Godzilla (2014)

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.

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...