2 Stars (out of four) - For both. There, I said it!
Okay, confession time, full disclosure. I have never been a big Godzilla fan, and frankly, I don't get it. I have seen four of the films all the way through: the original (groundbreaking stuff-both versions), Destroy All Monsters (incredibly awful), Roland Emmerich's much-reviled remake (I think I am the only person on Earth who enjoyed it), and now the new one. I have seen snippets of many others, but that's it. Now, I want to be a fan, it looks like a lot of fun to be one, but I may have missed the window of opportunity for that. I really think you needed to be hooked as a child, and that was never possible for me. Now, I watch the films through adult eyes and frankly, they pretty much suck consistently across the board. Every time a new one is made, I want to be part of the spectacle, to get caught up in the collective fun of the experience, but I just can't do it. I am a movie fan, and I love all kinds. I have never lost the giddy feeling of sitting in a darkened theater in anticipation of a new experience. But Godzilla, taken as a whole series or genre, really sucks.
Now, let's get this new one out of the way. It is fun to watch. Godzilla movies, as a whole, are spectacle and pretty interchangeable from what I have seen. The complaints I have with this new one include that it takes waaaaay too long in the reveal, both from the SPOILER ALERT! (Oh hell, it's a Godzilla film. What does it matter?) bad-guy kaiju (or in this case, MOTU) to Godzilla himself. The film is one big reveal for close to 90-minutes with a pretty epic 15-20 minute battle at the end. The film also laughingly puts in a few human characters who we, I guess, are supposed to care about, but they are just as stupid as the plot itself. Also, let's face it. Humans don't really matter in a Godzilla film. They are there just to move the plot along and for exposition, which truthfully, no one really cares about. The effects are a lot of fun. I am going to come down squarely on the CGI side of the argument. Some of the effects are breathtaking, and CGI just adds to the epic size of the monster and makes it more real(!).
So, I am going to take on the inevitable comparison between the 1998 Roland Emmerich version and the new 2014 version (which from here on I will refer to as 98 and 14). I will first say to all of you: IT'S A FREAKIN' GODZILLA MOVIE! THE DIFFERENCES DON'T MATTER! THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY BAD FOR THE SAME REASONS!!! It may just be easier to take on some of the more pervasive complaints for 98 that I have seen and address them individually:
1. Godzilla looks stupid/nothing like the original: And here we go into the suit versus CGI debate. The whole idea of 98 was to make Godzilla more "real." Granted, the attempt failed sort of miserably, but that is besides the point. The filmmakers should be applauded for at least trying something new, to put their own unique stamp on the mythos to make it stand out. It certainly looks better than another cheesy guy-in-a-suit contraption. Unfortunately, 98's attempt seems to overly rely on the only successful model they had, which brings us to:
2. It is a blatant ripoff of Jurassic Park: Can't argue about this one. From the overall design of Godzilla to the especially egregious baby Godzillas in the Madison Square Garden ending, there are scenes that are lifted almost shot-for-shot from Jurassic Park. Speilberg should sue. Now, that said, I remember watching the movie and marveling to myself about the advent of this new technology. Remember, this was 1998, and CGI as we know it today was still in its infancy. 98 was the first time I remember thinking to myself that we could now do anything with CGI. Jurassic Park didn't have quite the same impact on me because of the great, seamless integration of practical versus digital effects. Speilberg's version is much more believable; and I think, Exhibit A on how to use CGI. It is a tool, not a means to an end, and should be used sparingly. An example on the other side of this spectrum is the Star Wars prequels. The totally artificial worlds were, while eye-popping and gorgeous, were also curiously lifeless. But in 98, the possibilities of CGI were endless.
3. The acting performances sucked: Maybe so, but what do you want? It's freaking Godzilla, not Gone With The Wind! Would 98 have benefitted from better acting? Well, 14 had Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanbe in it, and I have to say, the answer is a resounding NO!!! I am not trying to denigrate any actor's performance in any of the movies, but there is only so much you can do in a Godzilla movie, because actors are merely talking scenery in these films. All you need an actor to do in these movies is to look up bug-eyed and scream, "Oh my God!" and that's really it. You might also need to throw a white coat on one to babble on about some egg-headed pseudo-scientific blather occasionally, another one in a uniform to yell at the egghead about the uselessness of their weapons or the end of the world or something and some gal in a suit to wax philosophically about the hubris of man, blah, blah, blah. The holy trinity of Godzilla archetypes. Just because you have better actors in a movie will not improve a crappy story. For example, just because Mark Wahlberg is in Transformers 4 will not make it a better film. Transformers 3 didn't suck because Shia LeBeouf was in it. It sucked all on its own. So does any Godzilla film.
4. The script was awful/the jokes sucked: Again , no argument here. But, really, what do you have to compare it to? I have seen Godzilla do a flying kick through the air, Bruce Lee-style, to the back of a monster. I have seen him have an annoying son, Star Wars Holiday Special-style. So a Siskel & Ebert doppelgänger or the continual mispronunciation of a character's name or the American-bashing French are so much worse? Come on...get over yourself.
5. Godzilla doesn't use his atomic breath and various other "this isn't what he's like in the other movies" bitching: The one complaint I will give any credence to is that 98 keeps changing his size, similar to King Kong in the original. Again, they were trying something new. It's a Godzilla film! Aficionados of the earlier movies not only apologize for the cheesiness of the effects, they embrace it, citing that suitmation is an art all unto itself. While yes, this may be true, it is an outdated art no longer keeping with the times and should not be taken seriously. Stop-motion animation is a perfect example of this phenomenon of outdated techniques. Younger people snicker at the stop-motion effects of films like King Kong, Jason & The Argonauts, Sinbad, and Clash of the Titans. They say it looks fake, and in truth, when compared to the effects of today, does take you out of the movie. Because of the realism of CGI, it has made the former great art form of stop-motion a dinosaur, appropriate for animated pics and not much else today. So why this clinging to a guy in a suit? I don't get it.
All in all, 98 and 14 are both perfectly acceptable and entertaining fare and there is not much difference between them and any other Godzilla flick. All you Godzilla snobs (wow, there is something I never thought I'd write) out there need to understand that in the end, Godzilla kind of sucks. It's all disposable entertainment, really. It is not great entertainment by any stretch of the imagination outside of the nostalgia it engenders. And if that is what you like, fine, watch the old ones. But we should be demanding that new ones should be better, to keep our imagination and ultimately the genre, vital and fresh, not retreads of the same old crap time and time again.
I need to conclude this discussion with a tip of the hat to the one Godzilla film that actually is a no-kidding, serious attempt to make a point, the original 1954 film. It truly was and is a great piece of filmmaking for a few reasons. First and foremost, as has been repeated ad nauseum, it was a critique on the dangers of atomic power. Remember, at the time of its development, Japan was only 8 years removed from the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's less time at this writing that the distance to 9/11 to today, and consider how much the effects from that attack still gnaw at us. I'm not trying to elicit a comparison, just merely pointing out that Japan has a fairly unique view on the dangers of atomic/nuclear power, and at the time, it was still a raw, open wound for them. Sci-fi, as a genre, has always been a good vehicle to attack controversial issues by putting them in a hyperbolic light, emphasizing the message you hope to tell without being too confrontational about it. There have been many Japanese movies dealing with the bomb, but Godzilla, to this day, is the only one with any lasting resonance to an international audience precisely because of the universal fear of the big monster (Mother Nature gone amok) that will kill us all. It took a serious warning and transplanted it into an entertaining, albeit frightening vision of the consequences of interfering with nature. It is too bad the original with its serious tone and themes has devolved into a monster-of-the-week schlockfest, but that is commerce, and the inevitability of making a buck. Toho Studios produced amazing effects for the time. Yes, it was a man in a suit stomping around a model Tokyo, but that had never been done to such effect before. Toho even considered stop-motion animation, but it took too long, so they came up with an inspired solution, and the rest is history. Over the years, the Godzilla series has become similar to the James Bond series, in that it is a reflection of issues of the day. Both, for the most part, don't stand up well to scrutiny, but that is not the point. The point is to entertain while staying relevant. And yes, while Godzilla has spawned some pretty horrific crap, it will be forever popular because all those little kids that continue to watch it in darkened theaters and Saturday morning marathons, and in the end, that is not such a bad thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment