I'm a guy who usually has a lot to say, as my friends and family can attest. It takes a lot to shut me up. Did Gravity succeed is taking my breath away? Well it's funny: I can't think of a movie that I've ever had more to say about and less to say about at the same time.
Is Gravity good? It's mind blowing, damn near perfect. This has to be my favourite movie of the year, I can't imagine anything being better. When I say I don't have much to say, that's a good thing. I just don't have words to describe how great this was. I have no clue how a lot of this movie was shot, and that says a lot. I graduated from Television Broadcasting at a respectable college, read books on filmmaking, watched the behind the scenes features on virtually every DVD I know.... and yet the opening shot had me scratching my head. And by opening shot I mean the first 15 minutes or so. Yeah there's parts where you can see they managed to sneak different shots in there, but it's edited so well and so tightly that you can barely tell.
This was directed by Alfonso Cuaron, who is probably best known for his amazing direction on Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban, which is probably the most visually striking of all the Potter films, and arguably the best movie overall. He brings his masterful direction style here. This was a new age of filmmaking, with a different style than anything I've ever seen. Again, I don't know how to describe it, but see the movie and you'll know what I mean. The actors (And by that I mean two) were great. Sandra Bullock gave probably my favourite performance of hers in any movie. She was basically an everywoman, but she was given a pretty tragic backstory. Bullock pulled this off perfectly. You feel for her and cheer for her. It's an amazing performance. As for George Clooney, well.... George is George. Yeah, he's on the most likeable actors around, and he sells his performance on that completely. You really like this guy, which was basically his characters biggest function. Both performers were perfect for their roles.
I don't know what else to say. I've been very vague, and I'll acknowledge this isn't my best review, but I have no idea how to describe it. It's an amazing movie, and I highly recommend it.
Yeah been offline a while, mostly due to computer troubles. I haven't been able to go to theatre very often recently. I have seen Gravity, but I've been having a hard time writing a review for that movie. It's tough to find the words to express my feelings towards it. I just saw Thor: The Dark World yesterday, proving once again I can't seem to stay away from Marvel Studios movies. Now as some of you may know, I was was somewhat.... skeptical of Iron Man 3 (Actually, I completely hated it) This led to me distrusting Marvel, which is surprising considering how much I loved The Avengers. Marvel debuted a new TV show earlier this year, Agents Of SHIELD. I haven't spoken about it here, but I didn't like it at all. The fact I was watching some much superior televisions shows at the same time (Read: Breaking Bad) probably didn't help, but the fact remains that the characters or setup weren't remotely interesting. Sure it's awesome to see Agent Coulson alive and well, but the show has nothing else going for it. What I'm trying to say is that Marvel's stock is at an all time low to me, but I had high hopes for this one. I liked the first Thor a lot, I was sure this would get Marvel back on track. Did it? Well.....
......Not really, no. There's stuff to like here, more than there was in Iron Man 3, but that doesn't change the fact that Thor: The Dark World is an empty, bland movie. First I'll talk about the good. Once again, Chris Hemsworth completely owns Thor. He's a lot less arrogant and much more likeable, which was a good thing. Once again, Tom Hiddleston is magnificent as Loki. I guess I kind of forgot how much I loved Hiddleston in this role, and he didn't disappoint. He isn't in the movie as much as he was in The Avengers, but he does manage to steal the show when he is on screen, even from Hemsworth. I had kind of thought Loki's story was more or less over after The Avengers, but I was wrong. The development between the relationship between him and Thor are easily the best part here. Natalie Portman was fine I guess, although Darcy really annoyed me at times. Even so, she was good for a few laughs. As with most Marvel movies, the action scenes were good, although I didn't enjoy them nearly as much as previous ones. I liked the extended look at Asgard, it's a very well designed place.
Now what didn't work? In a word: the villain. The villain is Malekith the Accursed and the Dark Elves. The Dark Elves reminded me a lot of the Putties from Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. You know, these guys:
They were just henchmen, no real personality. Even so, they did look cool, and maybe even a little creepy. But Malekith? Wow did he suck. The look was okay, Christopher Eccleston was fine, but he was about as unthreatening as a villain could be. He wasn't threatening at all: He gets beaten easily several times throughout the movie, he's not a very good fighter, and he doesn't come off as particularly bright. He's less a villain and more an example on how no to write a villain. Outside of him, The movie is very bland, but it's hard to explain. I got bored a number of times, which is a bad sign considering the movie isn't longer than an average movie is these days. The story is isn't engaging or exciting, it almost feels like a story that really didn't need to be told. I loved the first one, and I was hyped to see a direct sequel. It didn't live up to expectations at all, which is too bad. Get your act together, Marvel!
I already did the Lecture Hall on this movie, but I tried my best to be as neutral as possible. Looking over it I realize some of my opinions crept in, but I did my best to keep my own feelings out of it. When I said that the movie wasn't faithful to the original Godzilla, that's not the angry ravings of some Godzilla fanboy, that's just simple fact. Look at the characteristics of the Japanese Godzilla and the American Godzilla, and there's no doubt there are huge differences. The appearances are different, the characteristics are different, the fighting styles are different, and the techniques are different. Am I a Godzilla fan? Yes. So from what I just said and from what little bits of opinion crept into the Lecture Hall, you must think I hate the movie. After all, a simple Google search will show that virtually every fan of the Japanese Godzilla movies seem to hate the American movie, so I must hate it as well, right?
Well.... yeah.....but.......c'mon. It's not THAT bad..... (Or is it?)
First of all yes, as a movie this totally falls on its face. How bad is the writing? Well, as soon as Dr. Nik Tato-whatever his name is (Y'know, Matthew Broderick's character) finds blood from Godzilla, the first thing he does is run to the pharmacy (Which is still open like everything's fine and there isn't a gigantic lizard on the lose) and buys human pregnancy tests. He tests them and poof! Godzilla's pregnant? Then he says he has to go to the lab to "confirm this." What did he even suspect that Godzilla was pregnant? Why not test it for radiation, compare it to the DNA of other reptiles to try to get some kind of clues as to what Godzilla's identity could be? Why does his mind turn right away to pregnancy, especially since there's no proof at all there's another Godzilla out there? Oh that's right, Godzilla reproduces asexually. How convenient. Hey, how did you guess that so accurately? Sure there's no proof that there's another Godzilla, but does that mean you have to rule that possibility out entirely? And why do you keep referring to Godzilla as a "he"? If he lays eggs, asexually or not, then it must a be a female, right? Why do this movie not explain this? No idea. There are serious lapses in thinking. Granted, I don't know what I was expecting of a summer blockbuster from Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich, but my God; Independence Day wasn't this stupid! But as bad as the writing is, the acting is even worse. Broderick was nothing short of dreadful, along with everyone else. Okay I guess Jean Reno was kinda fun, but that's it. And if they're French secret agents, why do they speak English half the time? Would having us read subtitles be that difficult?
But of course, this is a summer blockbuster, where acting and writing take a backseat to fun and special effects. Should that be the case? No, but I'm not here to take shit about the summer blockbuster season in general. Is Godzilla fun? Well... yeah it is. The CGI effects are actually pretty good, much better than some of the other CGI effects from the 90's (I'm looking at you, Spawn) The action scenes are fun, especially the chase sequences. True, Godzilla should be the one chasing the military and not vice versa, but they are still fun for what they are. The scenes where Godzilla first arrives in Manhattan are easily the best parts of the movie. It actually does a pretty good job of creating fear and tension in New York City, especially in terms of Godzilla's mystery. No one has obviously seen anything like this, and I think the fear over him is well done. I hated how the ending of course, but that goes without saying. I know the humans eventually killed Godzilla in the original Japanese movie, but it was done much better than this! Even so again, I can't say I was ever really bored during the action scenes, and that's a positive.
Is this a Godzilla movie? No way. The characteristics are different, the monster's personality is different, everything is different. It's more a remake of The Beast of 20,000 Fathoms, another movie that I like. I am a Godzilla fan, but I can't find myself getting too mad at it. It's a stupid movie, but entertaining enough to get a pass from me. It's a very, very guilty pleasure for me. Is it a good movie? No, but I'd say it's worth a watch, at least one.
Tad late on this one, but here are my reviews for every movie I saw this summer. I already reviewed a bunch of these, but not all. I didn't have the chance to see a lot of the movies this year, so don't expect reviews for Elysium or even Star Trek Into Darkness (I've actually never seen any of the Star Trek movies)
Iron Man 3
My most anticipated movie of the summer, and also the worst. I already wrote about how much I utterly hated this movie, so I won't go in too much further. I don't want to seem like I'm just piling on to those fanboys who are complaining about the Mandarin twist. My problem was that they threw out an interesting, compelling villain and replaced him with a less interesting villain whose powers and and abilities bordered on laughable at times. A poorly written mess that's shaken my faith in Marvel Studios. The new Thor movie had better deliver. 0 Stars
The Hangover Part III
I really haven't spoken about The Hangover movies before, so very quickly: I like the first one a lot. I think it's very funny. The second one is nowhere near as good, but still has a few moments that made me laugh, even if it is a carbon copy of the first one. This one continued the downward trend. It wasn't the "epic conclusion" promised, although it didn't need one. Does a movie series called "The Hangover" need an epic conclusion? This had maybe two scenes that made me chuckle, and nothing that really made me laugh. The story was bland, John Goodman was wasted, and I found this to be the least interesting of the three. Alan was never my favorite character, so seeing him be basically the sole focus annoyed me. Still, it was good to see the Wolfpack again, and I will miss the chemistry Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, Justin Bartha (Yes, I do consider him part of the Wolfpack) and Zach Galifinakis have. That alone keeps me from totally hating this movie, even if it was a trainwreck. 1.5 Stars
The Lone Ranger
...Yup. This was the first movie I saw after two seeing two others that I hated. I didn't have a great summer at the movies is what I'm trying to say. To be fair, this was nowhere near as bad as the critics said. Is The Lone Ranger a bad movie? Oh yeah, for sure. But it's not terrible: the action scenes were very well done (For the most part), there are some funny parts and I actually thought the acting was good. Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer and Tom Wilkinson were all good, and I thought William Fichtner was very good. The William Tell Overture playing throughout was wonderful and made everything epic and fun. It was a huge boost to the movie. Was Depp's portrayal offensive as some people said? I don't know, maybe. It depends on the person really. The story was all over the place with plot holes aplenty. The movie was waaaaaaaaaaaay too long. The pacing was off throughout, several characters were totally wasted (Helena Bonham Carter comes to mind) and the story overall was weak. With a better script, they could have had something. What we're left at is a mildly entertaining night at the movies, but absolutely nothing beyond that, and certainly nothing memorable. 2 Stars
Man Of Steel
Already spoke about this garbage. Awful direction, awful script, good cast. Better than Iron Man 3, but only slightly. And no, I could not care less about the upcoming sequel with Batfleck. I honestly don't even know if I'll see it. 1 Star
Pacific Rim
I really tried to write a review for this, considering how hyped I was for it. Yes, it was giant robots fighting giant monsters. But it was a lot of fun, and respected its audience. It took itself seriously enough, which made it a welcome change from Michael Bay's Transformers. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good action movie and a fun ride. 3.5 Stars
Monsters University
Leave it to Pixar to save my summer movie journey! This wasn't perfect, and not really Pixar's best, but this was still an excellent movie. It was great to see Mike and Sully again after Monsters Inc, which I always loved. There was good comedy, a good story, and a surprisingly harsh message for children. It teaches that sometimes our dreams are unattainable, no matter how bad we want them. That may seem wrong, but it's a slice of life kids need to learn. I think it's important for us to remember that, and I appreciate the fact this movie reminded us of that. It's not a downer, but it is realistic in that sense. Realistic: a word I use to describe a movie about monsters. That my friends, is the magic of Pixar. 4 Stars.
The Wolverine
I'm not a huge X-Men fan, so it took me a while to see this. I enjoyed it. Hugh Jackman owns it as Wolverine, as always. Its great to see such a great actor starting to get the recognition he deserves. I'd say the first two thirds were really good and interesting, but the last third suffered, turning into a generic final battle. The addition of Jean Grey was brilliant in my opinion. It's probably the last time we'll see Jean in this series, and I thought she was used great. Some flaws, but a solid effort overall. 3 Stars
Some good movies here, but no gems really. This was a disappointing summer at the movies for me, and I hope next year is better.
When you tell people you love horror movies, chances are you're going to get one of three responses:
1)Apathy. ex: "Cool, yeah. You watch the game last night?
2) Agreement. ex. "Hell yeah man, Chucky and Leatherface rock! What'd you think of the Nightmare on Elm Street remake?"
3) Disgust. ex: "How can you watch that stuff? It's all about death and blood!
Yeah, let's be honest: that third one is probably the most common response. Sure, everyone has seen The Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs and Alien, but horror as a genre seems to be very niche. I also find that people who enjoy horror movies seem to be judged at times. Bear in mind that the town of Santa Rosa, California refused to let Wes Craven film the first Scream movie in one of their high schools simply because they believed that horror movies were unethical. Even today there are many people against the genre. Why is that? Well, it really is pretty simple. For the most part, horror movies are about people getting murdered. There is also the idea of paying money to be scared that turns people off. Many people prefer to go the movies to escape the horrors of real life. If you go to the movies to escape, why pay to see a movie about a masked madman who kills teenagers? That almost sounds like a real newspaper headline you would shudder over while eating breakfast. Well, here's the thing folks: I love horror movies. React to any of the above responses. I'm here to talk about horror movies, and you're going to sit here and enjoy it. Yes, YOU.
So, the first question: why do I like horror movies? I honestly don't know. I've always felt that people are naturally drawn to things that frighten them. We're all morbidly curious about just what frightens us. For example, I think a number of people are afraid of nightmares. They seem realistic, are down right terrifying and they're unpreventable. You could have the most horrible nightmare tonight and you can't do a damn thing about it. A Nightmare On Elm Street channels this fear and makes it interesting. What if what happens in a nightmare was real? What if a death in a nightmare meant a death in real life? That's the appeal. It's an exaggeration of real life that makes us relate to them and want to watch them. Granted, that does not apply to all horror movies. Alien comes to mind. I don't know about you, but I've never been in a spaceship lightyears from Earth where a vicious alien creature is picking off my crew one by one. Well, Alien has a different appeal in how it is presented and what it represents. One of the great things about that movie is the questions raised. Not everything is answered, no matter how much we want answers (Thanks for nothing Prometheus). The suspense in this movie is insane. The music if foreboding, the lighting dark and moody, the editing tight and menacing. There is simply no room to breathe when the alien creatures gets on board the ship. But Alien goes even beyond that. There is no other way to describe it: Alien is a very sexual movie. The alien itself is meant to be a representation of rape. The facehugging and chestbursting scene are symbolic of the stages (the actual assault and childbirth) while the creature symbolizes the horrendous aftermath and the pain that sexual assault brings. This is hardly very well covered up in the movie. Director Ridley Scott has admitted the sexual overtones in this movie, and I think he was successful in making it clear to the audience what the movie was really about. I think that these overtones really lead to the overall discomfort one gets from watching Alien. That's another appeal of horror movies: creativity. They took something as horrendous as rape and turned it into a movie monster that we can truly hate both for its actions and what it represents. I repeat, horror movie villains are characters we LOVE to hate. People cheer when Jason Voorhees meets his end in one of the endless Friday the 13th sequels, and cheer again when he comes back in the next sequel with no explanation. Watch Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood and watch as Jason gets attacked by Tina and her telekinesis. You can't help but laugh and cheer because you want to see Jason get what he deserves.
There's another thing that appeals to me as a horror fan: it's fun being scared. Yeah, sounds weird, but it really is kind of fun being scared by a movie. I don't know why that is: it's just a different kind of experience. It's almost like an act of rebellion. You know you shouldn't be going to a movie to be scared, but there's just something about that appeals to you. You have your hands on your face about to cover your eyes, but you just can't. I'll give an example, I watched The Collector recently, a pretty terrifying movie. There were so many times when I thought of just shutting it off and forgetting about it, but I simply couldn't do it. I just had to know what happened next and how far the filmmakers would go with the subject matter. And by the way, they went pretty damn far. There's a sense of accomplishment that comes with getting through a movie like that, something that almost brings bragging rights. When the first Paranormal Activity movie came out, I remember a lot of people bragging that they had it made it through the whole thing without leaving. Some of these movies are so crazy, so scary and so intense that it's almost a marathon to make it through them. Have you ever seen the original Halloween on Halloween? I have, and it's terrifying. I was amazed that I got through that, but it gave the movie a whole new atmosphere.
I know not everyone will not like horror movies, but I can't help but love them. I think people should give this genre a chance. I prefer the older horror movies to the newer ones. A lot of them are torture porn splatter flicks, but that's not to say there aren't a lot of good horror movies made today. Supernatural horror is very popular right now, buoyed by the Paranormal Activity series. Give horror movies a chance, and really try and enjoy them. It's worth a shot.
I was looking over my blog recently and came to a shocking realization; I forgot to review this movie! I had written the "Tale Of Dark Stuff" post with the intention for it to lead into a Man Of Steel review, like how the Incredibles post lead into Iron Man 3. But it just never happened; I guess I'm either super lazy, or this movie didn't leave anywhere near enough of an impact to make me remember to review it. Or it could be both. Yeah, both.
I guess you can't talk about this movie without at least mentioning Superman Returns, the last movie Superman movie to be released, back in 2006.
I won't talk too much except this; it's not that bad. Sure it had it's flaws, but the movie was nowhere near terrible. The biggest problem a lot of people seemed to have with it (Besides Lois having no clue the damn kid was Superman's kid) was that film really didn't have a lot of action. Hell, Superman never even threw a punch! Superman Returns didn't do that great, and future Superman movies seemed to be in limbo. The fans made it clear they wanted less character development and more action. A number of ideas and pitches were thrown around until finally Warner Brothers decided they would produce a Superman script by David S. Goyer. And oh look, Christopher Nolan was exec producing! Yay! What could possibly go wrong? Hmph.
Let me be start by saying I was really looking forward to this. The early buzz was great, the cast was promising, the trailers looked stellar, and I had an overall feeling we finally had an awesome, badass Superman movie. Nope. The biggest problem with Man Of Steel is that the movie is utterly joyless, with zero sense of fun or adventure. They were really trying to make this Superman's answer to Batman Begins, very dark and serious. I appreciate that, but it just doesn't work well for Superman. I don't mind them taking it seriously, but Superman needs to have some form of optimism. Superman is meant to symbolize hope, but this guy just represented a dark brooding guy who hates his life and saves people because his daddy tells him to. And for a movie that tries so hard to pose itself as a serious alien invasion movie, why do the Kryptonian "aliens" look, talk and act exactly like humans? I know it's also been that way in the comics, but it bothered me there too. Here was the chance to explain it; maybe a throwaway line on how humans and Kryptonians have a similar DNA to finally clear that up, especially in a movie trying to be "realistic." Another thing: Superman is supposed to be full of compassion and love for humans, right? That's why he saves people? Well in this version, he shows none of that. The final battle probably killed tens of thousands of people, but Superman never goes out of his way to save people. That's one of the problems I have with these big budget destruction movies. Hundreds of people are probably dying, but just so long as our small group of main characters (In this case Perry White, Lois Lane and the Daily Planet staff) survive, everything is gonna be okay. Sure they may be the last people alive, but so what? We need to have our happy ending somehow.
This was pure style over substance, typical of director Zach Snyder. We asked for more action, and oh boy we got it. But then we got the opposite problem. There was very little character development and WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much action. It got really boring after awhile. Like Superman Returns, this movie simply cannot mix action and character development, although I think this was even worse. Sure Superman Returns had little action, but scenes like the plane rescue scene made it up for it. This movie had no real character development. We see Clark can't stop from saving people, but why? Why does he care? We see some of it built up, especially in the scenes with Jonathan Kent, but it's simply not enough.
Did I hate everything about this movie? No. The action was way overdone, but that's not to say there weren't some very impressive scenes, like the midair battle between Superman and Zod. The best part of this movie was easily the cast. The only main cast member I didn't like was Michael Shannon as Zod. He was too warlike, I didn't buy him as a general. The rest of the cast was great, although Amy Adams stole the show as Lois Lane. Without a doubt, this was the best incarnation of Lois ever. She was tough, resourceful and very, very smart. She's actually an investigative reporter, and manages to track down Clark and learn about his past. A HUGE improvement over Kate Bosworth's Lois. Henry Cavill was good as Superman, he really was. He carried the burden of his powers well and put a human face on Superman's struggles. An already weak movie would have suffered a lot more if he wasn't in it. Kevin Costner was really good as Jonathan Kent. He was warm and wise, and the scene with the tornado was very powerful. Russell Crowe was okay as Jor-El. He got the job done, but he was a bit dull.
It's too bad Man Of Steel is disappointing, because I really think they could have had something. I'm all for a more serious Superman movie, and I'm all for an action packed Superman movie. I just wish the filmmakers knew how to balance everything better. I know Goyer and Snyder are returning for a sequel, a sequel that will feature Batman. I do want a sequel to this instead of another reboot. The cast was too good to let go, and I don't think this mess was unfixable. But it needs new creative people, and I think Snyder and Goyer should be replaced. Not much thought on Batman, but we'll see. Overall Man Of Steel is a weak, disappointing movie, but not terrible, right? Nah, not terrible at all...
-
-
-
-
-
-....Ok, you know what I'm going to say. There was one scene that pushed this movie over the edge, one scene that did push this movie into terrible territory, you know what it is. Zod is about to hit some people with his heat vision while Superman begs him not to. Zod is about hit them.... when Superman snaps his neck, killing him. Look, I get that they're trying to make a more "modern" Superman, but there's some things you can't change. Superman never, ever kills. This is an aspect of the character you can't change, and this movie had no right to try. What's worse is that it was avoidable. If they put Superman in a position where I really believed he had absolutely no choice but to kill Zod, then maybe I would have bought it. But they didn't even do that properly! He could have covered Zod's eyes, thrown him through the wall, punched him in the head, anything other than kill him! It was a rushed and frankly unforgiveable moment that totally sank this mess once and for all.
We're going to be doing something a little different today. This is the start of a (maybe) ongoing series on this blog called Lecture Hall. The title says it all: I will be doing a lecture of sorts on any given topic. This means I'll be covering the history of it, its effect and what it is today. That means it'll be longer than most of my other posts. I've always been good at retaining facts and giving sort of lectures (I'm told I drive people crazy), so I'm going to take a shot at writing them down. I may get some facts wrong here there, but I will do my absolute best to be 100% accurate. With all that said, here is the first entry in Lecture Hall: Godzilla 1998!
Every summer, every Hollywood studio releases what are called "tentpole films." These are meant to be giant movies with huge marketing campaigns, huge merchandising and toy sales, and finally huge box office returns. Basically, whenever a studio really wants to make an impact and make some serious money, they release a tentpole. Every studio has their "signature" tentpoles however, the ones who have made the most money and left the biggest impacts. Paramount has the Transformers series and Mission Impossible, Warner Brothers has Harry Potter and The Dark Knight series, Disney has virtually all of their animated films plus the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, while Sony has Spider-Man as their biggest tentpole. However, Spider-Man is not the first time Sony has tried to take a famous, pre-existing entity and turn it into box office gold. This other franchise already had a series of movies to its name, although none were made in America. This was a Japanese series of films, a series that Sony planned to bring to America and make into one their signature franchises. How wrong they were.
Godzilla was a huge Japanese franchise which started with the 1954 film Gojira. The movie featured a giant monster known as Gojira attacking Japan, before finally being destroyed by humanity. The concept may sound silly by today's standard and the special effects may seem outdated, but Gojira had a lot under the surface.
Gojira was a sleeping sea monster that was brought back to life by the Atom Bomb which hit Japan during World War II. The bomb mutated the monster, and gave it new abilities. Tone wise, the film is not campy at all. It is very dark, very gritty and very serious. Gojira's attack is treated like any other disaster be it a hurricane, a tornado, or, most importantly, an atom bomb. The monster is in fact an allegory for the atom bomb, and the devastation Gojira brings to Japan is an allegory for the destruction Japan suffered following the bomb. This movie was later translated into English, and a new American character was added; Steve Martin (not to be confused with the comedian), played by Raymond Burr. The title of that Americanized version, however, was changed to Godzilla: King Of The Monsters. A new monster franchise was born.
A great number of sequels were made, sequels which often deviated from the first movie's dark tone. Godzilla fought aliens, robots, and even fought a giant sized King Kong in King Kong vs Godzilla. These films were all made in Japan by Toho Studios. Throughout the course of these films, a number of "rules" were applied to the way Godzilla looks, fights and acts. Some of these "rules" are:
-Godzilla is meant to be an upright monster similar in appearance to a Tyrannosaurs Rex with fins on its back which resemble a Stegosaurus.
-He is often believed to be a male.
-He has radioactive breath which he uses as a great weapon. His fins glow blue when he breathes this.
-Godzilla is always unhurt by ordinary human bullets, tanks, missiles and any other conventional weaponry.
-When attacked by the military, Godzilla always fights back.
These are generally thought to be Godzilla's trademarks from the Japanese films. While these films were made in Japan, many of them were translated into English and released in American theatres. As a result, Godzilla built up a large fan base in America and soon became a household name.
Godzilla as he appeared in the early 1990's
Sensing that an American remake of Godzilla could be a huge moneymaker, Sony Pictures negotiated with Toho for the rights to make an American Godzilla film in 1994. They were ultimately successful, with Toho excited about the prospects of Godzilla officially going to Hollywood. Sony decided their version would be very faithful to the original Godzilla films. They hired Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, fresh off of Aladdin to write the film and selected Speed director Jan DeBont to direct the film. A teaser trailer was made to gain early hype for the film even before any actors came on board or any cameras rolled.
DeBont and company slaved to create a faithful adaptation, which would feature Godzilla fighting a bat like monster named the Gryphon and featuring a final battle in San Francisco. Audiences began to get hyped.... and then the movie fell apart. DeBont's spending began to get out of control, withSony growing furious with the escalating price tag. The studio began to crack down on spending which infuriated the director. DeBont complained that he would not be able to make the film with those cost restrictions and soon departed the project. In the years since, images of have leaked out which show how Godzilla would have looked: it appeared to be very faithful to the original look.
The studio decided to start from scratch and rejected the screenplay written by Elliott and Rossio. Sony went on the hunt for a new group of filmmakers to the project, and found them in the form of Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich. They had come off of Stargate, and were about to release Independence Day, a future box office juggernaut which would cement Will Smith as a superstar. Their style of filmmaking could be summed up in one word: destruction. Lots and lots of explosions, destroyed buildings, gunfire and huge special effects. To Sony, this seemed like a perfect combination and hired them. The pair would write the film, Devlin would produce and Emmerich would direct. However, cracks were forming already. Both Devlin and Emmerich openly admitted they were not fans of the original Japanese films, and both decided to start fresh on the monster. "My whole concept was based on totally changing Godzilla," said Emmerich in regards to the film. Devlin also did little to calm the fans, by saying that the older Godzilla films did not properly represent the character. "Only now are we able to present Godzilla in the way I think the original authors intended him to be which is lethal, and fast, and agile, with a few new tricks up his sleeve." Devlin also called out the special effects of the old films, referring to the man in a suit effects as nothing more than "a lumbering Frankenstein." These comments, combined with their reported demand to Sony to do the picture "their way" led to some early fears that the film would ignore the source material.
Godzilla was set to be released on Memorial Day 1998. Devlin and Emmerich completed the script and casting began. Matthew Broderick was cast as Dr. Nik Tatopoulous (His difficult to pronounce name is the subject of a running gag in the film), Jean Reno as French Agent Phillipe Roache, Maria Pitillo as Audrey, Nik's lover and Hank Azaria as TV cameraman Victor 'Animal' Palotti. As filming got underway, Sony wrapped the production in huge secrecy, with the design of the monster being an extremely well kept secret. They teased that Godzilla would have a huge makeover, but stated that viewers needed to see the movie to see what he looked like. In fact, Godzilla's design wound up being the most important part of the advertising campaign. Allegedly leaked concept drawings of Godzilla wound up on the Internet in the Fall of 1997. Sony and Centropolis (Roland Emmerich's production company) stated the drawings were fakes that were supposedly made to throw anyone who believed they found Godzilla's design off the trail, and that they in fact had no relation at all to the real design of Godzilla (Although those drawings were allegedly very close to the final look) The marketing campaign soon took over the airwaves and billboard across the world. The goal was to reveal certain parts of the monster in teaser trailers and early marketing material, such as his foot or his eye.
For a long while, these parts of Godzilla were all that was released. Any product or TV spot featuring the whole monster could not be released until after the movie was released. They also created many sponsorships with companies, such as Taco Bell and KFC.
In a way, this represented Toho's dream. Godzilla was now showing up in America, and being advertised with American companies. It seemed like a new beginning for the beast. Finally, Sony essentially took over the world with the last kick of their marketing campaign: posters for the movie which advertised Godzilla's size, and carried the now infamous tagline: Size Does Matter.
(Note: These pictures are courtesy of Barry's Temple Of Godzilla)
Production of the movie was a nightmare. The crew struggled very hard to make their Memorial Day release date and were forced to rush shooting; never a good thing for any movie. "We were so determined to make this date that we built a schedule where we couldn't screen test, and we should have. I think we really could have improved the film," Dean Devlin said later. "We literally finished the cut and went to the printer." Sony saw what was happening and offered to push the release date back, offering the crew more time to make the movie. Devlin and Emmerich felt honour bound to the Memorial Day release and decline; much to their chagrin. "It was foolish (To decline more time)," Devlin admitted in hindsight. This rushed production meant that Emmerich had less chance to direct his actors, meaning the performances and characters became afterthoughts. Summer blockbusters are almost never known for good acting, but Emmerich had been able to extract a good performance from Will Smith in Independence Day. That was not the case here, and a lot of attention was made in making the monster look good. Originally the plan was to create Godzilla through a combination of animatronics and CGI. This was realized, but the bulk of the work was CGI, a counter from the Japanese movies which always used an actor in a rubber suit.
At long last, the movie hit theatres. The reaction was not at all what Sony had hoped. Fan reaction was very, very negative. As stated above, there are a number of 'rules' regarding to Godzilla that fans take to heart. It upset them that very few were followed. Godzilla did indeed have the fins on his back and sort of resembled a Tyrannosaurs, but that was not the largest influence. Rather than being a sleeping dinosaur, Godzilla was a marine iguana that was made into a monster by nuclear testing in the French Polynesia. Godzilla's back fins and classic roar were kept, but it was widely speculated that Toho demanded these be kept and it is possible that Devlin and Emmerich would have gotten rid of these if they got the chance. Godzilla's nuclear breath was totally scrapped, and instead appeared to breathe a flammable gas that at one point caused some cars to ignite in flames. A large portion of the plot involved Godzilla reproducing asexually and giving birth to dozens of baby Godzillas. This was laughed at by fans. Godzilla had indeed given birth to a son in the original Japanese movies, but this was completely different. They stated that all of these creatures are born pregnant and could replace humans as the dominant species on Earth. In the Japanese films, Godzilla never had more than one child at a time. It is also never explained how they came to test Godzilla for pregnancy. As soon as he finds drops of Godzilla's blood, Matthew Broderick's character immediately tests it for pregnancy with no indication on how he even suspected Godzilla was pregnant. The fact that Godzilla is constantly referred to as a male throughout the movie further added to the confusion. The acting did indeed suffer, and the plot contained numerous holes. Maria Pitillo appeared in her first major blockbuster, which sadly seemed to kill her career. The movie is still infamous among Godzilla fans, many of which refuse to believe the monster presented is Godzilla. The monster has been referred to by fans as GINO (Godzilla In Name Only), and fans still refuse to accept the movie into Godzilla canon. Godzilla's attitude was also different. The Japanese Godzilla deliberately attacked buildings and caused destruction. The American Godzilla was less of a monster and more of a 200 foot animal who was merely taking a short cut through New York City. He showed absolutely no interest in destruction. He also did not fight back when attacked. When the military attacked him, Godzilla responded by running away rather than fighting. Finally, Godzilla was not indestructable. The military is able to shoot him down with fighter jets, which outraged fans and Toho alike. Sony claimed they were simply trying to make the creature more realistic, but fans scoffed at this. They believed a giant lizard was already unrealistic, and removing Godzilla trademarks for the sake of realism made no sense. Finally, they argued this version of Godzilla simply looked nothing like the original.
Nevertheless, Sony did their best to advertise the movie, releasing a ton of merchandise in an attempt to make Godzilla the biggest movie of 1998. This did not happen. The movie cost around $130,000,000 to make. With marketing costs added, a major Hollywood movie needs to roughly double its budget in terms of box office dollars before the studio can make a profit. According to box office mojo, Godzilla made $55,729,951 in its opening weekend in the United States alone. Combined with its international totals, this was a solid opening weekend, but still a far cry from its budget. The film struggled after the first week, with negative word of mouth causing the box office totals major problems. In the end, the movie grossed close to $400 million, a good total. This was before the massive box office grosses of the late 2000's and present day, so this total was very respectable. Even so, it was not the mega hit Sony wanted. It did however turn a profit, and Sony began to think a sequel could work. After all, the original plan was to make a trilogy. At one point, Sony formally announced they would be making a more "family friendly" sequel to Godzilla. Tab Murphy, the screenwriter for Tarzan wrote a treatment for Godzilla 2 which would have featured the surviving Godzilla baby growing up and fighting an insect like creature called the "Queen Bitch." In the meantime, Sony decided to keep Godzilla in the media by making a spin off animated cartoon called Godzilla: The Series which aired on Fox Kids from 1998 to 2000.
This series also acted as a sequel to the movie, picking up with the baby Godzilla befriending Nik Tatopolous and becoming a hero, fighting other monsters.
Unlike the movie, this show has been mostly embraced by fans of Godzilla, due to its attempts to honour the Japanese Godzilla. His atomic breath was restored, he fought other monsters, he did not reproduce asexually (In the first episode it is said he shows no signs of pregnancy and it is never brought up again) and walked upright like the Japanese Godzilla rather than crouching over like the creature did in the movie. The show ended after two seasons. Despite the fact that it acted as direct sequel, Sony insisted that this was only a spin-off and that the real continuation of the first movie would come in the form of Godzilla 2. Some fans began to doubt the sequel would be made, but Sony president Amy Pascal was very confident. "If a movie makes $400 million, you make a sequel. It's that simple."
Behind the scenes, trouble was brewing. Emmerich and Devlin projected a budget for the film, and Sony would not approve it. The two were honest about the movie's faults and insisted they were going to do better with the sequel. "We're taking more time developing the script this time than we did before, and we're making sure we have enough time -- post time," Devlin said. Despite all of this big talk, Devlin and Emmerich made the surprising movie to leave Godzilla 2 in early 1999, leaving the film in serious doubt. Sony weighed its options and realized their rights to Godzilla expired in 2003, leaving them with four years to get a new movie going. They decided to wait and let the audience get the taste of the American movie out of their mouths and be open to a new American Godzilla, which likely would have been a series reboot.
One of the angriest parties over this movie was Toho Studios itself, who felt Sony had not honoured its promise to do a faithful Godzilla adaptation. In 1995 Toho decided to end their long standing Godzilla series after 41 years with Godzilla Vs. Destroyah, which ended with Godzilla's death. After viewing the 1998 movie, Toho decided to remind the world what the original series was like and decided to bring Godzilla back. They immediately put a new movie into production and Godzilla 2000 was released in Japan in 1999, one year after the American film. Sony had the distribution rights to the film and decided to release the movie in American theatres, making it the first Japanese Godzilla film to be released in theatres since The Return of Godzilla (Otherwise known as Godzilla 1985) was released in 1984.
This was seen as an attempt by Sony to get people to forget their previous attempt, but it only succeed in confusing audiences. Godzilla fans knew this was an official film, but audiences thought it was a sequel to Godzilla 1998, and were surprised to see it was not. Sony began to see a lack in interest in a new Godzilla movie, and allowed their rights to expire. To date, Sony has stated they have no plans to negotiate for the rights again.
Toho got on a roll after Godzilla 2000, and to date have released five movies since then. They never did stop talking about the film, with passing reference made in Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: All Monster Attack. In this film, mention is made of an attack on New York. The Americans believe it was Godzilla, but the Japanese doubt it. In 2004, Toho made Godzilla: Final Wars, a celebration of Godzilla's 50th anniversary. This featured many of Godzilla's oldest enemies returning to fight. Out of nowhere, the American Godzilla appeared in it.
In this movie, the American Godzilla is finally given on official Toho name, albeit an unflattering one: Zilla. Director Ryuhei Kitamura gave him this name because he felt he "Took the 'God' out of Godzilla." In the movie, Zilla is a pawn of the Xillians, an alien race attacking Earth. In the movie, Godzilla and Zilla fought, something Godzilla fans had been hoping for since 1998. The result was no doubt exactly what they wanted.
In the English dub of the film, the (rather human looking) alien shouts out "I knew that tuna breath wasn't up to much!," a nod to Zilla's love of fish in the 1998 movie. As you can see, the fight lasted less than ten seconds, with Godzilla emerging as the clear victor. Since then, Zilla has not appeared in any movies at all, and neither Toho or Sony seems eager to use him again. He actually did not appear in any media at all until earlier this year when he fought Godzilla in the IDW comic book Godzilla: Rulers of The Earth.
In 2009 it was reported that Legendary Pictures, the studio that had produced movies like Batman Begins, The Hangover, The Dark Knight and Watchmen had begun early negotiations with Toho to produce a new American Godzilla movie. Little was known about it at the time except that it would be a reboot, with no connection to the Sony film. In 2010, it was confirmed that Legendary and Toho had struck a deal to produce a new American film. Legendary approached this movie very differently than Sony had approached theirs. Legendary went out of their way to assure Godzilla fans that the movie would be made honourably, and released a teaser image at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con that was strongly reminiscent of the Japanese Godzilla.
Gareth Edwards, a self proclaimed Godzilla fan was hired to direct, and the script was written by Man Of Steel screenwriter David S. Goyer, with rewrites performed by Frank Darabont, famous for writing and directing The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and developing The Walking Dead. The cast included Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanbe, Elizabeth Olsen and Bryan Cranston. These are all celebrated performers and would indicate that Legendary is taking their Godzilla movie very seriously. To date, no official looks of this film have been released aside from the teaser image above and the poster below. A trailer was seen at the 2013 Comic-Con, but that has not been released online. As it stands, the film has completed filming and is set for release on May 16th, 2014; sixteen years after Sony's attempt, and 20 years after Jan deBont departed the original project. Below is the official poster which was recently released. In an interview, Dean Devlin wished the filmmakers for the new Godzilla movie the best of luck, and admitted he was not happy with the 1998 effort. Devlin said that the problem was the "Script I wrote," and virtually absolved the actors and Emmerich's direction of any blame. Interestingly he seemed to say he was the only writer for the movie, suggesting the screenwriting was more his fault than Emmerich's, who was also credited as a writer.
As it stands, it is highly unlikely the 1998 version of Godzilla will be seen again. Fan hatred is as strong as ever, and no one seems to want to return to this incarnation. It appears as if Godzilla is as popular as ever and is set for a resurgence with Legendary's film: it is just too late for Zilla.
