Chuyển đến nội dung chính

Godzilla (2014) review

For fans of monster movies, "Godzilla" was surely one of the most anticipated releases of the year. Therefore, the most surprising thing about Godzilla is not how empty the story is, but rather how little there is of the monster in the movie after which it is named.

The plot in "Godzilla" is disposable. It only exists as an excuse to unleash the film's titular character. However, is it too much to ask for an original plot with characters we could care about? Here, the back story is cliché-ridden and the characters simply serve the function of moving the story forwards. As such, one would expect that Godzilla is at least given ample screen time. Surprisingly, this is not the case, and the majority of the film's focus seems to be on the military attempting to find out how to kill Godzilla and the MUTOs, which look like giant, angry cockroaches. Ultimately, it is left up to the score and the Michael Bay-esque dub-step reminiscent sound design to create tension.

Its almost futile to talk about the performances in the film because despite the strong cast, the characters are so one-dimensional that nobody delivers a memorable performance. Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche do their best with the little screen time they are given, and the couple of Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen are given the impossible task of creating interesting characters from the uninspired script. More worrying, however, is how unnecessary Sally Hawkins' character is and how the script manages to make Ken Watanabe look like a second-rate actor, as his character rarely changes expression from the looks of intense thought or surprise.


Overall, "Godzilla" did not work for me at all. Not only is it a film without heart, but it a film meant to thrill that ends up just being tedious. I could have left halfway through the movie. I just didn't care how things would turn out.

See more:


Godzilla 2014: Should You Watch It?

matthew-rehlinger

Scenario 1: If you are going to see this film because you really enjoy classic Godzilla movies and you hope the music and campy theme of those films are represented in this one, you absolutely should go see it. Godzilla here looks much more like the beloved behemoth than it did in the '98 movie, the music hearkens to the classic Japanese overtures of the old Gojira film era, and the camera work has the comically silly nature of Sam Rami's Spiderman series.

Scenario 2: If you are really excited to see a deep, human film with camera angles and writing that really tell a story that is thematically transcendent such as "District 9" and the Korean film "The Host," this is not your film. The script is filled with overtly simplistic rhetoric and one dimensional characters (intentionally,) the scenes somehow manage to have very little tension (even for me, the pilot episodes for most sitcoms seem more tense than Gozilla,) and as stated above, the camera-work is intentionally hammy. It should also be noted that to add a human element, the director overuses children to the point that it ends up feeling very obvious, as though he did it to be intentionally campy.

Scenario 3: If you are one of those people who really just want a fun popcorn flick such as Pacific Rim, with some solidly choreographed action like in the over-the-top bulletfest Battle:LA, I would say proceed with caution. The fight scenes are less intense and more majestic, like any classic monster movie, and as such the human aspect of the combat is relatively insignificant, less so than any other monster movie I've ever seen. There are no little monsters for anyone to shoot at, if that's your thing.

Scenario 4: If you are interested in this film because you love the talented work of Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe, and/or Aaron Taylor- Johnson (three of my favorite actors) and are excited to see what they bring to the table, you should probably sit this one out. Bryan Cranston's role in this film garners far less screen time than advertised, Ken Watanabe spends literally every second walking through the scenes with the pained expression of someone who just walked in on their parents, and all three of the actors give off the vibe that they are very much aware of how cheesy their lines are. Everyone else's performance was similarly forgettable.

Honestly, I'm a stickler for deep, human storytelling, but I've also had a softspot for the classic, silly fun of many Godzilla movies, including my favorite, Godzilla vs. Destroyah. All told, depending on which camp you fall under, this will be an entirely different movie for you. As Godzilla movies go, I'd give it a B. As darker, more serious monster movies go, I'd give it a D+.


In a word...EPIC!

canadian58

I wasn't going to review this film, however, after reading mostly negative reviews, I felt I needed to put in my two cents worth. I am definitely in the minority on this one. I loved this film. It captured my attention instantly and held it for the entire two hours. Sure, the plot is familiar, but anyone who expects a new plot for one of the oldest, most famous monsters ever, is nothing but kidding themselves. This is a new version of some of the old "Godzilla vs....." movies. Not similar to the 1998 film in which one monster stomps around and destroys the city. Sure, that also happens here, but not without an epic battle between Godzilla and other radioactive monsters. Yes, most reviewers are complaining that Godzilla only appears for 10 minutes in the movie. This is true, as the other monsters have more screen time, but most of the film is built on suspense, and in my opinion it works very well. There is still plenty of chaos and destruction for the action buffs. The human story (about Ford Brody and his family) is quite weak and almost non-existent. But that does not take anything away from this epic monster movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it, it is VERY entertaining. 1

Nhận xét

Bài đăng phổ biến từ blog này

Star Trek: Beyond (2016) review

123movies free - After the noisy and irretrievably stupid (though reasonably entertaining) Into Darkness, I wasn't desperate to watch this one, but when I finally did I was relieved to discover that it was even more enjoyable than the first film in the reboot, a rollicking adventure with terrific alien weapons, fun McCoy/Spock repartee, a promising newcomer alien, and a lot of really excellent action scenes. The movie had almost all the qualities of the original series except one - the thinking part. The smartest thing in the movie is the funny opening scene, which suggests the difficulty of communication between different cultures. But that's the last thing in the movie that suggests even a moment of thought. The main villain has very little in the way of motivation, and when he explains his purpose it's quite disappointing. Nothing in this movie is there to provoke thought, and I'm not entirely convinced that anything in the movie really makes sense, although the...

Spider-Man (2002) review

  zmovie  - Studios lately have been known to spend almost $200 million dollars bringing a comic book super hero to life on the silver screen. With $200 million dollars you can buy many state of the art special effects for the director to full around with to his hearts content. If in the process, though, he decides to fore-go an entertaining story and script, characters that we can get to know and sympathize with, and good actors to bring those characters to life, all the special effects in the world isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. Fortunately for us, in bringing Marvel Comic's Spiderman to life, Sam Raimi did care about those little details and the audience is richly rewarded because of it. One of the trickier tasks when transferring a film such as Spiderman to film is in giving us enough background story. If a writer and director spend too much time on the origins of the character, it has a tendency to bog the rest of the film down. Likewise, if it is given short...

The Dark Tower (2017) review

I've been reading these books for over two decades now. I was really pumped about the movie. I saw the very first showing, and I can say that the negative reviews coming out about this film are unwarranted. First, you have to keep in mind what they were hoping to achieve with this movie given the budget. It's a similar play to that of the first Hunger Games movie. If they get some traction with this one, then the subsequent movies/TV series get twice the money to work with. I personally think that they did a fantastic job with this first effort. The acting was solid. The story was actually pretty good. It had some great actions sequences, and the CGI was surprisingly good (most of the time). It was also a very efficient use of time. Every scene helped explain the Dark Tower lore to new audiences. It was a fun action flick that doesn't try to repeat the experience of reading the books. I'll always have the novels. I wasn't expecting this movie to recreate that ...