusion over who is where, or why, or what is happening, and the framing of the action has a nice style to it.
That said, I also came away with a clearer idea of just how badly the director and writers borked the human side of the story. The framework is there for something solid, even with the same material, but the actors clearly had poor direction. Poor Ken Watanabe had this deer in headlights look about him through the last 2/3 of the film; it seemed like nearly all of lines were cut so that was all we got of him.
Were I to make just one change, it would be
not killing Cranston, but rather having him be injured and in intensive care through part of the film. That would enable the shift to the son to drive the narrative, but let Cranston re-emerge later in the film, alongside the scientists with the military. Knocking him off so early was just a spectacularly poor writing choice (For both the character and the actor.); we're left with absolutely nothing to latch onto emotionally. It's been a long while since one performance towered over everyone else like this.
Best unintentionally funny line:
"Is the bridge clear?!" Radio response: "Hrrrraaaanggghhhhh!!! *clang*" I'd have taken that as "no" and backed up, personally.
I wish the wife was able to be something other than afraid in her scenes. Absolutely no personality came out, not even a "you've gotta be kidding me" expression when
she's stuck between the MUTO and Godzilla near the end. It was just, "I'm scared of that thing. Okay, now I'm scared of that thing." Really indicative of how flat the performance direction was.
I think we can lock down the main issue with some of the more vocal detractors is that they didn't quite understand what Gareth Edwards was trying to do with this film. And how the original films (and lauded Disaster films in general) were the major inspiration.
This film was not supposed to be a balls to the wall action film with 30 monsters duking it out on top of buildings. This was also a reboot/origin film, so it needed to set the grounds for a franchise, where the 98 attempt failed (which people magically forget).
No, I completely understand what Edwards was going for, and I think it was a great idea. I just don't think he entirely pulled it off effectively. Part of the reason is the script, coupled with some very wooden acting. I loved Cranston's character, and the first half hour was an excellent buildup, but then the movie just craters and with a lack of effective drama or action for the 90 minutes leading up to the good stuff, well he missed his mark IMHO.
Great idea, mediocre execution, that's how I felt about Godzilla 2014 even after two viewings. I did however like it more the second time around for some reason, maybe my expectations were just too high the first time.
I took my younger daughter to it on Saturday, my second watch. I ended up enjoying it a great deal more on the second watch, which I didn't expect. For me, the way the action is framed and the clarity with which it's staged largely overcame the lack of human connection in the last half of the film, and I enjoyed the overall story a great deal. The climactic battle and the cutting of the military mission into it was really superbly shot and edited. No confusion over who is where, or why, or what is happening, and the framing of the action has a nice style to it.
That said, I also came away with a clearer idea of just how badly the director and writers borked the human side of the story. The framework is there for something solid, even with the same material, but the actors clearly had poor direction. Poor Ken Watanabe had this deer in headlights look about him through the last 2/3 of the film; it seemed like nearly all of lines were cut so that was all we got of him.
Were I to make just one change, it would be
not killing Cranston, but rather having him be injured and in intensive care through part of the film. That would enable the shift to the son to drive the narrative, but let Cranston re-emerge later in the film, alongside the scientists with the military. Knocking him off so early was just a spectacularly poor writing choice (For both the character and the actor.); we're left with absolutely nothing to latch onto emotionally. It's been a long while since one performance towered over everyone else like this.
Best unintentionally funny line:
"Is the bridge clear?!" Radio response: "Hrrrraaaanggghhhhh!!! *clang*" I'd have taken that as "no" and backed up, personally.
I wish the wife was able to be something other than afraid in her scenes. Absolutely no personality came out, not even a "you've gotta be kidding me" expression when
she's stuck between the MUTO and Godzilla near the end. It was just, "I'm scared of that thing. Okay, now I'm scared of that thing." Really indicative of how flat the performance direction was.
They said Godzilla was a predator and that he was hunting but Godzilla didn't actually eat the male and the female, he just kinda owned them both and went back to his home planet. Am I wrong in thinking this is some sort of inconsistency or does he feed off krill like a whale?
Finally saw it in a real IMAX last night and not lieMAX. Can't believe how good it looks and sounds on the screen just amazing sound design.
Theater was filled to capacity and I really didn't expect that. It got all the same claps and screams as opening night as well.
Going for a second time I think the film manages to be even more enjoyable. You know what to expect and not anticipate and you can just sit back and let the film unfold while you enjoy all the buildup and amazing set pieces.
That Michael Bay can create (empty) spectacle at the expense of everything else should never be used as a plus for anything, other than maybe silent films.
The characters annoyed me a lot less than in Pacific Rim, so it got that going for it. Col. Stenz (forgot his name) and Watannabe are great, but Edwards didn't really do anything with them.
I was really surprised about the amount of tired clichees and tropes in the film.
1) If your in the army for 14 months and you come home to your wife, your not leaving to bail out your daddy before getting some nookie. That just don't happen. That shit was wrong.
2) Hero boys wife works as a nurse... Please. It's always a nurse or a school teacher.
3) Hero boy managed to persude everyone easily. From following abscent half crazy 15-year-conspiracy-father into radioactive zone across the world in less than 12 hours(minus jet lag) , to being allowed on the most important train mission for mankind because he is a bomb difuser.. okay?
4) Everybody explaining everything outloud. "this looks like this egg is dorment but this one looks like its been hatched", "its talking!! talkkkiinng", "they will meet at this place and we can nuke them from the harbor in a small rowboat across the shore".
5) scientist vs military trope. Jesus christ. "I understand your concern mr. scientist.. but my first priority is to protect the people. *begins to nuke radio active monsters with more radioactive bombs*.
6) Wattanabes face being the look of surprise through the entire film.
7) PG-13 really made me arghh. during the tsunami father with little girl manages to escape along with a dog that magically manages to untie itself from it's pole. on the bridge the school buss drives through tons of crowds of people without killing anyone. during the hero wifes heroic stay at the nursery 3-4 buildings collapses on top of them and they still got out okay. they should all have died from the smoke.
8) wouldn't the muto's and godzilla be so radioactive that just them being in the city would kill everyone around them? now that would be scary.
I thought it was very well made visually though. And I liked how Godzilla was kind of chubby. I thought it was a decent film. I'm surprised what Edwards will do with Star Wars.
Saw it a second time with some friends, still think it's mostly crap with some really cool moments and great sound design. I did walk away this time wondering why that
helicopter at the end wasn't knocked out electronically by the nuclear detonation happening nearby, especially after seeing the MUTOS use EMP attacks so often earlier in the movie.
To be frank, I think that's a little bit unfair and quite condescending. It boils down "if you didn't like it, you just didn't get it".
The film, as a standalone project (outside of the Godzilla franchise), is a mess. The main issue that folk have with the film, even those who like it, is that the "human element" falls somewhat short. If Gareth Edwards was going for a disaster movie, then he fell on the most important hurdle. As you implied, Disaster Movies are rarely about the disaster itself and all about characters dealing with those situations. But where are those interesting, distinctive characters and their satisfying arcs, like (say) Rev. Scott from Poseidon Adventure?
The closest we get is Cranston's bitter old conspiracy theorist, the one character with any thing approaching a satisfying emotional centre
who Edwards stupidly decides to off in an unceremonious manner
. Cranston does a fairly good job considering he is working with a script that is of average video game quality. By that I mean, it seems like every line is a series of expositions or, in the case of Kickass confronting Cranston (or indeed Cranston's earlier misfire of an emotional scene), a bunch of platitudes and cliches. The characters are such ciphers for exposition that you could easily exchange most lines of the script between them and it wouldn't make a difference to the film. There was no real distinction between them, no personality quirks, no depth. None of the characters were resolving deep seated issues with the disaster in the background (barring Cranston), they were trying to kill the monsters whilst the monsters were in the background.
So, if Gareth Edwards failed on the "Human Element", perhaps he can hit the other important part of the Disaster Movie, the spectacle? Unfortunately, no.
I'll give him this, he has a post-rock band's eye for building up an entrance. I was slumped defeated in my cinema seat until the tsunami. Godzilla's introduction was magnificent, but he failed to deliver on his filmic promises, not once, not twice, but consistently till the last reel (and even that was a disjointed mess, although that's not really the point I'm making here). Now, a Disaster movie's first reel is all about the teasing of it's main event. Towering Inferno spends a good deal of time making it's audience aware of the various events that lead to the building becoming nigh inescapable and what causes the fire, but when everything goes off, the audience is treated with an amazing spectacle, not a background event.
No one was necessarily looking for a film about Godzilla beating up 30 monsters, but we were there to see Godzilla. I see what Edward's was trying to do, whip his audience into a froth, but he paced it poorly and it simply made the viewing experience frustrating and unsatisfying. When we did finally get to see Godzilla at work, we've seen so little of him that there was no emotional connection to him beyond my nostalgia for the older films. That's not good film making.
I completely agree with this. I felt that the film failed as a disaster film since none of the characters were remotely interesting, though Cranston could have been had he remained alive, and it failed as a monster film as every time a monster appears, it cuts to a human running away.
I felt Pacific Rim was a much better attempt at a Hollywood version of a Japanese monster movie since despite the uneven pacing it delivered the monsters and robots in spades.
I also felt like Godzilla had too many pointless characters. Did it need 3 children in cliche danger? Cranston and 2 other scientists (who do nothing) researching Godzilla? And I also thought the end with Godzilla being saviour of the city and just calmly leaving the humans was completely against the film's 'Godzilla is a destroyer' tone.
7) PG-13 really made me arghh. during the tsunami father with little girl manages to escape along with a dog that magically manages to untie itself from it's pole. on the bridge the school buss drives through tons of crowds of people without killing anyone. during the hero wifes heroic stay at the nursery 3-4 buildings collapses on top of them and they still got out okay. they should all have died from the smoke.
was understandably odd (I think it was a loose leash?), I think the
little girl and her family getting to safety
is not farfetched since getting to high ground is a common tsunami method, and if you want to get dark about it you can assume they drowned. As for the
wife
it was actually a subway shelter, it was more of the entrance being buried rather than something collapsing on top of them.
And I also thought the end with Godzilla being saviour of the city and just calmly leaving the humans was completely against the film's 'Godzilla is a destroyer' tone.
I find this kinda odd....he utterly ruined the place. The final roar of goodbye seemed more of a "I'm the boss!" and head off into the sunset. Humans meant nothing to him, so that is why he just got on with his job and shrugged them off.
-----
I personally think they could have dropped the whole Cranston thing. Total waste of screentime. I would rather they spent time on the history of Godzilla, instead of someone overacting their lines to sound dramatic. Or at least keep him alive to see how things go. The whole part where they needed Cranston and his sun seemed utterly crazy, especially then going to question the son.
was understandably odd (I think it was a loose leash?), I think the
little girl and her family getting to safety
is not farfetched since getting to high ground is a common tsunami method, and if you want to get dark about it you can assume they drowned. As for the
wife
it was actually a subway shelter, it was more of the entrance being buried rather than something collapsing on top of them.
They said Godzilla was a predator and that he was hunting but Godzilla didn't actually eat the male and the female, he just kinda owned them both and went back to his home planet. Am I wrong in thinking this is some sort of inconsistency or does he feed off krill like a whale?
From what I remember, all these giant creatures only "feed" off of radiation. Godzilla himself adapted to living deep in the ocean where he's able to be closer to the radiation of the Earth's core and not need much else. By being the Alpha Predator in this case, he's not hunting for food but rather hes just not really keen on other giant creatures in his backyard, which is the entire planet. I believe this is also why he was awoken for the first time in millenia in the 50's when the first nuclear sub was launched. He most likely thought it was some baby monster and wanted to take it out.
Just saw it last night i give it a C+. The movie had some stupid moments and decisions kinda wished it was more about Bryan Cranstons character than his stupid son (dude from kickass which i could not take seriously). The dude had the voice of a 15 year old! "MY FAMILY IS IN THE CITY!" (With a teen voice).
Favorite scene was
the halo jump. The music was just perfect! Also Godzilla shooting fire into the MUTO's mouth was fucking badass bahaha
There was also a weird transition to the credits. I started bursting out laughing because of it. It was so abrupt!
People are going to pretend that The Rock, Bad Boys I and II, Armageddon, and Pain and Gain aren't "watchable content" just because Michael Bay made didn't do Transformers right? Transformers are pretty stupid to begin with, but they're now much more popular as a property than before the Bay movies, so I can't see why Transformers fans are so pissy about the movies. Because of the movies, they get old shit released and new toys and shit.
I wonder if people are using B-movie Western monster movies aired in Syfy or MST3K as a reference. Granted some Toho films appeared in MST3K, but those were the "special" years.
People are going to pretend that The Rock, Bad Boys I and II, Armageddon, and Pain and Gain aren't "watchable content" just because Michael Bay made didn't do Transformers right? Transformers are pretty stupid to begin with, but they're now much more popular as a property than before the Bay movies, so I can't see why Transformers fans are so pissy about the movies. Because of the movies, they get old shit released and new toys and shit.
I give you Bad Boys I (not II), but The Rock and Armageddon are pretty terrible, especially the latter which is only made memorable by the Aerosmith song.
Also Transformers 1 was pretty watchable. The sequels however are trash (especially RotF).
