Godzilla (2014)

Saw it last night. Thought that it was very silly and didn't manage to create any tension or sense of caring what actually might happen. The best part of the movie was the first half hour.

ktulu123

Slightly OT but was anyone in Dundrum for the 21.20 showing last night? There was a huge line for the tills that i've never seen before. Anyone know what was going on? Luckily I had tickets booked & brought 3D Glasses

Ipso

I lowered my expectations for this after reading some of the criticism, I was also expecting a snoozefest for the first hour but I really enjoyed it.

Spoilers ahead.

Regarding the first reveal, I thought the build up was great, getting a sense of size etc but the cut away didn't annoy me too much.
Some of the other cut aways worked as I thought it gave you an idea of a person on the ground view.
I do think a bit more Godzilla build up would have been good, instead of him being woke from his slumber.
Johnson was just meh, as was his wife.

I read a great description about the ending in an online review, about how he just gets up and leaves like he was a plumber that just finished a job.

StaticAge11

Going again tonight!

HighClass

Going to see this later tonight, managed to avert my eyes from all the posts so not to spoil it. Just wondering what the 3D is like? Noticeable or piss poor like Clash of The Titans?

StaticAge11

HighClass wrote: »

Going to see this later tonight, managed to avert my eyes from all the posts so not to spoil it. Just wondering what the 3D is like? Noticeable or piss poor like Clash of The Titans?

Not necessary but it certainly did not detract from the film

Frank Bullitt

Switch your brain off before watching this, it will blow your mind.

If you try to view it for its story line, you shouldn't bother going.

expectationlost

the escapist reviews it http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/9210-Godzilla-Breaking-Kaiju and loves it and hates it, but makes a big point about godzilla motivation but actually missed the point

godzilla motivation is to avoid the parasites like were found in the older 'godzilla'

, but not enough was made of that in the film, im not sure how such a keened eyed observer could miss that, maybe he indulged a little too much in the hating

beardy_mcgrath

i enjoyed it , compared to the 1998 one , its the citizen kane of monster movies , its slightly better than pacific rim but i enjoyed that too despite it being pretty crap

i saw it saturday and i could count on tow hands the number of people in the cinema , surprised its a hit based on that screening

Mr.Prodston

I saw it earlier and it was grand but nothing special, there were some good scenes and well shot pieces of action through windows etc

But I was majorly annoyed when

Bryan Cranston died.

It didn't even seem to make much sense to story and was a pretty lame way to go when there's a Godzilla and 2 MUTO's on the loose. It just feels like an opportunity lost not to have made more use of

him

Duggy747

It was a shìtty tease, the trailers featured

Cranston

quite a bit.

Poor Cranston has a crane fall on top of him

Me: "Ah no, don't tell me they're getting rid of him already?"

After the Muto escape it shows Cranston survives

Me: "Phew, he's still alive

Ken Watanabe chooses to have him on his team after the rest of his crew are dead.

Me:"Cool, Watanabe and Cranston team up...........though he's a bit fùcked up in that stretcher..........but at least that means he'll be around for a whi.........

*Cranston dies a minute later*

Me: Goddamit.

ozexpat

jeez what the frig were people expecting its a monster movie, and it was awesome!!

lot of negativity on here so on that side first...don't quite get the cranston love in, He was good in breaking bad but more because was an engaging character/plot more than his acting..and was interested to see him in it but though he was just okay. But agree that him (or anyone!) would defo have been a better main role than taylor-plank. Who spent most of movie like he was staring vacantly at a blank spot in the wall. reminds me of that gowl sam worthington..
Also debatable whether was worth it in 3d..one of those where felt like 3D was tacked on at the end as gimmick, although the CGI effects were amazing in wide screen.

don't people have the right to enjoy CGI effects on they're own merit no? I've seen plenty of movies with deeply developed characters and convuluted story lines that were mind numbingly boring or too confusing...

loved how the action slowly built up and got more epic as it went on, felt the human drama was kept interesting enough as a foil to the main events..
And managed to keep it interesting which given the story was a pretty difficult task i reckon..

a nice surprise given the amount of rubbish remakes being churned out by hollywood these days left thoroughly satisfied

good to hear there is a sequel in the offing

candy-gal1

kinda disapointed by this alright, twas a great movie and in the IMAX was even better imho, but had a lot of potential to be fantastic!

Its just seemed like it was building up and building up, getting really good and some scenes were amazing, then just seemed like they rushed to an ending of any sort they could think of :rolleyes:

And Cranston dying in it, after the whole trailer being of him, seemed a tad off!

I enjoyed it for what it was but probably wouldnt go see it again!

DrumSteve

candy-gal1 wrote: »

kinda disapointed by this alright, twas a great movie and in the IMAX was even better imho, but had a lot of potential to be fantastic!

Its just seemed like it was building up and building up, getting really good and some scenes were amazing, then just seemed like they rushed to an ending of any sort they could think of :rolleyes:

I enjoyed it for what it was but probably wouldnt go see it again!

Might want to stick a spoiler in there.

Ash.J.Williams

ozexpat wrote: »

jeez what the frig were people expecting its a monster movie, and it was awesome!!

lot of negativity on here so on that side first...don't quite get the cranston love in, He was good in breaking bad but more because was an engaging character/plot more than his acting..and was interested to see him in it but though he was just okay. But agree that him (or anyone!) would defo have been a better main role than taylor-plank. Who spent most of movie like he was staring vacantly at a blank spot in the wall. reminds me of that gowl sam worthington..
Also debatable whether was worth it in 3d..one of those where felt like 3D was tacked on at the end as gimmick, although the CGI effects were amazing in wide screen.

don't people have the right to enjoy CGI effects on they're own merit no? I've seen plenty of movies with deeply developed characters and convuluted story lines that were mind numbingly boring or too confusing...

loved how the action slowly built up and got more epic as it went on, felt the human drama was kept interesting enough as a foil to the main events..
And managed to keep it interesting which given the story was a pretty difficult task i reckon..

a nice surprise given the amount of rubbish remakes being churned out by hollywood these days left thoroughly satisfied

good to hear there is a sequel in the offing

i was expecting it to shed the dumb characters and nonsense sub plots and sh1te script of ususal hollywood for something a little more Asian inspired ...

wowy

The film has been open almost a week. Surely there's no more need for spoiler tags? If you haven't seen it, you shouldn't be reading the thread at this stage, and allow those who have seen it to be able to discuss it openly without spoiler tags.

Anyway, average summer blockbuster. I don't think it's as poor as some of the reviews above make out, but it's certainly nothing spectacular. It's the sorta movie I'd only watch again on e4 on a Friday night with a few beers.

intellectual dosser

Saw this last night, and apart from the 1998 Hollywood version I wouldnt be too familiar with the Godzilla folklore. I thought the first 30 minutes was building up a premise I could buy into, but then it started to really stretch things. For me, great films make you believe in whats happening no matter what, anything less and I find myself questioning the smallest things:

It's Godzilla, I get it, its not meant to be realistic, but why didnt the first MUTO go for the aircraft carrier and it's two nuclear reactors? Why did Godzilla have to come under/through the Golden Gate Bridge? The MUTOs found a nuclear waste dump in Arizona but decided to build their nest in downtown San Francisco?

Not a waste of time, could easily find myself watching it again but not for a few years. The lead protagonists wife was also extremely hot for an extra point!

lolosaur

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Saw this last night, and apart from the 1998 Hollywood version I wouldnt be too familiar with the Godzilla folklore. I thought the first 30 minutes was building up a premise I could buy into, but then it started to really stretch things. For me, great films make you believe in whats happening no matter what, anything less and I find myself questioning the smallest things:

It's Godzilla, I get it, its not meant to be realistic, but why didnt the first MUTO go for the aircraft carrier and it's two nuclear reactors? Why did Godzilla have to come under/through the Golden Gate Bridge? The MUTOs found a nuclear waste dump in Arizona but decided to build their nest in downtown San Francisco?

Not a waste of time, could easily find myself watching it again but not for a few years. The lead protagonists wife was also extremely hot for an extra point!

Hipster give off a unique radio active scent, it was this scent that led them to san fran, for as we all know, the smell of hipster coming out of san fran is 1 million billion times more potent then the waste dump in arizona.

DrumSteve

wowy wrote: »

The film has been open almost a week. Surely there's no more need for spoiler tags? If you haven't seen it, you shouldn't be reading the thread at this stage, and allow those who have seen it to be able to discuss it openly without spoiler tags.

Anyway, average summer blockbuster. I don't think it's as poor as some of the reviews above make out, but it's certainly nothing spectacular. It's the sorta movie I'd only watch again on e4 on a Friday night with a few beers.

I'd usually give it about 3 weeks before the spoiler tags need to go. It's only a little bit of effort to add them in, some people drop in here to gauge general reaction to the film before going to see it.

blastman

expectationlost wrote: »

the escapist reviews it http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/9210-Godzilla-Breaking-Kaiju and loves it and hates it, but makes a big point about godzilla motivation but actually missed the point

godzilla motivation is to avoid the parasites like were found in the older 'godzilla'

, but not enough was made of that in the film, im not sure how such a keened eyed observer could miss that, maybe he indulged a little too much in the hating

I went to see the movie last night and I have to say, the escapist review sums up pretty much exactly how I feel about it. Aaron Taylor-Whatever is truly terrible in this and it pains me to say that as I liked Kick Ass (and even the second one) very much. He makes Shia Lebouf look like Richard Burton. And I also hate to say it, but Bryan Cranston didn't really do anything except be borderline-hysterical (not hysterical as in funny, either) most of the time he was on-screen. The MUTOs were disappointing, a better potential adversary for the big G was actually namechecked in the film, just to rub salt in the wound, and I found myself wishing the Smog Monster would show up again.

Having said that, Godzilla himherself was brilliantly brought to life, and I would hope we'll see a lot more of him in the already-announced sequel.

ricero

Another curse of a good film trailer. Excellent trailer, average movie

Mal-Adjusted

intellectual dosser wrote: »

It's Godzilla, I get it, its not meant to be realistic, but why didnt the first MUTO go for the aircraft carrier and it's two nuclear reactors? Why did Godzilla have to come under/through the Golden Gate Bridge? The MUTOs found a nuclear waste dump in Arizona but decided to build their nest in downtown San Francisco?

You could nitpick this film to death all day.

How does the Japanese scientist know so much about Godzilla? All they have are old film reels from the fifties, so how does he know Godzilla will surface after sixty years to fight the M.U.T.O.'s? His whole "force of nature keeping everything else in line" b.s. seems a little contrived and he has no evidence to come to such a conclusion.

Why did soldiers on the train bring the nuclear missile into an area they knew the big M.U.T.O. was also in? Did these idiots just assume it wouldn't be attracted to the radiation until they were ready to blow it up?

When Ford knows that all three monsters are converging on San Fransisco, he tells his wife to stay there and he'll come get her. WTF! Just tell her to get the kid and get the hell out of there. meet up someplace else later ya prick!

There's probably more but I don't want to berate the film over everything.
I know it sounds like i hate this film. I don't. It can be enjoyable if you switch your brain off

johnny_ultimate

A little off topic, but it has been mentioned a few times in thread re: Godzilla trailers and the finished project. Now more than ever it is vital to view trailers with a very critical eye - or, better yet, stop watching them altogether wherever possible.

I hate to be cynical like this (nah, I love it ), but a blockbuster trailer's first purpose is not to offer an accurate representation of the film. It is to try and ensure you go and see the film: or, more specifically, to guarantee you part with your money. With blockbusters particularly (although far from exclusively) it's easy to tease the film in a manipulative way - even crap like Transformers can be ruthlessly edited to offer 90 seconds of exciting spectacle and fan service. There's more extreme cases: the trailer playing in Irish cinemas for The Wind Rises conveniently didn't contain any dialogue at all, which is distressingly common for foreign language films. Locke seemed to suggest the film existed in a different genre entirely. Trailers, more often than not, are mere commercials directed at a wide audience first and foremost, and it's only the likes of David Fincher who seem to manage an effective tease, a smart ad and a consistent loyalty to the film's mood and content all at once.

Obviously sometimes trailers are unavoidable (sure they're right in front of films in the cinema) and it can be hard to not feel optimistic when a trailer is particularly well crafted. And there's those rare cases when a film actually lives up to the promise of teasers or trailers. But it's increasingly important to divorce your own expectations from the hype the studio is very consciously trying to manufacture. Audience manipulation for commercial purposes is a dark art, and Hollywood have gotten damn good at it.

brianregan09

blastman wrote: »

I went to see the movie last night and I have to say, the escapist review sums up pretty much exactly how I feel about it. Aaron Taylor-Whatever is truly terrible in this and it pains me to say that as I liked Kick Ass (and even the second one) very much. He makes Shia Lebouf look like Richard Burton. And I also hate to say it, but Bryan Cranston didn't really do anything except be borderline-hysterical (not hysterical as in funny, either) most of the time he was on-screen. The MUTOs were disappointing, a better potential adversary for the big G was actually namechecked in the film, just to rub salt in the wound, and I found myself wishing the Smog Monster would show up again.

Having said that, Godzilla himherself was brilliantly brought to life, and I would hope we'll see a lot more of him in the already-announced sequel.

Who was the other potential adversery ?

lolosaur

brianregan09 wrote: »

Who was the other potential adversery ?

Mothra.

Duggy747

lolosaur wrote: »

Mothra.

Namechecked on the fish tank of their home :pac:

brianregan09

Ahh okay didn't spot that one, I'd love me some King Ghidorah in the sequel

Roar

I cannot, CANNOT be the only one who thought Godzilla looked like the UFC's Alistair Overeem??

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Audience manipulation for commercial purposes is a dark art, and Hollywood have gotten damn good at it.

I just wish they'd put the same effort into making the films effective as they do the trailers. I've got no objection to the kind of films they think they're making, but I do object to lazy scripting, bad acting and rigidly -emplated film structures.

Thus far, Godzilla makes Edwards 0 for 2 as far as either good dialogue or getting good performances out of his cast is concerned. Visually it was very pretty, though, I'll give him that.

Warper

Very boring opening 50 mins i felt. Godzilla itself was good but again there are times when you are just getting into a scene and then it cuts back to the absolutely cardboard boring humans. Godzilla's foes are pretty meh, didnt really enjoy their screen time when the big fella wasnt there. It seems obvious but this film needed more of Godzilla, too many teases. They should scrap the first 50 mins as it a chore to watch but it does pick up at the end. Overall average, maybe some day Hollywood will do the big fella justice or better still Japan.

Kylo Ren

I thought it was pretty good. I liked the teases of the fights rather than having half the movie be an all out brawl.

Cranston dying

was disappointing as

he was so bloody good up until that. If he was the lead rather than AJ it would of been a better film for me. AJ doesn't have it to be a leading man in a blockbuster.

I hated when

they kept panning to his wife. We get it. She's helpless. Either give her something to do or don't keep showing us her scared face.

Ash.J.Williams

the wife was wreckin me buzz

blastman

Leave her at home next time, that'll teach her!

pixelburp

Godzilla 2014. Aka, Godzilla versus the Personality Vacuum.

I'm on the fence about this one - I applaud the intention here, if not the execution. I can see what Edwards wanted to do, to take inspiration from Monsters and have a film where the giant monsters lurk and fight in the background, while the human drama in the foreground keep things grounded. It's just a shame that while the monster action was somewhat worth the wait, the stuff in the foreground with the various squishy humans was pretty terrible. Pacific Rim had more rounded characters than this.

To be fair, the prologue was quite efficient and effective: a nuclear family that loves each other suffers a tragedy in the midst of the first MUTO attack. Most of the heavy lifting was done by Bryan Cranston but that shouldn't come as any great surprise to those who enjoy his work. In any case, it worked, I was onboard. However, once we moved to the modern day the characterisation fell off the cliff and we can thank Aaron Taylor Johnson for that. I'm no fan of him at the best of times, but his performance was just ... astonishing. To the extent that I wondered why nobody didn't pull the trigger on his contract and draft in someone else mid-production, ala Back To the Future. He was a millstone around this film's neck, utterly devoid of personality, wearing a constant expression of constipation, incapable of emoting in response to any variation of event. When you're upstaged by a giant CGI lizard you know you've failed in your craft.

Not that the rest of the cast well-served by the script or anything: Elizabeth Olsen's character was utterly pointless, she literally had nothing to do in this film, and in the climax we kept cutting back to her for no reason. Yup, she's still alive and a bit scared, ok, back to the Personality Vacuum. Ken Watanabe's character amounted to "mystical oriental sage making deep pronouncements" that was borderline offensive. Juliette Binoche was completely wasted, but then so was Sally Hawkins; so basically, all the females in the script had NOTHING to do. Well done Hollywood. The rest of the cast were just soldiers and people I have no interest in. Maybe it's my own personal prejudices but I simply cannot relate with people who are part of the American military complex. Especially when the audience surrogate is one of those grunts. I guess it was to make it easier to insert characters into any given set-piece, but Cloverfield managed to do that with a bunch of 20-something yupppies, so I wouldn't buy that excuse were it made. Hell, as obnoxious as Cloverfield's characters were, at least they had life. Some vitality, spark and broad arcs. Soldiers going 'hoorah' gives me nothing to work with as a viewer. I just don't care.

Anyway, as to the real reason people are going to this movie - well as I said above it was all somewhat worth the wait. While the influence of 'Monsters' was there, I think Edwards was also channeling Spielberg as I got a distinct whiff of Jaws and Jurassic Park. The opening helicopter shots felt like a homage to Spielberg's dinosaur flick, while the I suspect the idea to keep the appearance of the monsters - Godzilla in particular - to a minimum was to ape Jaws' (famously accidental) decision to keep the monster on the sidelines, all in the name of maximising the impact of their eventual appearance. That Godzilla's family unit is named Brody, the same as Roy Scheider's own in Jaws just adds to the suspicion that the influence was strong here. It just didn't help that while Jaws had solid, believable human beings and conflicts of personality, Godzilla had cardboard cutouts spouting exposition.

What little Godzilla-MUTO action there was worked very well and punches weren't pulled; it was a pretty vicious, heavy dust-up and at times they got the tone just right - the humans were passengers, utterly incidental in the face of these beings. Godzilla himself looked great: weighty, huge, and more like his past incarnations. I just wish there were fewer of those teasing cutaways, where the camera looked away from the monster action as it began. C'mon Gareth Edwards - give the people what they want. It wasn't always fun.

And that comes to the nub of the issue: this movie wasn't fun. I look at Pacific Rim for a comparison and while that movie was as dumb as a bag of hammers, with a lead character as charmless as Godzilla's, the movie had a zip and energy that kept things going. A big splashy comicbook writ large. Godzilla needed a little levity - nothing overwrought or anything - but the script was crying out for some dry, black humour. And while it's ok to play it straight sometimes, Godzilla didn't even have a message behind the joyless mayhem. It's common knowledge the 1954 film was about Japan dealing with the aftermath of its destruction at the hands of nuclear weapons, but Godzilla 2014 had nothing going on between the ears. There was a tiny little throwaway scene where Watanabe speaks to David Strathairn's trigger-happy general about Hiroshima, and the two men looked at each other with the kind of emotion & intensity Aaron Johnson was incapable of, but it came to nothing.

In summary? Better than I thought it would turn out, but a massive missed opportunity. The sequel needs to bring better characters to the table, a little more humour to procedings, downplay the US military garbage and maybe dial back the teasing cutaways just a tad. Were I a man who used ratings, I'd say it was a high-C, low-B

krudler

Saw this last night in Toronto in an Ultra AVX Dolby something something cinema, good lord it was the loudest thing I've ever heard. The bass in the cinema was stomach churningly heavy, but in a good way. The monsters are the stars here, Cranston and Binoche are wasted, Ken Watanabe looks wasted, and Kick Ass has no story arc, or much to do aside from parachute jump and set things on fire.

The setpieces though, what ones we actually see are brilliant, the Hawaii sequence, the bridge attack and the king of the monsters finale are all excellent. The cutaway from the first big moment actually did get a laugh out of the audience I saw it was (and thankfully Canadian cinemagoers seem to be a lot less vocal than their American counterparts with the whooping and shouting).

Godzilla himself was brilliant, I loved how he looked like a big cgi version of a guy in a suit, bit fat legs, weighty too which is always CGI's biggest downfall. More of the good stuff and less of the pointless human drama in the sequel though. There was no reason for Kick Ass's family to be in this, he doesnt even have to save them, you could see it if it followed the Cranston thing but nope, the wife and kid just look scared and hide for a bit.

expectationlost

so the moral of the story

nature is bgger then us

and what we gonna do with

all these nukes and nuclear waste we have now

although im not sure it really told the story he says it tell here http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=308789268

"The West ... we police the world and go, 'You can't have nuclear power. You can't have it. But we can have it, and we have nuclear weapons,' " Edwards said. "And what if there were a creature that existed, creatures that were attracted to radiation? Suddenly the tables would be turned, and we'd be desperately trying to get rid of that stuff."

expectationlost

doesn't the end of this movie very similar to Dark Knight Rises just easterly version this time

Ipso

expectationlost wrote: »

so the moral of the story

nature is bgger then us

Yeah, kind of like Lovecraft's idea of cosmic insignifigance.

WatchWolf

expectationlost wrote: »

doesn't the end of this movie very similar to Dark Knight Rises

How so?

titan18

Thought that was quite poor. Monster on Monster action was nice, but then it'd cut to Taylor - Johnson and all the fun just got sucked out. Could have been so much better if they had hired a better lead. It still wouldn't have been great, but he just sucked the life out of the film.

Mickeroo

Just in the door from it.

I enjoyed it overall, but I would agree that the human characters were very dull, well

they had a great protagonist in Cranston but then didn't use him at all, for shame.

I thought the set pieces made up for it though, the halo jump sequence in particular was gorgeous and I really enjoyed how they handled the big guy.

I thought their head was in the right place thematically too in terms of keeping with the franchise's roots and they did a good job of depicting Godzilla as a real force of nature and instilling a sense of awe around what was happening. I personally preferred the more serious tone. Just a shame the human characters were so poor.

Overall a solid entertaining popcorn flick that rights most of the wrongs of the nineties one but ultimately falls short of greatness.

krudler

titan18 wrote: »

Thought that was quite poor. Monster on Monster action was nice, but then it'd cut to Taylor - Johnson and all the fun just got sucked out. Could have been so much better if they had hired a better lead. It still wouldn't have been great, but he just sucked the life out of the film.

He doesn't really do much in it either, there's no sense of danger or urgency to anything he has to do in it bar the halo jump.

expectationlost

WatchWolf wrote: »

How so?

dark knight rises Neutron bomb explodes off coast, godzilla nuclear bomb bomb explodes off coast

Warper

Time magazine has called this a dud

A Greedy Algorithm

I thought this was pretty bad to be honest. It started out great but as time went on it became dull - the human characters had no purpose after the first 45 minutes or so.

James74

Sorry if something like this already posted, didn't want to read thread yet until I see the film. Son (7) wants to see this, want to get opinions if suitable. For context, he seems fine with Cap2 levels of punchy-kickery violence and thinks LotR orcs getting their heads cut off is very funny.
I just wouldn't be comfortable with anything to realistic or bloody. Thanks all.

Mickeroo

James74 wrote: »

Sorry if something like this already posted, didn't want to read thread yet until I see the film. Son (7) wants to see this, want to get opinions if suitable. For context, he seems fine with Cap2 levels of punchy-kickery violence and thinks LotR orcs getting their heads cut off is very funny.
I just wouldn't be comfortable with anything to realistic or bloody. Thanks all.

It's less violent then the films you mentioned if anything, nothing graphic in it at all really.

ancapailldorcha

I saw it last night and I quite liked it.

I like Godzilla's new design quite a lot. The fight scenes (what little there were) were quite meaty and felt like monsters fighting in a city should feel like. I saw it in "IMAX" 3D so that might have had something to do with it. I'm quite glas I saw the Japanese original as well as there were a few subtle nods to it here.

I didn't mind the human characters too much as they don't seem much worse than the usual Hollywood blockbuster characters though they make the human drama of the 1998 film look like a masterpiece. I dislike the fact that Bryan Cranston appears in so much of the promotional material of the film

only to die in the first half an hour

. The thing is too long and too much is devoted to the characters who are just dull. Dreadful as Transformers films are, we at least get to see the robots on screen for large portions of the films.

I was terrified near the end that we'd get another Transformers, ie never actually seeing the monsters fight. Seeing Godzilla confronting the Muto and then a cut to Elizabeth Olsen really irritated me. I have no idea why they'd reveal Godzilla so early and then tease the audience almost until the end of the film.

It's a good laugh and probably the best of the CG-everything gets blown up film genre I can mention.

El Horseboxo

Kind of regretting reading some of the posts in here now. Heading to see this with the wife when we get up later this morning. Although it has kind of lowered my expectations a bit. She still thinks it's gonna be awesome.

cena

Not sure why it is even called Godzilla. It is hardly in the film.