Godzilla (2014)

Chris_Heilong

I have yet to see this, but from reading some of the posts it sounds bad, I didn't like Monsters and felt it was boring but understood there were huge budgetary reasons for decisions on that one and at least they did go down the found footage rough with this as that has been done with Clover field. This sounds like pacific rim will be more of a Godzilla film than Godzilla is.

Padraig Mor

I don't generally like your average "crash bang boom" summer blockbuster, but I thought Godzilla was great. Sure, the lead was a bit of a plank, but since when has this stopped blockbusters? I think keeping Godzilla in the shadows for much of the film was a risky, but worthwhile decision.

Ipso wrote: »

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

This is exactly what I thought. To Godzilla and the MUTOs, mankind is akin to ants, completely insignificant and unworthy of attention except for the odd time when they prove to be a minor annoyance. Yes, most blockbusters would have Godzilla vs Man as the main storyline but surely that was the point with this new version - Man wasn't important enough for Godzilla to bother with?

wandatowell

Film needed more 'Murica

Arghus

Too Much Blah, Blah. Not Enough Smash, Smash.

Thought it was a missed opportunity really. A talented director, an okay cast, a beloved movie character and a huge budget results in a decidedly Meh experience.

A slow build up is good if it has pay off and has human characters for us to care about, Cranston aside. Some of the cardboard cutouts we have to spend time with aren't to far removed from the Emerich movie. Even if they are more po-faced. The script is dull and full of ludicrous coincidences

The effects are good. Some of the sets, shots and titles are memorable and unique. The Halo jump sequence is great, but it sticks out like a sore thumb- it has urgency and a sense of scale. These things are completely lacking elsewhere in the film.

The films heart is in the right place and it isn't a totally stupid trip to the movies, but it's priority's are all wrong. Aside from the climax, it's attention is always on exactly the wrong place in the action, which comes in drips and drabs Too many teases and cut-aways. The film is called Godzilla and he should be the main attraction. Here he is relegated to special guest star in his own film.

Bipolar Joe

I haven't seen this, but I've seen all the Toho series multiple times, and I'd like to weigh in on something.

Godzilla 1954 had very little in the way of smashing. It was a human interest story with a giant lizard that wrecked a city during a 10 - 15 minute sequence. The rest of the movie took place either in a lab, an office or someone's house. There's a lot of dialogue, with people discussing whether or not to kill Godzilla, how to do it, so on, how it's affecting their lives. There's a damn love triangle. It's not a 90 minute film of a giant monster wrecking shit. The complaints that there's not enough smashing because it's a Godzilla film aren't really grounded. If anything, it sounds like a crappy film because the characters are badly written. It sounds like there's far more smashing than the 1954 Godzilla.

I'd recommend watching the original Toho series, if you haven't. They're great (With it's own share of duds).

Fysh

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I haven't seen this, but I've seen all the Toho series multiple times, and I'd like to weigh in on something.

Godzilla 1954 had very little in the way of smashing. It was a human interest story with a giant lizard that wrecked a city during a 10 - 15 minute sequence. The rest of the movie took place either in a lab, an office or someone's house. There's a lot of dialogue, with people discussing whether or not to kill Godzilla, how to do it, so on, how it's affecting their lives. There's a damn love triangle. It's not a 90 minute film of a giant monster wrecking shit. The complaints that there's not enough smashing because it's a Godzilla film aren't really grounded. If anything, it sounds like a crappy film because the characters are badly written. It sounds like there's far more smashing than the 1954 Godzilla.

I'd recommend watching the original Toho series, if you haven't. They're great (With it's own share of duds).

re: the bolded part above, I agree wholeheartedly.

I've mentioned The Host upthread, and I really loved that film - it provides us with interesting characters, multiple perspectives on what's happening, and a persistently engaging narrative.

I think that Godzilla (2014) is neither enough of a Big Dumb Smash! spectacle to work on the same level as Pacific Rim, nor sophisticated enough in its storyline and characters to work on the same level as The Host. Which is a pity, because it's not actually bad in its current form so much as mediocre - but it could have been so much better.

ancapailldorcha

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I haven't seen this, but I've seen all the Toho series multiple times, and I'd like to weigh in on something.

Godzilla 1954 had very little in the way of smashing. It was a human interest story with a giant lizard that wrecked a city during a 10 - 15 minute sequence. The rest of the movie took place either in a lab, an office or someone's house. There's a lot of dialogue, with people discussing whether or not to kill Godzilla, how to do it, so on, how it's affecting their lives. There's a damn love triangle. It's not a 90 minute film of a giant monster wrecking shit. The complaints that there's not enough smashing because it's a Godzilla film aren't really grounded. If anything, it sounds like a crappy film because the characters are badly written. It sounds like there's far more smashing than the 1954 Godzilla.

I'd recommend watching the original Toho series, if you haven't. They're great (With it's own share of duds).

I actually liked the cast of the 1998 film.

Which of the originals would be worth watching? I remember Channel 4 broadcast them all when I was young but I only got round to watching Godzilla vs Mothra. I've seen clips which definitely let on that some of them are duds on Youtube.

StaticAge11

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I actually liked the cast of the 1998 film.

Which of the originals would be worth watching? I remember Channel 4 broadcast them all when I was young but I only got round to watching Godzilla vs Mothra. I've seen clips which definitely let on that some of them are duds on Youtube.

Godzilla vs King Ghidorah from 1991 was one of my favourites as a kid. It's been over 14 years since I have seen it though so I dont know how it holds up now!

pixelburp

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

It's not a 90 minute film of a giant monster wrecking shit. The complaints that there's not enough smashing because it's a Godzilla film aren't really grounded. If anything, it sounds like a crappy film because the characters are badly written. It sounds like there's far more smashing than the 1954 Godzilla.

Yup, that’s about the size of it. It doesn’t help said characters are front-and-centre in the narrative for about half the film, it only serves to highlight the poverty of the writing. And poor it is; it’s actually kind of baffling that the only character with any kind of dramatic agency or relationship with events overall is

killed off 20/25 minutes in, with the movie pulling an about-turn to focus instead on a total non-entity. Bryan Cranston’s death doesn’t even figure in his son’s actions or rationale, it just happens and things move on.

Nobody else in the script is given any purpose or impetus - this is literally the case with the women, who have nothing to do - so you’re just left scratching your head wondering who you’re meant to care about.

Mickeroo

It's a real shame because the set pieces were top notch imo. Really could have been something special if there was a really good human story tying it all together. At least Pacific Rim had Mako to keep me somewhat invested in what was going on.

StaticAge11

This is Gareth Edwards addressing some of the things people have had issues with. Warning Spoilers http://www.scified.com/site/godzillamovies/gareth-edwards-reveals-7-godzilla-2014-secrets

Bipolar Joe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I actually liked the cast of the 1998 film.

Which of the originals would be worth watching? I remember Channel 4 broadcast them all when I was young but I only got round to watching Godzilla vs Mothra. I've seen clips which definitely let on that some of them are duds on Youtube.

I guess it depends on what you want, really ! The first bunch are very serious, but it kind of goes the same way slasher movies do, getting more fun and silly. There was a 50th year release of the original that I personally think is the best copy available. Godilla Vs. King Kong is very goofy, but the fight is great and really enjoyable. The 2000 series isn't as enjoyable, though. Also Mechagodzilla is awesome.

expectationlost

StaticAge11 wrote: »

This is Gareth Edwards addressing some of the things people have had issues with. Warning Spoilers http://www.scified.com/site/godzillamovies/gareth-edwards-reveals-7-godzilla-2014-secrets

or just listen to the podcast https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine

theres alot of WE in his answers

Zed Bank

As a big Godzilla fan in my younger years, I went to see this with high expectations, I came out feeling a bit disappointed tbh.

I expected this to be a direct remake of the 1954 version, as I heard that it was set in Japan, the opening sequence and first 20-30 minutes were great, but it went a bit of the rails at that point. I wasn't pushed by the muto storyline (mechagodzilla and king Kong being the only enemies I liked in the toho series). For me it seemed as if the script was written around the mutos and then the producers thought "No one is going to pay to see this, lets slap Godzilla onto it for market value"

Although there were nods to the original, many of the beloved Godzilla "cliches" were left out. Notably a scene where the conventional military takes on godzilla.

One poster mentioned how there was not much "smash, smash" in the original, the difference between this and 1954 however, is that the smashing in the original was memorable and done well.

The whole Godzilla as a metaphor for nuclear destruction was not executed well here, the original was poignant and had a long lasting effect, it seems the script-writer(s) knew they needed to include it somehow, so dealt with it by one line of dialogue.

For a human focused story, the characters were bland and one dimensional.

Despite my complaints, there was one thing this movie desperately needed- Jet Jaguar

fonecrusher1

As a not too serious Godzilla fan I thought this was good. I'm in general a fan of this genre. I enjoyed it.

I thought it was head and shoulders above the absolute ****e that was the 1998 Godzilla. And obviously im not talking about the CGI elements.

The cast (bar Cranston) were predictably rubbish but what do you want from a movie about giant monsters? I thought zilla was class. I thought the lead up to his reveal was well constructed and held my interest. Brilliantly there is a noticable nod to the man in a suit appearrance of the original 50's Godzilla monster but it works on a grand scale.

The back bone of the story is ancient Godzilla waking from slumber to confront a very powerful unstable force of nature in the form of a couple of ugly radiation crazed colossal beasties one of which threatens earth itself by incubating many thousands of its own kind within. The earth populace are ants. Insignificant observers of their own fate. Funny enough this actuallly mirrors the insignificance of the films human involvement in the movie although Cranston does temporarily give the film a bit of acting ballast.

Be warned that the monsters are on screen a little sparingly IMO but each scene is very impressive in scale and appearrance. The Epic monster scraps and biblical city destruction will thrill Godzilla / monster movie fans and bore everyone else.

Sit down to Godzilla with realistic expectations of what you are about to see and you will be surprised at how good this is.

Took my 6 year old brother to see this today and a number of times he wanted us to leave and the only thing that kept him there were my promises that Godzilla was coming eventually. Calling the film Godzilla is somewhat misleading considering that he's in it for all of 5 minutes and even then we rarely get a good look at him. Pacific Rim made the same mistake of staging all the action scenes at night and a lot is lost, the older Godzilla films were bright and vibrant and all the better for it.

Story wise there was nothing here we haven't seen before and the writing for the human characters was poor, and that's being generous. Much like World War Z, Godzilla is a film in which our poorly defined hero stumbles across the world and getting caught up in all manner of escapades only we merely glimpse them. The Hawaii attack, and initial attack on Japan are glossed over and while I get what Edwards was trying to do, it was disappointing. Pacific Rim is much maligned but at the very least we had multiple fights between the monsters, here we see them obscured by smoke or buildings for a few seconds before the film cuts to the aftermath.

Whoever thought that Taylor-Johnson was leading man material must be both blind and deaf, he has all the presence of a piece of wood with a smiley face painted on it. He's been bad in a number of previous films but here's truly abysmal. It's painful to watch him and there is a complete lack of chemistry between himself and Olson. Watanabe and Cranston are dependable presences but they're given nothing to do. The films is pretty much a one man vehicle and the writers opted for the least interesting character imaginable.

The final half hour was a lot of fun and it's a shame that so much of what came before is so generic. With something of an edit the film could play so much better at 90 or so minutes.

Gamb!t

I thought it was very well done and quite enjoyable.

krudler

I thought Taylor-Johnson was perfectly good in Kick Ass, why was he so wooden in this?

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

I thought Taylor-Johnson was perfectly good in Kick Ass, why was he so wooden in this?

I think the character was just dull more than his acting being the problem.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think the character was just dull more than his acting being the problem.

I think both elements must take some blame here: the script gave the actor nothing to work with and was a bland soldier-boy template, but Taylor-Johnson had nothing to bring, charisma-wise...

No Pants

Saw this yesterday. Plot full of holes, but I didn't mind. However, I think the script made the classic error of trying to tell a human story in the middle of a giant monster scrap. It's the same as the Hulk movies. Tell us all about Bruce Banner if you must, but everyone is waiting for Hulk to start smashing.

Mark Hamill

krudler wrote: »

I thought Taylor-Johnson was perfectly good in Kick Ass, why was he so wooden in this?

Like Samson in the bible, his hair is the true source of all his power (or in Taylor-Johnson's case, his personality) :pac:.

jackwillson772

This movie looks great.
Brain Cranson FTW

jonnyfingers

Watched it yesterday. Didn't really enjoy it. Thought it was silly and the acting was very dodgy. Good special effects though. I'll have forgotten all about ever seeing it in a few days I think.

SimonTemplar

I'm a little late to the party as I just saw this yesterday. On one hand, I respect Edwards a lot and his career progression from his time as a BBC visual effects artist, to rendering Monsters's aliens in his bedroom, to finally helming a massive summer blockbuster is rather inspirational.

In the wrong hands, this movie could have easily turned out like a 2 hour Michael Bay action scene, so I appreciate that they attempted something more personal. My problem is that they didn't succeed with their intentions. Brian Cranston's character and his motivations are more interesting than ATJ so the decision to give him reduced screen time and make the latter the leading man is very disappointing. Cranston is also a far better actor than ATJ. His interrogation scene was a highlight. To be honest, focusing on ATJ feels like a marketing / demographic decision than a story telling one. In contrast to Cranston's character, I didn't care one bit about ATJ and his family, perhaps because it felt so cliched - a solider, his wife who works at a hospital in the danger zone and their young son. We have seen that setup so many times. This is disappointing because the core relationship of Monsters was involving and genuine. Both Sally Hawkins and Elizabeth Olsen are really great actors who are given nothing to do here. I mean seriously, what was the point of Hawkins' character? Also, the lost boy at the airport was one of the most blatant examples of a movie attempting to inject an artificial sense of danger and poignancy I have seen in a long time.

On the other hand, Edwards does make the creatures fairly three dimensional animals rather than simple monsters, and the moment where the male and female MUTOs meet for the first time is nicely handled. I loved the creature design including Godzilla who looks appropriately badass. The creature fights were great also.

I think this is a noble failure. The movie had good intentions but the focus should have been on Cranson and not the GI Joe hero character that we've seen countless times in these types of movies. 2/5

constitutionus

went to see this again today as there was nothing else out i fancied.

now i knew what i was going into i found i enjoyed it more the second time around. little things like the pocket watch were more significant when i already knew what it meant to watanabes character.

its still a DAMN shame that cranstons character is left for johnsons. the dialogue the guys was spouting was ridiculously hammy in places but thanks to his acting chops cranston injects a mania to it which sells his character far better than anything johnson manages to do in the whole film combined.

but its the monsters were here for and i do have to say they STILL look damn impressive on the big screeen. infact the big buys nuclear breath scenes are damn near artistry in terms of lighting and composition.

and i do really apprecitate the different tone they tried to set with this. as mentioned it coulda been a bombastic bayfest, instead they tried to keep it sombre and "real" which i think will set it apart down the road. IMO its definetly a much much more enjoyable film than the last american shot at the character

last time i gave it a "meh", now though ill raise it to good.

6.5/10 from me second time around.

what lets it down is the disasterous decision to focus on the son instead of the da. storywise i know WHY they did it, but losing such a far more interesting character and actor to switch to a generic soldier type who mayve well been delivering milk than blowing up a petrol tanker such was his preformace is just too glaring a shift.

Shane-KornSpace

I was looking forward to this movie. I guess I got my hopes up too high.
I wanted more of Godzilla and less focus on the personal loves of the characters.
The movie was quite boring for me and I nodded off sometime in the last 30 mins.

Fago123

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

The movie wanted being quite boring for me and I nodded off sometime in the last 30 mins.

You must be a really heavy sleeper!

Shane-KornSpace

Fago123 wrote: »

You must be a really heavy sleeper!

Oh wow. This autocorrect sometimes has a damn spasm.

irishdude11

Useless film, I actually fell asleep in the cinema watching it. Just watched the director Gareth Edwards previous film Monsters there now...fell asleep during that too, an absolutely mind-numbingly boring film where nothing happens except a couple wander around some deserted locations with zero sense of tension or danger. No wonder Godzilla ended up so bad with him at the helm.

Mal-Adjusted

I wasn't aware that this was by the director of Monsters. Now there's a film that gets far too much praise than it deserves.

irishdude11

Yea it was utter crap, the name was a total misrepresentation, it's not a monster movie at all. The monsters are basically just hinted at the whole film until they show up for a couple of minutes at the end and do nothing. Monsters is basically a poor mans Before Sunrise, except with worse acting and dialoge. The protagonists just walk around various places, hardly saying anything... with no monsters to be seen wreaking havoc (how could they when they never even show up), and every now and again the guy will make a lame joke.

The only reason it got the praise it did off some critics was because its an independent British film and because 'Oh this guy wrote, directed and did the special effects, he must be some kind of genius'...nevermind that the film is no good. The Guardian reviewer called it 'a terrifically exciting sci-fi' which goes to show they went totally overboard with praise for the reasons I just mentioned....in the comments section of that article, even the people that did like the film say they liked it for the kind of Before Sunset vibe not because it was 'terrifically exciting', sure there is no excitement in it at all, which was deliberate as far as I can see.

Mal-Adjusted

I actually liked Before Sunset My biggest gripe with it is pretty much the same as yours. For a film supposedly about trekking through a Mexico infested with dangerous aliens and going so far as to those aliens being the title of the film, they really didn't want to show any. It could have dumped the sci-fi window dressing and just been about two people making their way through Brazil or sub-Saharan Africa and it would have been the exact same film only without two minutes of neon SFX near the end. I honestly think that if it wasn't for them getting away with the tiny budget ($500,000 i think), this wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the attention it did.

But I could rant about the dissapointment that was Monsters all day and derail the thread. Godzilla did have some unwelcome similarities to...that film and i think could have been a lot better in the hands of a more skilled director.

e_e

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I actually liked Before Sunset My biggest gripe with it is pretty much the same as yours. For a film supposedly about trekking through a Mexico infested with dangerous aliens

Whoa I don't recall Jesse and Celine going through that at all. :eek:

Mal-Adjusted

exactly

That Before Sunset sounded good, i just looked at the trailer and it seems very different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvFosXeqmDg

e_e

Oh yeah check out the whole trilogy (Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight). Great stuff.

expectationlost

a different director is doing a sequel to to gareth edwards monster set in iraq, Monsters: Dark Continent http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1935302/combined


watched the original gojira and then watched it again with a commentary, still wondering about the decision to have a second monster in this first of what might be a series, it be interesting to sequel to set it in the middle east

expectationlost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnY4p_ASV9M

funny interruption, he has a point

Shiraz 4.99

I thought it was OK, I nodded off a few times but the next big bang woke me up, probably put it on too late, I'll watch the last half hour again.
I was surprised how quick some of the big name actors were done away with, must have been paying them by the hour.

_Kaiser_

Just watched this now and I'd say the first half hour-45 mins was good in how they filled in the backstory and the build-up to the reveal.

But the rest.. meh! And sure the effects were great - those I could see anyway. I can only assume they set most of the action at night (or in near total blackness) so as to keep the CGI costs down. I may have to watch the last 30 mins again later as I'm not exactly sure how the fight was resolved.

Disappointed tbh. Pacific Rim was a lot better!

Gbear

This was terrible.

Pacific Rim was a big dumb film about robots beating the **** out of monsters. It was exceedingly pretty and there was lots of giant monsters getting kicked around the place.
Simple fun cinema. Not complicated. The people involved were mostly forgettable and there wasn't much harm in that.

While the intention with this might've been to make a character driven story with the backdrop of giant monsters, the fact that the acting, plot and script were all somewhere between average and **** meant that it lacked the quality to be anything more than a dumb action film but there was so little monster action that it wasn't that either.

A nothing in particular sort of film that's immediately forgettable.

Kunkka

Gbear wrote: »

This was terrible.

Pacific Rim was a big dumb film about robots beating the **** out of monsters. It was exceedingly pretty and there was lots of giant monsters getting kicked around the place.
Simple fun cinema. Not complicated. The people involved were mostly forgettable and there wasn't much harm in that.

While the intention with this might've been to make a character driven story with the backdrop of giant monsters, the fact that the acting, plot and script were all somewhere between average and **** meant that it lacked the quality to be anything more than a dumb action film but there was so little monster action that it wasn't that either.

A nothing in particular sort of film that's immediately forgettable.

I'm still scarred at how bad it was.

Mr Freeze

I thought this was really poor...agree with most of the criticisms here, I'm all for a good human story, but this was bland and forgettable, and the monster battles were as bad. I thought the Muto's looked extremely poor.

Biggest annoyance: Ken Watanabe had the same expression for the entire movie. He was terrible in it.

Biggest disappointment: Godzillas roar. I was expecting a lot more, the Muto's sounded way better with all their clicks and bass. Godzilla sounded miserable in comparison.

FortuneChip

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Biggest annoyance: Ken Watanabe had the same expression for the entire movie. He was terrible in it.
.

We're led to believe he's a scientist that's "in-the-know", but he just spouts lots of vague philosophical nonsense for the whole movie and stares in awe at this creature of destruction. He doesn't give us one fact, just lots of crap with less basis that pure speculation!

"Go'zhila... Let them fight"
Really?

willmunny1990

The majority of the film centered around wooden characters with zero substance which made the film very boring and forgetful most of the time, the monster element largely played second fiddle which was very disappointing as some of the monster scenes were good, like the fights and CGI.

Johnson was terrible throughout imo, so boring and zero emotion. Terrible choice for a lead character.

jones

Reading some of the comment here i'm starting to think i went to see the wrong movie. i actually really enjoyed Godzilla (i also loved pacific rim) I do think the lead actor was as wooden as orlando bloom in a forest and the ending was a bit daft but special effects and build-up were perfect summer blockbuster IMO.

I'll definitely get this on Bluray the visual were 10/10 for me and audio wasnt far behind. I do think its definitely a "cinema flick" in that it mightnt come across aswell on the smaller screen.

9/10

IvaBigWun

Stopped watching this after exactly 42 minutes. I can't do spoilers on my tablet but those that have seen it will know why.

An insane decision that reeked of studio interference.

rog871

I enjoyed Pacific Rim . Godzilla, on the other hand. 4/10

ancapailldorcha

jones wrote: »

Reading some of the comment here i'm starting to think i went to see the wrong movie. i actually really enjoyed Godzilla (i also loved pacific rim) I do think the lead actor was as wooden as orlando bloom in a forest and the ending was a bit daft but special effects and build-up were perfect summer blockbuster IMO.

I'll definitely get this on Bluray the visual were 10/10 for me and audio wasnt far behind. I do think its definitely a "cinema flick" in that it mightnt come across aswell on the smaller screen.

9/10

I think they nailed the "Godzilla aspects" of the film perfectly. The main problem, as has been pointed out is the fact that so much time is spent on characters that are frankly uninteresting to say the least.

I have to say that I'm a little wary that Edwards will take the criticism of the lack of time we see Godzilla on board and respond with something along the lines of "Godzilla: Revenge of the Fallen". I think I'm more comfortable with his reduced screentime in hindsight as it adds impact to his time on screen. If the human characters were better, this'd probably me among my favourite summer blockbusters.