The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 November 2o14



or

The Crying Games: Mocking JLaw – Part 1

Okay, I admit it! I like the three books that make up The Hunger Games series better than the movies! The books are an exceptional exploration of war and its effect on everyone in the community who experiences it either by direct participation or indirect inclusion. The books are well written, personal, grim and very gritty. I’m rather surprised that a YA set of novels would be quite as grizzly and horrifying in its depiction of war.

 

So, why are the movies NOT as “good” as the books? Well, wanting a PG-13 rating may well be the main reason since most of the people who read and fell in love with the books are 13 to 16 year olds AND wouldn’t be allowed into an R rated film which is this movie needs if you want to honestly explore the ideas created by the books.

 

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 tries to express ideas about the propaganda of war, but doesn’t quite investigate it as well as it should. Mostly, Mockingjay - Part 1 is a movie about Jennifer Lawrence’s character, Katniss, crying. The character cries about everything. She cries when she’s reunited with her family, cries when people try to make her the symbol for the “revolution,” when she sees that her lover (boyfriend, I should say) is alive, she cries, and guess what she does when she goes back home to find the whole town wiped out by the Capital’s army? I mean, you could make a decent drinking game out of it, “Okay, guys, take a drink every time Katniss cries.” You’d get quite a buzz.

The problem with this movie is that it’s more a trailer for Mockingjay - Part 2 than an actual self-sustaining movie. I was surprised when the movie was over and they rolled credits. I thought they were just getting started! The movie is mostly exposition than anything else.  I’m guessing that the thought of bigger box office receipts had a lot to do with deciding to make four movies instead of three. Now I gotta wait a WHOLE YEAR before I find out what happens! Thank God I read the books!

P.S. It may sound like I’m “mocking” Jennifer Lawrence in this piece, but I’m not. She’s an exceptional actress. I do believe that the powers that be lead her down a bit of the wrong path in this particular movie venture.

 

Interstellar November 2014

Sorry. Took me awhile to get into writing this review. No SPOILERS, I hope.

Interstellar is one of those movies that I watched intently, didn’t miss a beat of it, and I was totally engrossed in the whole thing. However, once the experience was over, I wondered why they made it? It’s not that Interstellar is a bad movie. The production value is high, the acting works well, and the script . . . well there’s the problem. The script just isn’t deep or specific enough for me.

 

The best parts of Interstellar are the scenes between the father and daughter. There’s a deep connection there between the characters, a good sense of a specific relationship that is still universal, the love between father and daughter. However, the final scene of that relationship (I won’t tell you what it is) is rather dissatisfying.  Also working for this film (for the most part) is the sound. Yes, it’s damn loud but it helps create such a visceral response in the audience. Best example: when the spaceship is leaving the Earth there is this bone rattling (I mean, it physically SHOOK the audience) sound of the rocket engines, and then when it finally left the Earth’s gravity and entered outer space

. . . dead quiet. But not wanting to let go of a good thing, they use the same sound level in another part of the movie when the spaceship is in trouble (again), and it only got in the way of the audience hearing important dialogue. I mean, I “think” it was important dialogue because I couldn’t understand a word of it, AND in turn, I couldn’t understand what was happening in the movie!

 

Although Christopher Nolan has great ideas and a good eye for visuals, the script seems more of an outline for a movie leaving this audience member feeling a bit underwhelmed. And the “science moments?” Yeah, I know, there’s a whole group of scientists out there who get their equations all in a bunch if you don’t get the science “right,” but every “science moment” they have in Interstellar stops the action, it’s not incorporated into the film as well as it needs to be. I ain’t kidding. Every time they started talking science I felt like somebody walked on with a giant dry erase board and I was back in junior college sitting through another boring lecture. Don’t get me wrong, getting the science  “right” is important but you must make it a part of the action, and not just shove it down our throats because you’re afraid  that Dr. deGrasse Tyson will jump on his iPod show and get all “better than thou” on us “uneducated,” low life movie goers. 

John Wick October 2o14

 

John Wick isn’t the Boogeyman. He’s the man you send to kill the Boogieman!

Thank you, movie gods, for finally answering my prayer! And the answer is . . . John Wick! What a wonderfully executed movie. A Hand-to-hand combat movie where you can actually SEE the characters fight! Yeah, I’m talking to you (AGAIN!), Antoine Fuqua! Study this movie and learn how it is done, or please, please give up on making action films.

 

This movie is just chucked full of beautifully choreographed fight sequences, and not a lot of flying kicks and wire work (if there is any at all). This is, for the most part, just straight up  jiu-jitsu and MMA fighting with guns . . . and sometimes . . . CARS! Lots of close up combat filmed (again, for the most part) in wide shots and medium shots. Did I say fight scenes? Nay! Each scene is a ballet of blood and violence. Just the most wonderful thing I have seen in an action film in a long time.

 

However, the fight scenes aren’t the only star in this film. The “talking” scenes are also brilliant, the dialogue is exceptional. Most action films blow off these scenes as fast as they can, but not John Wick! The directors are just as specific in the “smaller” scenes as they are in the big action sequences. For example, the whole reason for Wick to put on his ass kicking suit and go to town on the baddies is that they . . . KILL HIS DOG! Any other director (again and again, Fuqua!) would probably just get ANY old dog for the scene, I mean, why not? It’s not like it’s an important scene! Let’s get to the action! But not our director(s). They went out and found the cutest damn puppy that ever lived (or is it CGI?) so that we, the audience, would fall in love with this rascally pup and be even more outraged at the evilness of the bad guys, and  be all crazy for John Wick to get off his butt and lay down so retribution.

 

So, If you haven’t got it all ready . . . I LOVE THIS MOVIE! And it is really worth watching.

SnowPiercer 2o14

I try very hard to stay away from SPOILERS in my reviews while still giving you, the reader, something worth reading. However, I’m not perfect. I may have inadvertently slipped a SPOILER or two in here somewhere. Be advised.

"Passengers, this is not a shoe. This is disorder. This is size ten chaos. This. See this? This is death."—Minister Mason, Snowpiercer

Snowpiercer is one of those movies that is so enthralling that you can respectfully overlook the few flaws in the script and in the visuals.  There’s something for everybody in this movie. If you’re a straight up action junky, there are a herd of incredibly crafted riot scenes, one on one, hand to hand combat scenes (hey, Antoine Fuqua, you should pay attention to this part) that outshines every fist smashing, jaw breaking film that has come along in quite a long while.  Very little jump cutting or close-ups, you can really see the work of the stuntmen/actors. However, if you are the film goer that likes a little “intellectual” meat with his smorgasbord of movie ass kicking, then Snowpiercer has plenty of that to go around also. Political wrangling and intrigue, class struggle, child abuse . . . hell, there is so many different social/political ideas and issues woven into this movie that it takes more than one viewing to find them all.

 

The acting is impeccable in this film. I mean, even Chris Evans, an actor I really don’t care to watch much, is just smoking it in this film. The whole cast is brilliant, but I do have to say that Tilda Swinton is just one of the most underrated actors of our times, or maybe not “underrated” but just not use enough in mainstream films to suit this audience member. Her portrayal of Minister Mason is tragically funny, disturbing and downright evil . . . all at the same time. Checkout this deliciously sadistic monologue:

Mason

Order is the barrier that holds back the flood of death. We must all of us on this train of life remain in our allotted station. We must each of us occupy our preordained particular position. Would you wear a shoe on your head? Of course you wouldn't wear a shoe on your head. A shoe doesn't belong on your head. A shoe belongs on your foot. A hat belongs on your head. I am a hat. You are a shoe. I belong on the head. You belong on the foot. Yes? So it is. In the beginning, order was proscribed by your ticket: First Class, Economy, and freeloaders like you. Eternal order is prescribed by the sacred engine: all things flow from the sacred engine, all things in their place, all passengers in their section, all water flowing. all heat rising, pays homage to the sacred engine, in its own particular preordained position. So it is. Now, as in the beginning, I belong to the front. You belong to the tail. When the foot seeks the place of the head, the sacred line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.

 

Bong Joon-ho is just one of a handful of directors in the 21^st century that are making films that are enlightening and entertaining. We film lovers should support artists like Bong Joon-ho, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, and Wes Anderson, and politely say “NO” to the directors of films like The Equalizer, The Purge (1 & 2) and the other unfortunate wastes of film that promise something special and never ever deliver.

 

Mason did not include in her diatribe that shoes are also good for kicking ass! Let’s be shoes and “stomp out” mediocre filmmaking in America!

 

Fury October 2o14

or

How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Loved the CGI!



 

Naturalism

1. (in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.

2. a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
 

Wardaddy: Ideals are peaceful. History is violent.
 

You know, everything about this naturalistic movie is working. They just plop the audience down smack in the middle of WWII, and brother, it's a jolt. This isn't a story about WWII, it is as close as we can get to the experience of WWII without actually being there. Sure, Saving Private Ryan does most of that, but this is even more surreal, horrifying without being preachy about the wrong or right of war.

 

And the characters are so existential. We really don't know much about them except for their job description: "We kill Nazis." But we do identify with them because no matter how they try to hide it this killing Nazi thing gets to them.

 

So, this is a great film with one giant drawback: CGI muzzle flashes! I know, it's the thing today. I guess it saves money on blank ammunition, maybe safer for the actors, and maybe they use it to get the gamer crowd to put down the Halo or whatever phony baloney first-person video game kids are playing these days and watch, actually watch a movie . . . or maybe they, the production team just thinks its cool to turn WWII into Star Wars. Whatever the excuse . . . I hate it. I hate it with such a passion. I'm surprised that Brad Pitt let them get away with it. It doesn't fit in a naturalist WWII film to have "cartoonish" animation for gunfire. It looks ridiculous. Why aren't more people offended by this? Anyway, if you are going to try and depict an actual war, the way war really is get rid of the CGI!

 

 

Gone Girl October 2o14

Gone Girl
A Sort of Review,

Sort of

 

I like to consider myself an adventurous movie goer, somewhat like Frank Buck: Bring ‘Em Back Alive . . .only I do my big game hunting with a medium popcorn (no butter) in one hand and a large ice tea (LOTS of ice!) in the other, sitting in my favorite seat, in an air-conditioned, big screen movie theatre with whomever I can talk into going with me. I don’t like to know much about the movie I’m going to see. I don’t read reviews because I don’t want to know the story or what some other "big game hunter" thought about the film. I do look at posters, and I’ve gotten pretty good at deciding whether or not a movie is worth my time by watching a little bit of the trailers. Sure, trailers are design to con you into believing that the movie they advertise is “The greatest movie in MOVIE HISTORY!” But if you know what to look for in a trailer, you can tell whether or not the advertisement guys are lying to you about the quality of the movie being promoted. Word of mouth is a good device for making your decision to see or not see a certain movie.

ME: How was the movie?
Mouth: Oh, it was okay . . .

or

ME: How was the movie?

Mouth: Man, That movie really SUCKED!

Either one of those answers to my question, "How was the movie?" is not a great indicator as to whether or not a movie is worth my viewing time. Let’s face it, people have different tastes. An audience member might not like a movie for other reasons than the movie itself. For example: back in 1989, I'd just finished watching Field of Dreams when I ran into an old (girl) friend of mine who had also just seen it. “How was the movie?” I asked. She replied, “It was all about MEN! Why was it all about what MEN WANT? What about us, WOMEN? Why isn’t there a Field of Dreams for WOMEN?!”  Hmmm, a good point, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with whether the movie was good or not. The only word of mouth review of a movie you can trust is:

ME: How was the movie?
Mouth: (smiling) Go see it.

Me: Okay, but how was it?
Mouth (bigger smile): Just go see it.

There’re a couple of important points you should get from my dialogue with Mouth: 1. Mouth is reluctant to tell me anything about the movie. 2. Mouth is smiling. Those two things tell me that it’s a sure bet that if I go to that particular movie, I'm going to see something . . . good/bad? Who knows, but I'm definitely gonna see . . . something worth my time.

 

So, what the hell does all this have to do with a review of Gone Girl? Actually, it has everything to do with Gone Girl. Gone Girl is one of those movies that you should go see without knowing much or anything about it. For me it’s one of those films that I really WANT to talk about, but only with people who have already seen it. Hell, I may have said too much all ready. Anyway, stop listening to me or to any reviewer, get you popcorn, ice tea, find a great seat in a theatre and just watch . . . Gone Girl.

The Equalizer September 2014

or
Home Mart: Let’s Kill Something Together

 

!MAYBE A FEW SPOILERS!

What the Fuqua, Antoine?! How the heck can you mess up a movie that has a decent enough revenge script, Denzel Washington as your lead (along with a killer support cast) AND some of the most beautiful cinematography I’ve ever seen? What the hell were you thinking? Okay, you didn’t make a terrible movie, but you surely didn’t make a great movie either. Instead, you took all those wonderful elements mentioned above and created a steaming pile of mediocrity, and that is worse than making something completely awful!

The script was solid, a great storyline about a mild mannered hardware store employee who has a black op, ass kicking demon hiding behind his smile, and one day something happens to force that demon out in the open. And yeah, I know, we’ve seen it all before in First Blood (1982), Valdez is Coming (1971) Death Wish (1974). . . Hell, almost every Marvel character is based on the “mild mannered” appearing schmuck who has a secret, superhero identity.  But what makes this script interesting to me is not that you have the demon hiding out in the average Joe type character, but the length of time the script takes in exploring the transformation from nice guy to cold blooded assassin. Unlike Banner’s Hulk personality that doesn’t need more than a dirty look to get him all “smashing” mad, Robert McCall’s dark side is buried so deep that it takes the attempted murder of the teenage prostitute he’s befriended to finely get him to his Popeye Moment: That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more! For me this was the best part of the movie. The quiet moments in your movie, Antoine, are where you excel.

And yeah, your casting was perfect. Denzel (the good guy psychopathic killer) and Marton Csokas (Teddy, the evil psycho killer) . . . wow! Their interactions were so intense I was nervously chewing up the theatre seat cushion! (Sorry, Warren Theatre. I’ll pay for that.) And no matter what the other ‘reviewers” say, Chloë Grace Moretz was brilliant as the young hooker looking for a way out of “the life.” And I’m gonna give you credit for picking Mauro Fiore as your cinematographer. Man, he sure has a way of getting that dark, depressing look of the big city . . . and also finding the beauty in that darkness. I was a little bit annoyed with the final shot of McCall sitting at a booth in his favorite café, reading a book and sipping tea. It was a bit too reminiscent of Edward Hopper’s  Nighthawks (1942).

BUT where you went wrong, Antoine, were the fight scenes! What the heck, man! The whole first part of the movie is a build up to that first fight scene! It’s the payoff for us sitting with Robert McCall as he struggles with the question: “Should I let the demon out, make things right?” It’s the moment we, the audience, are waiting for. NOW we’re gonna see that demon from hell pull out a big old can of kick ass! And what did you do with the scene, Antoine? You jump cut the crap out of it! Audience couldn’t see the action. Couldn’t see the fight! It was such a bland scene, totally uninteresting to watch, and every fight scene in this movie was awful. Antoine, buddy, you need to take Hitchcock’s advice about action sequences. “If you are going to have a crop duster in your movie, it must dust crops.” Antoine, if you bill a character as a bad ass, ass kicker, then we, the audience, must see him KICK some major gluteus maximus! I don’t know what it is with you directors these days. You really think that shooting a fight scene in close ups and jump cutting it until it turns into blurry goo is the way it should be done? Well, if God had known how you were going to direct the action sequences in this movie, there would have been an 11^th commandment: THOU SHALL NOT DIRECT ACTION SEQUENCES, ANTOINE!

 

 

 

Guardians of the Galaxy August 2014

The Guardians of Popcorn

Movie review by Robert R. Woods
 

Peter Quill

So here we are: a thief, two thugs, an assassin and a maniac. But we're not going to stand by as evil wipes out the galaxy. I guess we're stuck together, partners.

 

Share this: Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Permalink Rocket Raccoon

Why would you want to save the galaxy?

Peter Quill

Because I'm one of the idiots who live there!

 

And there folks in those few lines of dialogue is the entire plot of:  

 

Granted there's not much to it. But it is straightforward and to the point. Most “good” movies are simple in plot. The writers, the director, and  actors of Guardians of the Galaxy fill in the few holes the script has with cool, hip, outlaw heroes, a couple of nasty ass villains who want to destroy the universe— why? Well, I don’t know! That’s just what evil guys do! They threaten to blow everything up to give our heroes a reason for racing across the galaxy kicking asteroid butts and taking names! It’s a popcorn movie, for goodness’ sake,  not Greek tragedy!

Greek tragedy
1. A popular and influential form of drama performed in theatres across ancient Greece from the late 6th century BCE.

Popcorn movie

1. A motion picture without serious dramatic content, a weighty message, or intellectual depth, which serves simply as enjoyable entertainment.

Although most times I like a bit more intellectual meat with my popcorn, this really is a hell of a lot of fun. Got some wonderfully off the wall characters— a  talking raccoon named Rocket (possibly named after The Beatles “Rocky Raccoon”) and his pal, Groot, a sort of hipster’s version of an Ent. And then there’s a very sexy (hubba-hubba) female assassin named Gamora, the long suffering Drax the Destroyer . . . AND . . . our lead hero . . . the Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli  of outer space . . . Peter Quill: Star-Lord! Who? Yeah, that question is asked more than once.  And then you throw in some rather snappy jokes (mostly references to ‘80’s pop culture), some dazzling CGI effects, LOTS of explosions and you got me saying "Pass the popcorn, PA-leeeeeease!"

I do have a couple of mild complaints. There are so many characters with very little backstory that it’s hard to tell who the heck they are! This is one of those movies where it’s almost necessary to have read the comic—oh, excuse me!—“graphic novel” it was based on. Plus, when, oh, when, ol’ might filmmakers are you gonna STOP filming live action, hand to hand combat scenes in close ups with so much jump editing that the audience NEVER gets to see the fights! I mean, come on! You got Dave Batista in your movie! He’s a collegiate wrestler, he’s MMA trained, and he’s in the WWE! Just back the camera up, lock it down and let Batista and stuntman have it!

Sorry. Anyway, Guardians of the Galaxy is a fun, mindless good time. Go see it.

Lucy July 2014

or

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blonde!

 

Okay, let's get it out of the way. Yes, my scientist friends, this movie is NOT scientifically sound. Yes, the science that the movie illustrates is "junk science," and not real. So, don't go see the movie because you are not going to like it! I tell you to NOT go see this movie because I respect and love your educated opinions . . .  but also . . .  I really don't want to hear you bitching and moaning about how "wrong" the science is. The movie is not about "the science," and even if it was about "the science," it's still just a damn movie. It's not real world REAL. It may well be an honest, a deep felt expression of this reality we live in . . .  BUT . . . it is not real life! At best it's an allegorical tale about life and what it means to be truly alive. The movie poses one simple question to ponder: If you realized you had only twenty-four hours to live, would you just crawl off somewhere and die, or would you try to make what little time you have left on this Earth mean something? Fortunately, the writer and director chose for our heroine to try and leave an everlasting impression on this world.

I was totally involved in the journey of Lucy's, totally committed to seeing the movie through to the rather bitter and speedy conclusion. It's definitely an action film filled with shootouts, car chases and straight up hand to hand combat . . . but it also has a soul, an idea that is universal. If we know we are going to die we want to accomplished two things: 1. Let the people who we love know how much we care for them. 2. Do everything possible, and I mean everything possible, to accomplish one final goal. There's a few moments in this movie where the director slows the pace down. First, there's the long overdue phone call where Lucy tearfully says goodbye to her mother, and a brief scene where Lucy kisses the cop who's trying to arrest her. Why does she kiss him? Just for her to remember what it was like to be "human."

The only problems I had with this film were a few CGI elements that didn't quite fit in the "world" of the movie. A bit cartoony at times. Also, there's the revolving room gag that makes you think the actor is actually climbing the walls. We've seen that trick so many times that it rang less than true. Hey, if you gotta use the old "pull the rabbit out of the hat" trick, change the hat or pull out something other than a damn white rabbit! And one other thing. Although I loved the movie and thought it was full and complete . . . I kind of wish it would have been a bit longer. It only ran about 89 minutes! I really wanted more.


 

 

 





 

The X-Men: Days of Future Past 2o14

Prologue

As a little kid I remember my parents arguing over what kind of car they should buy. Seems like the old dependable ’54 Ford we had was about to pass on to that automobile junkyard in the sky. My mom, being the most practical in the Woods Clan, suggested buying a “used car.” I thought my dad was gonna have a heart attack. “Are you kidding? You buy a used car; you’re buying someone else’s problems!” I always agreed with my dad on that fine point of suburban living: NEVER buy a used car! It took a while for the used car industry to pick up on the prejudice people have about used cars. The title, USED CARS, was alarming to the consumer. It does sound like you’re buying someone else’s piece of junk. So, the used car industry decided that what they needed was a name change, a name change that was far less negative. And you know what they came up with? PRE-OWNED CARS. Yep. And it worked pretty well. It worked so well that others in the “used” industry picked up on it. It’s not used books anymore, now its pre-read books, or pre-listened to CDs, or pre-viewed DVDs! The movie industry was not so quick to join in on the name game. However, in the 21^st century the movie studios pumped out a slew of “remakes” of horror and sci-fi films, and for the most part the remakes were, well, pretty sucky. They even tried their hand at remaking a few of the successful horror genre franchises: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street . . . the audience pretty much rejected these tries and the word “remake” became a very dirty word. So, how did Hollywood solve the problem? Did they give-up trying to remake successful franchises? No, they just changed the name REMAKE to REBOOT. Reboot . . . does sound better than remake. It sounds  computer literate, more like you are actually creating a new story “based” on an old story that—

HEY! WHAT THE HELL DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR REVIEW OF THE X-MEN MOVIE, DAMNIT?”

X-Men: Days of Future Past

or

How to Reboot Your Failing Franchise

 

The newest X-Men movie is very much a reboot of the franchise started back in 2ooo using as its model the very successful reboot, Star Trek (2009). So, if you want to restart a franchise with a new cast you gotta . . . go back in time. Yep. And that’s exactly what X-Men: Days of Future Past does. It starts in the future where the war between human and mutant is about to end with the humans winning! Eek! So, what do you do? You send the most diplomatic character you have, Wolverine. The movie is all about Jackman's character going back to 1973 to "fix" history, change the outcome of the war, AND inadvertently create a whole new franchise. Smooth move. Einstein and the whole pre-owned car industry would be very proud.

If you are a fan of the X-Men franchise, the older one, then you will probably like the way they transition into the reboot. It’s nice to see all the actors who played in the original franchise on screen . . . at least one more time.

The whole script of Days of Future Past is really exceptional. Good enough, at least, that the few timeline mistakes that they make are not worth even mentioning. Dialogue is clean and exciting. The young actors are really outstanding. They make the material their own, and if you are going to create a whole new world for people to believe in, that’s exactly what you have to do. Make it work for you.

There are, however, a few problems with the CGI Sentinels. Both the future and the 1973 versions of the Sentinels are rather cartoonish with the future bots looking and moving about sort of like the Dementors from Harry Potter. However, the CGI guys redeem themselves with an outlandish hand-to-hand combat scene between the Pentagon guards and Quicksilver. Although the whole movie was great, that scene was a real crowd pleaser; people were actually applauding during and after it!

So, it’s a good movie . . .  no, a great movie, one that is definitely worth seeing on the big screen, and one to buy when it comes out on DVD. I'm going to miss the original cast, though. I hope there will be times when we get to see them all again . . . in the future!

rrw o5-25-14

Godzilla May 2o14

Godzilla! Godzilla . . .! Again?

 

1956. A warm summer night. My brother, me and my sister dressed in out pajamas scrunched into the backseat of my dad’s ’54 Ford, squishing each other as we push and shove trying the to get the best view we could from our tiny backseat balcony. Yeah, the drive-in movie family outing! And what were we getting ready to see? Godzilla: King of the Monsters. And sure enough, he WAS the king of ALL monsters. Biggest damn thing I had ever seen in a movie. And mean? Killing with his “atomic” breath any living thing that got in his way, destroying buildings with a swish of his enormous tail, squashing tanks, swatting planes out of the sky! Yeah, baby, one horrifying, big ass MONSTER!

Jump ahead about fifty-eight years and my eight year old self is really psyched to see a remake of Godzilla that little gem of a horror film that terrorized my dreams every night without fail! And my adult self gets a ticket, a medium popcorn and LARGE ice tea, and the best seat at the Warren ANNNNND . . . and . . . okay . . . the movie was . . . okay, but not really a remake of the first film. More like a conglomeration of the franchise that emerged AFTER the first movie. In those films Godzilla is less rampaging monster and more bumbling anti-hero. Sure, he still destroys a lot of stuff, but it’s all for a good cause, all of it to defeat the REALLY bad monster that threatens the poor antlike humans. He's a kinder Godzilla, one you could take home to mom and Sunday dinner. Yeah, he would probably destroy the house . . . but only by accident.  And that’s part of my problem with this movie. Well, that and the fact that G is hardly in the movie at all! That’s right! A movie called Godzilla and Godzilla is not the head honcho monster. This flick should have been titled: MUTO! (with a guest appearance by GODZILLA!) Everything about the advertising for Godzilla is misleading. Godzilla is a supporting character, not the main character.  And Bryan Cranston who is featured in EVERY trailer? Not the human lead! He’s just a blip on the monster movie radar, a bit of bloody goo on the bottom of MUTO's deformed foot! The trailers, the posters, all of it promises something that we, the audience, didn’t get . . . a remake of Godzilla. I understand the marketing strategy, not revealing what the film is really about. Let the audience experience the movie “for the first time.” Spielberg used the technique all the time by not showing us much in trailers or posters, making us wonder what we were going to see . . . but he didn’t mislead us. He didn’t advertise E. T. and then show us . . . SURPRISE! It’s Schindler's List.

The good news about Godzilla 2014 is that it does effectively recreate the “feel” of the Godzilla movies of my youth. Godzilla 2014 moves and fights just like the original, only a tad bit cooler and cleaner. It still seems like a human rampaging around in a “suitmation” suit! 21^st century tech, you got to love it. And the dialogue in the movie is just as clunky and awkward as the dubbed versions we got in America, and how about that acting? It’s just as awful as it was in the original! Well, maybe a bit worse. The problem with the acting  in this movie is that the actors just don’t seemed to relate  to the story or any of the other actors they are playing a scene with. Yes, they weep, cry, shake their fists in anger, “Damn, you MUTO!” But it seems fake, disconnected from the reality of the world of the movie.

So, did I hate this film? No, in fact I admire it a bit. I think it was an honest, sincere attempt to recreate a style of movie making that is long gone. It DID have the feel of a 50’s B-movie horror film but with better special effects. However, not sure it had the soul of those wonderful films of my youth. It was very high tech, of course, but it felt like the whole production team was just phoning it in. There has to be an intuitive understanding of the material if you want its soul to emerge. Not sure that Godzilla 2014 got passed the glitter and flash that most big budget action films settle for in this 21^st century. That’s a pity. The original, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, for all its faults had a soul that was bigger than its budget. And that’s what’s missing in this expensive remake . . . a soul.

rrw o5-19-14

 http://youtu.be/T65rW_SIzg0