Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon A Deadpool (Deadpool 2 PG-13 Version) (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
So you want to see a family friendly version of Deadpool 2? Well you're out of luck because after all their editing it didn't make it past the 12A certificate criteria and had to be released as a 15 again. It still deserved that 15, it wasn't exactly hiding it's sweary side very well, and the violence is still there, you just don't get splattered with as much blood.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Fly (1986) in Movies
Oct 3, 2019
Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid
Seth Brundle is his own version of Dr Frankenstein. Instead of reanimating dead issue, his desire is to teleport flesh from one "telepod" to another.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Obviously I'm not familiar with the Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark books that this movie is based on - a series of three books containing short horror stories for children and drawing heavily on urban legend and folklore for it's subject matter, first published in 1981. Apparently, the series is listed by the American Library Association as being the most challenged series of books from the 1990s, with complaints relating to the violence and disturbing subject matter portrayed within them not being suitable for the children it was aimed at. The illustrations within the book also drew criticism, vividly portraying the nightmare creatures and scenes contained within the stories. Perfect material for a movie version!
That movie version comes from Troll Hunter director André Øvredal and producer/co-writer Guillermo del Toro and attempts a Goosebumps style movie, taking some of the better known stories from the 80+ contained within the books and weaving them into a larger narrative, set in Mill Valley Pennsylvania during the fall of 1968.
It's Halloween and a group of teens are preparing to go out for an evening of trick or treating - applying makeup, getting into their costumes, fishing in the toilet for turds in preparation for a Halloween trick. They head out on their bikes but it's not long before they run into some idiot jocks from their local school, and that turd trick suddenly comes in handy! We've already been introduced to the jocks earlier in the movie, out in a cornfield where they were hitting a creepy looking scarecrow about the head with a baseball bat. Yep, they're certainly going to regret that a little bit later on!
The teens manage to escape the jocks, working their way into a drive through movie that's showing "Night of the Living Dead" and into the car of another teen called Ramón. The group strike up a bond with Ramón after he helps them out and they all decide to go and break into an abandoned local house which is reportedly haunted. They find their way into the basement where legend has it that Sarah Bellows, the daughter of a prominent local family, was locked away in the late 1800s. Horror nerd Stella comes across a book containing short scary stories that were written in blood by Sarah, and she decides to take it with them. As Stella opens the book’s pages, she sees that Sarah’s stories are literally beginning to write themselves - stories that put her friends in some pretty unpleasant situations, stories which immediately become reality the moment they're written. As Stella later puts it, "You don't read the book, the book reads you".
The setup and the scenarios within each story are enjoyable enough and are certainly creepy, however the execution doesn't always work so well and the payoffs aren't quite as scary as I would have liked. The movie also suffers from some slightly dodgy CGI at times too, which doesn't help. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the final story, and the return to the house in order to try and stop Sarah Bellows worked really well for me. It all ends with a definite opportunity for a sequel and with plenty more scary stories to choose from within the source material, I'm sure we'll be seeing another one soon. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark taps nicely into the "It" and "Stranger Thing" vibe, with it's group of teens rising up together against evil, and despite it's faults I did have a lot of fun with it. I'm definitely interested in seeing more.
That movie version comes from Troll Hunter director André Øvredal and producer/co-writer Guillermo del Toro and attempts a Goosebumps style movie, taking some of the better known stories from the 80+ contained within the books and weaving them into a larger narrative, set in Mill Valley Pennsylvania during the fall of 1968.
It's Halloween and a group of teens are preparing to go out for an evening of trick or treating - applying makeup, getting into their costumes, fishing in the toilet for turds in preparation for a Halloween trick. They head out on their bikes but it's not long before they run into some idiot jocks from their local school, and that turd trick suddenly comes in handy! We've already been introduced to the jocks earlier in the movie, out in a cornfield where they were hitting a creepy looking scarecrow about the head with a baseball bat. Yep, they're certainly going to regret that a little bit later on!
The teens manage to escape the jocks, working their way into a drive through movie that's showing "Night of the Living Dead" and into the car of another teen called Ramón. The group strike up a bond with Ramón after he helps them out and they all decide to go and break into an abandoned local house which is reportedly haunted. They find their way into the basement where legend has it that Sarah Bellows, the daughter of a prominent local family, was locked away in the late 1800s. Horror nerd Stella comes across a book containing short scary stories that were written in blood by Sarah, and she decides to take it with them. As Stella opens the book’s pages, she sees that Sarah’s stories are literally beginning to write themselves - stories that put her friends in some pretty unpleasant situations, stories which immediately become reality the moment they're written. As Stella later puts it, "You don't read the book, the book reads you".
The setup and the scenarios within each story are enjoyable enough and are certainly creepy, however the execution doesn't always work so well and the payoffs aren't quite as scary as I would have liked. The movie also suffers from some slightly dodgy CGI at times too, which doesn't help. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the final story, and the return to the house in order to try and stop Sarah Bellows worked really well for me. It all ends with a definite opportunity for a sequel and with plenty more scary stories to choose from within the source material, I'm sure we'll be seeing another one soon. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark taps nicely into the "It" and "Stranger Thing" vibe, with it's group of teens rising up together against evil, and despite it's faults I did have a lot of fun with it. I'm definitely interested in seeing more.
Theory Test Kit 2016 for Car Drivers
Reference
App
2016 Official DVSA Revision questions and Hazard Perception Test. Theory Test Kit for Car Drivers...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dark Tide (2012) in Movies
Aug 5, 2020
I always wonder what makes me not watch shark films, Dark Tide has Halle Berry, I like Halle Berry... so why have I never seen it?
Kate Mathieson has sworn off sharks ever since a dive went wrong and cost the life of one of her closest friends. Sharks were her life, and only doing tame tourist trips out on her boat means she's about to lose her business. Out of the blue, Kate's ex arrives with a man who's looking for more thrill than any regular dive can offer and he's convinced him that Kate is the only one who can do it. He's willing to pay big, but is the money worth reliving that memory?
Firstly, it was good to see a film with actual shark footage. I watch so many with terrible CGI that I sometimes forget that sharks aren't horribly pixelated and snarly. That is probably where the good comments end.
For a film with action in it I knew something was off almost instantly, there was no real hook into the film. It started out extremely calm and even the initial burst of energy didn't do anything to help and then almost as quickly we switch to present day and it's all calm again. Some might say that the up and down nature of the film reflects how quickly things can change at sea, I personally feel like saying they made a bad judgement call by giving it the pace of a terrible romance film.
Not helping the situation were the characters. Halle Berry always seems to have slightly brusk roles and although Kate doesn't start that way she certainly veers off when her ex shows up and the change in character is so sharp that it loses anything believable. Both Jeff (the ex) and Brady (the businessman) are unlikeable, one devious and the other arrogant, had they ditched some of the storyline between Kate and Jeff there might have been less tension and we'd have had something a little easier to watch. The few additional characters beyond these three were definitely light enough to lift parts of the film but they weren't in nearly enough to have a major effect.
The film was long, painfully long. It's not often I realise so early on that I'm struggling with a film, but for the entire length it felt like a slog. For some reason IMDb is listing 1 hour 34 (that would have been much better) but I checked the copy I watched and it says 1 hour 54. Perhaps 1,34 is how long we all wish it was. There was easily 20 minutes to shed from the runtime, but I don't know if it would have helped much without changes elsewhere too.
One last major change I would have like to have seen was to the whole ending. When things come to their climax it is almost impossible to tell what's going on, it doesn't make it anymore thrilling or intriguing, it's merely frustrating. A successful thriller can show me an almost pitch black scene and I'll be edging forward, eyes wide, waiting for whatever is going to make me jump out of my seat, but Dark Tide successfully bypasses that feeling in favour of leaving the viewer squinting at blackness.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/dark-tide-movie-review.html
Kate Mathieson has sworn off sharks ever since a dive went wrong and cost the life of one of her closest friends. Sharks were her life, and only doing tame tourist trips out on her boat means she's about to lose her business. Out of the blue, Kate's ex arrives with a man who's looking for more thrill than any regular dive can offer and he's convinced him that Kate is the only one who can do it. He's willing to pay big, but is the money worth reliving that memory?
Firstly, it was good to see a film with actual shark footage. I watch so many with terrible CGI that I sometimes forget that sharks aren't horribly pixelated and snarly. That is probably where the good comments end.
For a film with action in it I knew something was off almost instantly, there was no real hook into the film. It started out extremely calm and even the initial burst of energy didn't do anything to help and then almost as quickly we switch to present day and it's all calm again. Some might say that the up and down nature of the film reflects how quickly things can change at sea, I personally feel like saying they made a bad judgement call by giving it the pace of a terrible romance film.
Not helping the situation were the characters. Halle Berry always seems to have slightly brusk roles and although Kate doesn't start that way she certainly veers off when her ex shows up and the change in character is so sharp that it loses anything believable. Both Jeff (the ex) and Brady (the businessman) are unlikeable, one devious and the other arrogant, had they ditched some of the storyline between Kate and Jeff there might have been less tension and we'd have had something a little easier to watch. The few additional characters beyond these three were definitely light enough to lift parts of the film but they weren't in nearly enough to have a major effect.
The film was long, painfully long. It's not often I realise so early on that I'm struggling with a film, but for the entire length it felt like a slog. For some reason IMDb is listing 1 hour 34 (that would have been much better) but I checked the copy I watched and it says 1 hour 54. Perhaps 1,34 is how long we all wish it was. There was easily 20 minutes to shed from the runtime, but I don't know if it would have helped much without changes elsewhere too.
One last major change I would have like to have seen was to the whole ending. When things come to their climax it is almost impossible to tell what's going on, it doesn't make it anymore thrilling or intriguing, it's merely frustrating. A successful thriller can show me an almost pitch black scene and I'll be edging forward, eyes wide, waiting for whatever is going to make me jump out of my seat, but Dark Tide successfully bypasses that feeling in favour of leaving the viewer squinting at blackness.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/dark-tide-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
The True Successor to the Original Film
I am a huge fan of the original, 1984 Bill Murray/Dan Ackroyd/Harold Ramis GHOSTBUSTERS - so much a fan, in fact, that I devoted an entire hour of my podcast, the BANKOFMARQUIS MOVIES PODCAST (which can be found in your favorite Podcast app) last Halloween to this film (Episode #23 to be precise). I found that the next 2 follow-up films - GHOSTBUSTERS 2 and the all-female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few years ago - did not even come close to recapturing the magic of that first film.
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Beast (2022) in Movies
Sep 24, 2022
More Tension Than I Anticipate
We are witnessing the after-effects of the COVID PANDEMIC shutdown in 2020 as the films that are being released at the tail end of summer/early fall of 2022 are not the most scintillating of efforts and thus, one must lower their expectations to have a good time at the Cineplex.
Such is the case with the “Cujo in Africa” killer lion saga BEAST starring Idris Elba as a widowed father of two teenage girls. The threesome head back to the African Village where the deceased mother was born and raised - to connect to their roots - unaware that poachers have unwittingly created a rogue, killer lion who is feasting on the humans in the area.
Directed by Batasar Kormakur (2 GUNS) and written, perfunctorily, by Ryan Engle (RAMPAGE) BEAST is a pretty by-the-book “wild animal goes after human” story with the first 1/3 of this 90 minute epic being the setup (in this case, clumsily setting up the daughter’s anger at their father who “was not there” as their mother was dying). Do you think the upcoming adventure is going to bring these 3 closer?
The middle third of the film is the hook where we put these 3 (and their friend, played by Sharlto Copley - DISTRICT 9) into harm’s way in such a way that they are trapped and must contend with the BEAST. And the final 1/3 is the payoff - how does this group conquer the BEAST?
Pretty mechanical, right?
Well…a funny thing happened while watching this film… I found myself invested in these characters, well…at least some of them, and I was genuinely interested and intrigued and (at times) a little on the edge of my seat as I watched them attempt to get out of their predicament.
Credit for this has to go to Director Kormakur who uses his camera to beautifully capture the Africa landscape that these folks are trapped in. It is a loving picture of Africa that Kormakur has drawn and it made the slow parts of this film (and there are plenty) bearable just by being able to look at the background.
Also helping this film is the friendship and camaraderie shown between Elba’s character and Copley’s character. These are 2 good actors looking like they actually are enjoying their time together and their actions on screen mirror their personalities that are drawn thinly and quickly during the first part of the film.
Fairing less well are the 2 daughters, played by Leah Jeffries and Iyana Halley. They are, for the most part, 1 dimensional “typical teenagers” who have a bone to pick with their father and don’t shy away from picking at that bone - and each other - throughout the course of this film.
But, enough about all of that, what one goes to see in these types of films is the animal attacks and Director Kormakur traps our foursome in and around a jeep while the BEAST attacks and attacks and attacks - and these scenes are shot very professionally and actually manage to ratchet up the tension as the CGI Lion goes after it’s victims.
There are enough plot holes to drive the aforementioned Jeep through in this film and sometimes the characters - especially the 2 teenage girls - make VERY dumb decisions, but the tension of the attack scenes and the work of Elba and Copley makes this film a decent (enough) viewing experience.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the “Cujo in Africa” killer lion saga BEAST starring Idris Elba as a widowed father of two teenage girls. The threesome head back to the African Village where the deceased mother was born and raised - to connect to their roots - unaware that poachers have unwittingly created a rogue, killer lion who is feasting on the humans in the area.
Directed by Batasar Kormakur (2 GUNS) and written, perfunctorily, by Ryan Engle (RAMPAGE) BEAST is a pretty by-the-book “wild animal goes after human” story with the first 1/3 of this 90 minute epic being the setup (in this case, clumsily setting up the daughter’s anger at their father who “was not there” as their mother was dying). Do you think the upcoming adventure is going to bring these 3 closer?
The middle third of the film is the hook where we put these 3 (and their friend, played by Sharlto Copley - DISTRICT 9) into harm’s way in such a way that they are trapped and must contend with the BEAST. And the final 1/3 is the payoff - how does this group conquer the BEAST?
Pretty mechanical, right?
Well…a funny thing happened while watching this film… I found myself invested in these characters, well…at least some of them, and I was genuinely interested and intrigued and (at times) a little on the edge of my seat as I watched them attempt to get out of their predicament.
Credit for this has to go to Director Kormakur who uses his camera to beautifully capture the Africa landscape that these folks are trapped in. It is a loving picture of Africa that Kormakur has drawn and it made the slow parts of this film (and there are plenty) bearable just by being able to look at the background.
Also helping this film is the friendship and camaraderie shown between Elba’s character and Copley’s character. These are 2 good actors looking like they actually are enjoying their time together and their actions on screen mirror their personalities that are drawn thinly and quickly during the first part of the film.
Fairing less well are the 2 daughters, played by Leah Jeffries and Iyana Halley. They are, for the most part, 1 dimensional “typical teenagers” who have a bone to pick with their father and don’t shy away from picking at that bone - and each other - throughout the course of this film.
But, enough about all of that, what one goes to see in these types of films is the animal attacks and Director Kormakur traps our foursome in and around a jeep while the BEAST attacks and attacks and attacks - and these scenes are shot very professionally and actually manage to ratchet up the tension as the CGI Lion goes after it’s victims.
There are enough plot holes to drive the aforementioned Jeep through in this film and sometimes the characters - especially the 2 teenage girls - make VERY dumb decisions, but the tension of the attack scenes and the work of Elba and Copley makes this film a decent (enough) viewing experience.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The little mermaid (2023) in Movies
Sep 20, 2023
You Will Want To Go Under The Sea
Back in 2013, the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl with a QB, Joe Flacco, who was a “game manager”. His reputation was that he was NOT spectacular and wouldn’t win a game for you, but he also wouldn’t take chances and LOSE a game for you.
Such the same can be said of newcomer Halle Bailey as Ariel in Disney’s Live Action remake of THE LITTLE MERMAID. She produces a competent, steady (but unspectacular) performance that doesn’t really add all that much to the film, but (more importantly) it doesn’t detract either.
And that is a GOOD (enough) thing as Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) populates this remake with some wonderful performers/performances to go along with better-than-average CGI and some new songs that actually work well (and don’t just seem like “add-ons”). All of this adds up to a very enjoyable family time at the movies.
Following the plot of the Disney Animated film from 1989, this Little Mermaid does not sway too far from the basic plot, though it does cut down (a bit) on the musical numbers. But when it swings big, it swings BIG and these swings connect.
Daveed Diggs (Broadway’s Hamilton) almost steals the film as the voice of Sebastian the Crab and his UNDER THE SEA number is a visual and audible delight while Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) fills in very well in the Buddy Hackett role as the bird Scuttle. Surprisingly, young Jacob Trembley (ROOM) more than holds his own in this crazy trio of sidekicks as the young fish Flounder. These three work together quite a bit more in this film than in the previous, animated one and they work well together.
But, make no mistake, this film is Melissa McCarthy’s and as the evil Sea Witch Ursula, she demands you pay attention - and keep paying attention - to her. Her big number, POOR UNFORTUNATE SOULS is deep, rich and powerful while her performance throughout the film is just enough over-the-top to work. Credit needs to go to both McCarthy and Marshall to understand when enough was enough or when they went too far and reigned it in.
Javier Bardem (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) also populates this film as Ariel’s father, King Triton, and while it looks like Bardem is trying very, very hard to audition for a serious Shakespeare role, it works well here.
Finally, the biggest surprise to me in this film is Jonah Hauer-King (he played Laurie in the Saoirse Ronan/Emma Watson/Florence Pugh LITTLE WOMEN) as Prince Eric. In the animated version of this film, poor Prince Eric has very little to do, except to be Ariel’s “Prince Charming”. In this version, writer David Magee (LIFE OF PI) turns Eric into a real character with some depth - and a song! The 2nd half of this film was as much about Prince Eric as it was about Ariel.
And, that is okay, for the ending of this film needed some energy in addition to Bailey’s to make it rise above the rest of film and with the help of all those other wonderful performers, it rises well above (and not under) the sea.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such the same can be said of newcomer Halle Bailey as Ariel in Disney’s Live Action remake of THE LITTLE MERMAID. She produces a competent, steady (but unspectacular) performance that doesn’t really add all that much to the film, but (more importantly) it doesn’t detract either.
And that is a GOOD (enough) thing as Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) populates this remake with some wonderful performers/performances to go along with better-than-average CGI and some new songs that actually work well (and don’t just seem like “add-ons”). All of this adds up to a very enjoyable family time at the movies.
Following the plot of the Disney Animated film from 1989, this Little Mermaid does not sway too far from the basic plot, though it does cut down (a bit) on the musical numbers. But when it swings big, it swings BIG and these swings connect.
Daveed Diggs (Broadway’s Hamilton) almost steals the film as the voice of Sebastian the Crab and his UNDER THE SEA number is a visual and audible delight while Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) fills in very well in the Buddy Hackett role as the bird Scuttle. Surprisingly, young Jacob Trembley (ROOM) more than holds his own in this crazy trio of sidekicks as the young fish Flounder. These three work together quite a bit more in this film than in the previous, animated one and they work well together.
But, make no mistake, this film is Melissa McCarthy’s and as the evil Sea Witch Ursula, she demands you pay attention - and keep paying attention - to her. Her big number, POOR UNFORTUNATE SOULS is deep, rich and powerful while her performance throughout the film is just enough over-the-top to work. Credit needs to go to both McCarthy and Marshall to understand when enough was enough or when they went too far and reigned it in.
Javier Bardem (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) also populates this film as Ariel’s father, King Triton, and while it looks like Bardem is trying very, very hard to audition for a serious Shakespeare role, it works well here.
Finally, the biggest surprise to me in this film is Jonah Hauer-King (he played Laurie in the Saoirse Ronan/Emma Watson/Florence Pugh LITTLE WOMEN) as Prince Eric. In the animated version of this film, poor Prince Eric has very little to do, except to be Ariel’s “Prince Charming”. In this version, writer David Magee (LIFE OF PI) turns Eric into a real character with some depth - and a song! The 2nd half of this film was as much about Prince Eric as it was about Ariel.
And, that is okay, for the ending of this film needed some energy in addition to Bailey’s to make it rise above the rest of film and with the help of all those other wonderful performers, it rises well above (and not under) the sea.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
An Explosive and Provocative Journey
Few films have managed to spark as much debate and cultural impact as David Fincher’s Fight Club. Released in 1999, this dark and audacious psychological thriller quickly evolved from a divisive box office release to a bona fide cult classic. Based on Chuck Palahniuk’s novel of the same name, Fight Club is more than just a movie—it’s an exploration of identity, consumerism, and the hidden chaos lurking within us all. Fincher’s meticulous direction, coupled with outstanding performances by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, makes Fight Club a visceral and thought-provoking cinematic ride that lingers long after the credits roll.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)