Welcome my wonderful friends to the
month of Halloween. This year, I've decided to do devote my time to
talking about more than just the horror films that have come out this
year, but also talk about films from previous years, ones that I'm
eager to talk about and share to you all. So for the next month, I'll
be talking about 13 horror, or horror related, films for the month of
Halloween.
And what better way to start the month,
than with one of the summer's biggest blockbusters, and one of the
most anticipated films of the entire year, “Godzilla.”
For those who don't know, “Godzilla”
or “Gojira” as he's called in Japan,” is the iconic fictional
giant monster born from radiation, after the events of Hiroshima. At
the time of the first film's release, it seemed scary, since it was
just after World War II, so the thought of a monster like that was
frightening. For 60 years and 30 films, the monster has had a huge
impact on pop culture, making him a legend to many. The original
film, “Godzilla: The King of the Monsters,” is regarded by fans
as the best of the series, and the one that fans recommend the most
to new viewers.
In the late 90's, Tristar made an
attempt at rebooting the series, after Toho killed him off in the
second series. It was directed by Roland Emmerich, the director of
“Independence Day,” and starred Matthew Broadrick and Jean Reno.
However, the film has been heavily criticized to death, and even Toho
themselves didn't like it.
Here's my argument: Why though? Why is
it so hated by many, and why has it garnered hatred to the level it's
at? I mean, I'll admit I used to hate this film, but now that I'm
older, I've started to think about this a little bit more. It isn't a
masterpiece, but if we were to judge it as a Godzilla film, we need
dive into the main complaints that the film has been given:
#1: Godzilla's design – This one, I
can kind of understand why it was disliked. The design, while not
horrible, does differ from the image we associate Godzilla with. It's
obvious that the film is trying to appeal to the “Jurassic Park”
crowd, especially with the film ripping off scenes and moments from
it, but that's something LOTS of films do, even back then. I do see
the debate with the design, but I'm not too terribly torn about it.
It's not good, but it could have been worse.
#2: Godzilla dying – People always
say, “Godzilla doesn't die by the military, he's invincible! He can
only be killed by other giant monsters, like King Gidorah!” I'm not
one to say people are wrong, but here's my problem: they're comparing
this movie to the entire series. Think about how the first film
ended, and try to imagine if they didn't make a sequel, let alone a
series of films to follow it. You would think Godzilla was killed.
The film is not a remake of the entire series, it's a remake of the
first film, staying true to what it originally did.
#3: The human story is bad – Oh
really? You people are going to say that, out of the ENTIRE Godzilla
series, this one had the worst human story? Okay bucko,
let me ask you something: name at least ONE film in the series, prior
to this film, that has a human story that is both GOOD and MEMORABLE.
Hardly, right? And say that you'll still say this human story sucks
in this, here's something I have to ask: you'll defend “Godzilla's Revenge,” featuring the pillsbury dough boy
in black face, voiced by Barney the Dinosaur's mentally challenged
cousin, but this one is total bullshit? Argue about it all you want,
but “Godzilla's Revenge” will still be worst.
Overall, the film isn't the best, nor
is it the worst. It's enjoyable in its own right, in the same vain as
any other Roland Emmerich movie, as cheesy fun (except “Anonymous,
that was actually fantastic). But enough about the 1998 film, let's
talk about the new film from Warner Bros and Legendary.
In present day Tokyo, a nuclear
physicist is trying to expose the truth that his wife wasn't just
killed by an earthquake, but rather a monster. When his son comes to
visit him, they revisit the abandoned part of town, only to realize
that the government is examining an egg creature, under the acronym
“MUTO.” When it is released, Godzilla rises up to the surface to
stop the MUTO, before the other one escapes and breeds more.
While it may be advertised as a remake of the classic film, it isn't. It acts more like a sequel to the original 1954 film. This
would make sense, because whenever a Godzilla series would like to
start fresh and new, it would result in the same process, much like
“Godzilla (1984).” The proof of that is when the film brings up that the Japanese have
encountered Godzilla back in 1954, meaning Godzilla has been asleep
for 60 years. As a Godzilla film, it works for what it is, pretty damn well...however, if I was to
look at it as a film on its own, much like how almost EVERYONE did
with the Tristar film, I do find some fault with it.
For starters, Bryan Cranston does a
fantastic job as the physicist, Joe Brody. The first act has so much
build up and development dedicated to him finding the truth about his
wife's murder. That scene where he's being interrogated, and he goes
off on that rant is very emotional. You do care about what happens to
him, and you feel like he's giving it his all there. What happens
later? He pretty much gets killed when the MUTO hatches, five minutes
later. Are you serious?! You just had all this development go into
this character, a man who is mentally torn about the loss of the love
of his life for over twenty years, cast a fantastic actor to play
him, had him in almost all of the advertisements...and you just kill
him off by the end of the first act?!
Now this wouldn't have bothered me as
much, if the son was just as interesting right? Wrong. Don't get me
wrong, Aaron Taylor Johnson is a great actor, but his character and
performance in this film was just...meh. You could have gotten
anybody else to play him, and it wouldn't have made a difference. His
character was just so generic and bland, that it's hard to feel any
sympathy for what happens to him. Same can be said for his wife and
daughter, who felt like they didn't get as much development as they
should have, when the monsters approach the city. I think it would
have been best if instead of the dad dying, it was the son, that way
we could have a bit more of an emotional feeling with them, knowing
that they've lost someone who they've had a strong connection with. I
will admit, the supporting cast that's with them, consisting of Ken
Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, Richard T. Jones, and others are good in the
film, but it isn't enough to help the film out.
Now let's get to the main event of the
film, Godzilla and the MUTO. First off, the MUTO was a good idea, but
the designs of them are very unoriginal, a word that PERFECTLY
describes Hollywood today. They just look like a mix between Orga,
Mothra, and the Cloverfield monster. And more screen time is devoted
to them, more so than Godzilla, who's only the film for less than 20
minutes. Now, I have nothing against the giant monster fights, but I
would have preferred if they saved it for a sequel, instead of
shoehorning them in with barely any room for Godzilla. Now some may
argue they did the same thing in “Godzilla 2000,” with the
arrival of Orga, but it was also done in a much better film.
Overall, what do I think of it?
Well...I still really liked it. While I did criticize the film in the
same vain as others have with the 1998 film, that doesn't mean it's bad. It is technically better
than the Tristar film, but it isn't up there with some of the other
greats, like “Final Wars” or “Godzilla vs. Destroyer.” If
you're looking for a fun Godzilla film to settle into, then give a watch and see for yourself,
Rating: 8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment