GODZILLA ゴジラ
Directed by:
Gareth EdwardsCinematography:
Seamus McGarveyComposer:
Alexandre DesplatCast:
Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, David Strathairn, Ken Watanabe, Al Sapienza, Sally Hawkins, Brian Markinson (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
The iconic movie monster gets a brilliant 21st century makeover in this breathtaking blockbuster! A devastating catastrophe engulfs Japan's Janjira nuclear power plant in 1999. Fifteen years later, US physicist Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) remains convinced that a natural disaster was not responsible. He believes there's been a high-level cover-up. His quest for the truth reunites him with his Navy Lieutenant son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Among those drawn into joining their mission are Ford's wife Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) and military commander Admiral Stenz (David Strathairn). Japanese scientist Daisuke Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) quickly recognises that man's abuse of nature is responsible for the mighty, radiation-enhanced Godzilla - and the terrifying foes against which it is now pitted! (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (23)
Reviews (20)
I understand the concept and I see the ambition of the filmmakers, but I can’t help it, the emperor has no clothes. The new American Godzilla is emblematic of our times – a typically exceedingly sophisticated film that’s informed by its roots, which it tries to update and recapture. This time, however, it works only on paper. Yes, we have here an attempt to make an American movie that is more faithful to the Japanese style of kaiju films, but it also embraces the influence of the (from a later perspective, atypical) serious first Godzilla. At the same time, the ambition here is to make a spectacular monster movie, but one in which people will be reduced to tiny creatures who are helpless against nature while also being conceived of as a simple anti-blockbuster in which everything will be conditioned by an ant’s perspective and the viewers will see what the characters themselves see instead of genre money shots. And the reason it doesn’t work is, paradoxically, what they tried to build the film on in the first place: the screenplay and the characters. The secret of the success of the in many ways similar Cloverfield and The Host lies in the consistent adherence to and use of the concept. Cloverfield sticks with the found-footage technique and its characters remain one-dimensional in the interest of giving priority to the monster as a catastrophe that towers over the tiny humans. Conversely, by developing its characters and highlighting the contrast between the commonplace and the monster, as well as the films unpredictable anti-genre nature, The Host manages to express the true nature of the monstrosity towering over the humans with its incomprehensibility. Edwards seems to want to have it both ways, but he doesn’t stick with either. The characters’ perspective and the denial of an ideal point of view become mere quirks when he regularly comes up with compensation in the form of a money shot from a splendid angle. The characters represent a completely absurd manifestation of the attempt to fake a sense of depth. What sense does it make to fill almost all of the major roles with established character actors (with the exception of the protagonist played by a walking pudding) and then give them ridiculously formulaic characters that even the best actor or actress can’t squeeze anything out of? I don’t understand how some reviewers can praise the passivisation of the characters when the film plays by the usual rules. Though it’s true that the most destructive weapons have no effect on the monsters this time, a more essential role is played by the gumption of the central all-American good guy, who not only eliminates all of the embryos of the other monsters, but at the same time also saves Godzilla’s neck in a showdown with the gigantic vermin. Not to mention the way he impeccably reunites strangers and even his own family and survives everything from the long journey home to nuclear explosions unscathed. The result is another contribution to the category of lavishly informed and well-thought-out remakes and adaptations in which experts can show off their ability to discern influences and transformations in comparison with the originals that inspired them. When we take a more detached view, however, all that remains is a burst bubble that may be mesmerising in the cinema with its subtly spectacular nature, but it comes up short at home (even on a big-screen TV). On the other hand, it’s necessary to acknowledge that if one survives the first hour of dysfunctional exposition and then submits to the ridiculous utilitarianism and contrivance of the smallest details, the fiercely serious American Godzilla provides as much of a campy spectacle as the classic, playful adventures of its Japanese inspiration.
()
(less)
(more)
Waiting for Godot... Uh, no, Godzilla. Which wouldn't matter if it was waiting for “a battering" and not a "wannabe father figure Spielberg"; after all, with its focus on the action side "from the subjective point of view of human ants who worship the family above all", standing on insinuation and the unseen rather than full frontals, it is perhaps too reminiscent of Jaws or War of the Worlds. This is mainly due to the overuse of this approach, because what is pleasantly hidden and inspiring in the first half, becomes tiresome in the second half to the point that one loses interest, because if you are merely insinuating for the hundredth time but nothing happens, and for the hundredth time again at the last possible moment… nothing happens, then what’s the point of it all? Just a filler plot and shallow characters, more filler, more filler, Watanabe explaining "what the hell is happening" and all interlaced with "I have to return to my family and although I will not be able to see Godzilla, her roars will be heard constantly" in a thousand and one variations, and without at least one interesting character. To make matters worse, in this scheme that takes itself so deadly serious, this otherwise likable classic that honors the concept of a heroic monster is like Godzilla in a china shop. After all, when the best and the most playful parts of the movie are the opening credits, there must be something wrong.
()
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to avoid comparisons to the previous Godzilla movie. I’m not reviewing the movies as such, but rather the times when I saw them. I think I would give both movies the same review today, but the first American Godzilla will forever remain the better movie for me because I didn’t have to stand in line at the video store to see this one and it wasn’t talked about so much, either. Also, I was younger and I didn’t really notice all the stupid stuff that Emmerich squeezed into his movie. I simply took it for a fact that everything was supposed to be so monumental and I sort of enjoyed the whole thing. Here I take it for a fact that Gareth Edwards finally managed to make a Godzilla movie that a Japanese person wouldn’t complain about. I also like that the story actually contains a whole different world, which is something I’m actually glad about. Emmerich’s Godzilla was a brutal piece of nonsense and had nothing in common with the original Godzilla. I also like the way Edwards approached the digital effects. Despite the fact that with a movie like this it might actually have been a bad idea. He did the same thing he did in Monsters and I‘m not sure a lot of people will like it. I don’t think this underground approach really works for Godzilla. Night action scenes where I could barely see anything really pissed me off. On the other hand, they still have their magic, which is why I’m going to stick with a three-star review.
()
Watching a blockbuster that is heavily schematic (the family archetype of soldier-sibling, the chessboard of supporting characters) while in many ways scrupulously circumventing genre stereotypes (the edited monster fights!), all the while building up space with precise camerawork and unnerving music, is simply a pure joy that is amplified several times over in the final battle to the required epic scope. Or it's been a long time since a destruction genre film made me so happy by actually being a conversational drama. PS: It will probably not be possible to beat the visual highlight of skydiving this year.
()
Indie directors shouldn’t get into commercial blockbusters, so I wouldn’t look forward to it only to be disappointed. There’s enough action, I believe, but it’s not exciting, which is a far bigger problem than if there was not enough action. The most interesting characters are removed in the first act, and for the remainder of the film, everyone stands staring like a moron, or either think up some bullshit (the bomb here is used in the same weird way as in the last Batman from Nolan) or try to arouse the emotions of the viewer (unsuccessfully). If they had “forgotten” about the story and just let the monsters beat the crap out of each other, it would’ve been better. But they didn’t and the result is painful several times. Visually it’s great, as expected, I would love to print out some frames and hang them on the wall, but when things move it’s really bland. And what pissed me off the most was that the unidimensional protagonist always shows up by chance exactly where the monster is heading. Were the Japanese Godzilla from the past the same? If that is the case, the bullshit has remained bullshit. And I don’t like bullshit.
()
