Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Absolutely hysterical, through sheer commitment and idiosyncrasy achieves the once impossible task of turning šš°š°š„, ššÆš¤. into a comedy. I do have a few gripes, one of which being that - since this is objectively more 'professionally-made' than most of his other works, it sort of lacks some of that personal quality which made a lot of Spurlock's docs so distinctive. But overall that's such a minor quibble because this is still just as eccentric. Also gets a bit deceptive towards the end, though even then the base claims it sets out to make are still objectively correct so not a huge issue. Certainly not the first film to tackle this subject and won't be the last either, but it's definitely the most enjoyable - still ripe with enlightening information (if not nearly as much as the first) and insane charisma. I find it endlessly intriguing to see Spurlock create this morbid pitch-black comedy/doc hybrid that acts as this absurd birthing video showing him help raise the monster (faux-healthy fast food hysteria) that he helped create. Also the parody restaurant he makes at the end is hilarious. For anyone else I'd say this "imagine (company)... but honest!" filmmaking is an easy target that sort of has no meaning anymore but naturally Morgan delivers the goods with his ever-watchable personality and trademark filmmaking so here it seems admittedly different. Really good. Better than Where in the šš°š³šš„ šŖš“ šš“š¢š®š¢ ššŖšÆ šš¢š„š¦šÆ? and šš¢šÆš“š°š®š¦, not as good as šš©š¦ šš³š¦š¢šµš¦š“šµ šš°š·šŖš¦ šš·š¦š³ šš°šš„ or the original šš¶š±š¦š³ ššŖš»š¦ šš¦.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Mass Hysteria in Books
May 16, 2018
As seen on <a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com/"; target="new">The Ghastly Grimoire</a>.
Wow. Okay, I honestly felt I should have received some sort of warning before I opened this book! That aside, once I swallowed the surprise I received and accepted the book for what it is, I actually enjoyed several it. Mass Hysteria by Michael Patrick Hicks approaches the days after the apocalypse with a complete overhaul of social hierarchy in the most gruesome of ways.
In the wake of a meteor falling and bringing with it a virus appearing as an airborne variety of rabies (which is a much appreciated change from nuclear disaster and zombie outbreaks), several members of a small community in Michigan quickly find themselves fighting for their lives. Hicksās gorefest begins shortly after and readers quickly discover that this is a writer that doesnāt hold back ā my kind of man, honestly.
One of the things that strike me as most disturbing and simultaneously teasing of Hicksās work is the sheer fact that he introduces us to several characters in intimate ways. Readers are given just enough of a taste of the good guys, too much of the bad, and justice? Well, there sure isnāt enough of that after the worldās ended.
I cannot stress enough how graphic this book is, just as I cannot think of any words devoid of spoilers to prepare readers for what the journey they might embark on when they open Mass Hysteriaās pages. What I can say is this: under all the horrific elements that bury this book, Hicks explores the most depraved of all: human nature at its worst.
I gladly look forward to reading more of this authorās work. A special thanks to NetGalley and High Fever Books for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
Wow. Okay, I honestly felt I should have received some sort of warning before I opened this book! That aside, once I swallowed the surprise I received and accepted the book for what it is, I actually enjoyed several it. Mass Hysteria by Michael Patrick Hicks approaches the days after the apocalypse with a complete overhaul of social hierarchy in the most gruesome of ways.
In the wake of a meteor falling and bringing with it a virus appearing as an airborne variety of rabies (which is a much appreciated change from nuclear disaster and zombie outbreaks), several members of a small community in Michigan quickly find themselves fighting for their lives. Hicksās gorefest begins shortly after and readers quickly discover that this is a writer that doesnāt hold back ā my kind of man, honestly.
One of the things that strike me as most disturbing and simultaneously teasing of Hicksās work is the sheer fact that he introduces us to several characters in intimate ways. Readers are given just enough of a taste of the good guys, too much of the bad, and justice? Well, there sure isnāt enough of that after the worldās ended.
I cannot stress enough how graphic this book is, just as I cannot think of any words devoid of spoilers to prepare readers for what the journey they might embark on when they open Mass Hysteriaās pages. What I can say is this: under all the horrific elements that bury this book, Hicks explores the most depraved of all: human nature at its worst.
I gladly look forward to reading more of this authorās work. A special thanks to NetGalley and High Fever Books for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
What scares you the most? Ghouls, vampires, slime-fanged aliens ...or something terrible that truly could happen? For me it's definitely the latter.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50ās and older as they donāt seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you havenāt read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. Thatās the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: āI believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,ā Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Millerās drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the townās most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthyās āwitch-huntsā in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, āPolitical oppositionā¦ is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.ā
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: āI believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.ā
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920ās. This didnāt stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we donāt have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: āI speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.ā
āBecause it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!ā
āYou are pulling down heaven and raising up a whoreā
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I canāt say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldnāt want that, now would we?
āIt is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselvesā
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you havenāt read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. Thatās the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: āI believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,ā Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Millerās drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the townās most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthyās āwitch-huntsā in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, āPolitical oppositionā¦ is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.ā
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: āI believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.ā
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920ās. This didnāt stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we donāt have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: āI speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.ā
āBecause it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!ā
āYou are pulling down heaven and raising up a whoreā
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I canāt say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldnāt want that, now would we?
āIt is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselvesā
TheFiend13420 (21 KP) rated Where The Scary Things Are (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022 (Updated Jun 28, 2022)
Excellent performances by virtually unknown cast (2 more)
Well written, fun and flows well
Beauty make-up job on the creature
The Loser's Club these kids are NOT
I have been waiting for this film to come out for months now. And it was totally worth the wait.
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you arenāt reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyoneās collection both young and old.
The 80ās was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyoneās mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for āsavingā them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of āScary Storiesā. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a āscaryā story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether itās the āRed Dotā or āHaroldā, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. Thatās not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80ās was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyoneās mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for āsavingā them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of āScary Storiesā. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a āscaryā story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether itās the āRed Dotā or āHaroldā, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. Thatās not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
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 isnāt 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. Godzillaās 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 Emmerichās 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 Edwardās new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ā98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isnāt 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 isnāt 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, Cranstonās 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 filmās original 2 and a half minute trailer. Itās Joe Brodyās 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 Cranstonās Brody. Cranstonās performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he canāt 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 theyāre 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. Itās almost like the situation isnāt treated as a serious threat, and thereās a major lack of suspense altogether. Thereās 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 thatās taking place isnāt 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 youāve 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 youāll 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 itās incredibly frustrating. Itās 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, itās 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, itās 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 filmās 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. Theyāre not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the filmās detriment. Thereās 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 didnāt overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. Itās excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. Itās 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 filmās treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesnāt appear much in it. Heās the reason why we want to see the movie, but heās absent for the majority of the film. Even when heās around, heās largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. Iām also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesnāt quite look like Godzilla to me. Itās like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzillaās body. Iām aware that Godzillaās facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesnāt look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzillaās 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 movieās handling of his character. Godzillaās destruction in the film is treated like itās all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, heās not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movieās claim that all of Americaās nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesnāt mind. Heās just a poor gentle giant thatās 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 donāt take lightly. Itās 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 ā98 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. Itās a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesnāt pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if youāre a 12-year-old. Thereās plenty of action, some cool special effects, and heās 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. Itās a movie without a beating heart. Itās 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 Iām wrong in claiming itās 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 Emmerichās 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 Edwardās new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ā98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isnāt 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 isnāt 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, Cranstonās 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 filmās original 2 and a half minute trailer. Itās Joe Brodyās 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 Cranstonās Brody. Cranstonās performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he canāt 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 theyāre 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. Itās almost like the situation isnāt treated as a serious threat, and thereās a major lack of suspense altogether. Thereās 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 thatās taking place isnāt 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 youāve 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 youāll 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 itās incredibly frustrating. Itās 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, itās 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, itās 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 filmās 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. Theyāre not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the filmās detriment. Thereās 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 didnāt overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. Itās excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. Itās 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 filmās treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesnāt appear much in it. Heās the reason why we want to see the movie, but heās absent for the majority of the film. Even when heās around, heās largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. Iām also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesnāt quite look like Godzilla to me. Itās like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzillaās body. Iām aware that Godzillaās facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesnāt look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzillaās 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 movieās handling of his character. Godzillaās destruction in the film is treated like itās all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, heās not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movieās claim that all of Americaās nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesnāt mind. Heās just a poor gentle giant thatās 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 donāt take lightly. Itās 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 ā98 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. Itās a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesnāt pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if youāre a 12-year-old. Thereās plenty of action, some cool special effects, and heās 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. Itās a movie without a beating heart. Itās 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 Iām wrong in claiming itās 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.)