Movie Defense Force: Godzilla

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Jimothy Sterling:
Godzilla

That's a lot of fish!

But why do we need any more "monster movies" in the first place? This seems kind of like defending Sharknado.

You know you have nothing to watch but the monster when, dramatically, this movie is Charlies Angels. For Renau to think Mathew Broderick's idea of leaving bait for the monster is "very clever" you have a huge problem. There is nothing to do but watch the monster. And damnit, that aint enough. This movie is still not worth defending.

erttheking:
So what, is Zilla Godzilla's brother in law or something?

He's just a dude who hangs out in Godzilla's apartment, and always orders 'za deliveries, but makes Godzilla pay for it.

Well Jim. I'm impressed, you defended this quite well.

marscentral:
I always liked this film and never understood the hate, but then, I'm not really a Godzilla fan. It is a bit long, but at least it's not Peter Jackson's King Kong long.

Yeah, I even like the Peter Jackson film, but goddamn that film needed some editing.

The 98 Godzilla movie was the first Godzilla movie I'd ever seen. It didn't get blasted just because of the difference between it and the source material. It's some hot garbage and does not deserve defending.

P.S.
The end of the review, where Jim basically admits that it's way too long, not as good as he remembered and he just put out this video because he didn't have any other vids prepared as backup was glorious. XD

Yeah this movie ain't half bad. I mean, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love movies where things get destroyed in a pleasing fashion and that does happen with this movie. I actually think the CGi holds up pretty well considering.
The parts in between the action are sometimes mind-numbingly boring though.

I'm delighted to see so many mentions of the fantastic animated series based on this film. It was a bit on the dark side and leans somewhat heavily on the monster of the day format, but Godzilla: The Series was a great show and worth watching even today. And why wouldn't it be, having been made by the same people that made the Men In Black cartoon series, the shockingly good Extreme Ghostbusters (which is still the best "extreme" relaunch of any series to date), and later on made The Big Guy and Rusty. As a matter of fact that animation company, Adelaide Productions, is still around. They're currently working on The Boondocks.

Jim..... I can't do it lol. I can't fallow you on this one. I gotta be the wet blanket. Yes the oringal God zilla was silly dumb fun.

but that's like saying if they made sponge bob square pants into a live action and just dubbed a voice on a sponge for 2 hours and called it a movie (Not that i'm a fan),
but could you than turn around and go "well the original is stupid."

See... Even I would know that's bull crap LOL.
I don't agree with the whole "I'm in it for the big monster scenes"

cause there a but load of God zilla movie LOL. Maybe more than Bond (or at least close to it). If you ruined king kong (didn't see the new one), a valid defense would be "well we don't have alot of those."
And what's more...

YOU WASTED A MOVIE DEFENSE FORCE ON THIS HOW DARE YOU! (LOL).
Sincerely your begrudging voice of descent
Magog.

I think this perfectly illustrates the problem with slapping a franchise/name on everything out of fear of new IPs not selling. Another such example is Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, which is a fairly playable game that just isn't a Final Fantasy. If it were just called Crystal Chronicles it would have propably been a lot better recieved and remebered.

If you tell me I can skip the first twenty minutes of a film and not miss anything, that's not a good sign. And even for a monster film, my god, was it oppressively shitty. If not for the terrible script and the director's failed attempt to get back at Siskel and Ebert, then definitely for Matthew Broderik.

It's really not a good film by any standards. It's boring as hell, the CGI looks hideous, hence why it's raining all the god damn time in the movie so they could try to hide how terrible it looked. Not to mention Roland Emmerich's fetish for the Military and destruction porn is blatantly obvious though out the entire movie. It's easily Ronald's worst film and that's fucking saying some thing.

Also who cares if Jean Reno is in it, he gets horribly under utilized in the movie, all he does is stand around and be french.

erttheking:
Sounds like Jim had a lot of trouble with this one.

So what, is Zilla Godzilla's brother in law or something?

No, more like the movie happened exactly as it did, but notice how in the movie, Zilla is only called "Gojira" or "Godzilla" by a shell-shocked sailor and that one asshole reporter respectively?

That's pretty much the explanation given in Godzilla 2000: People took them at face value, and by the time someone who actually knew Kaiju debunked it, the rumor had already spread.

This movie is godawfully mediocre. You can say one good thing, you can say one bad thing about it.. it's stupid, there lapses in general common sense in how that monster could hide, how the heat seeking missiles could miss. Smashing things apart and fighting military is decent and that is the only thing you could say.

This along with Alien Resurrection, is really hard to defend because I didn't find that movie funny or scary or interesting. It just seems like Jim is trying to hard now to be controversial now.

Atleast he agreed with me that Godzilla is way to long.

I loved the heck out of this movie.

I have to say, I think a lot of people saying the film missed what 'Godzilla' is supposed to be about forget the first film.

Godzilla wasn't always about a guy in a dodgy rubber suit beating up other rubber suits with his weird looking son. The original film is actually a fairly dark, harrowing story which acted as a metaphor for Hiroshima: a Japanese city is utterly destroyed by a force beyond its comprehension, and the remaining Japanese characters have to come to terms with this force of nature that is more powerful than they can imagine.

It's a really dark story, the original Godzilla. For most of the film, they actually keep Godzilla cast in shadow to make him seem even more ominous and threatening. He's not supposed to be a goofy alien-smashing franchise mascot. That's just Toho doing decades of franchise whoring. The original Godzilla was a primeval force that came out of nowhere and utterly destroyed one of the biggest cities in the world, a monster that caught humanity completely off guard.

With that in mind, I think the 1998 Godzilla is in many ways a better Godzilla film than many of Toho's wretched monstrosities. The focus is once again on this reptile-as-force-of-nature catching humanity off guard, and bringing an entire city to a halt. As in the original film, Godzilla is kept out of clear shot for the first part of the film, in order to emphasise his looming presence. As in the original film, the damage caused by Godzilla is not a direct act of evil, but the lashing out of an animal that is confused and scared. And as in the original film, the 1998 Godzilla deals not only with the repercussions of nuclear technology, but the way in which mankind's creations can be turned against us.

That doesn't excuse some of the crappy writing. But it's not as if the Toho films were ever The Catcher in The Rye, either. 1998 Godzilla had the balls to play the radioactive-monster-destroys-city thing completely straight, as opposed to the horribly self-aware, campy low budget films the franchise had repeatedly seen prior.

It's also worth noting just how much iconography this film managed to pre-empt before 9/11 completely took over Hollywood imagery. We can't move for dark, gritty blockbusters now where buildings go up in flames, and concrete rubble and burst pipes spill onto the streets. 1998 presented a broken, exploded New York three years before anyone knew it would actually end up being a reality. I'm sure there's more than a few recent blockbusters which have looked to the film as visual inspiration when it comes to presenting collapsed skyscrapers and exploding subways.

Also, come on... the way this scene was shot was just beautiful.

My problem with the film wasn't so much that "it wasn't Godzilla," at the time I first saw this I'd only ever seen two Godzilla film, one of which was Godzilla vs. Megalon in which Godzilla teams up with a Ultraman-looking robot named Jet Jaguar (so I can take silliness). My problem was that it was just not a very good movie. The acting was sub-par, the movie drug one WAY too long (I don't think you emphasized that enough), and the entire time I was watching Zilla destroy shit I was just thinking "why are they getting close enough for the big lizard to bite them? Why don't they just fly higher? How can the big lizard dodge missiles like that? Missile go too fast to dodge. How is this thing not under surveillance every goddamned second?" Mostly I was just frustrated with what I saw as stupidities in the execution of the plot.

Also, the reason why Zilla was accepted once it was rolled into Godzilla canon was less because "oh, it's a different monster, so now it's cool" and more because in his one canonical appearance the real Godzilla slung him into the Sydney Opera House and blasted him to fuck with his atomic breath.

I watched this movie when I was 10 and I loved it. I had literally no prior exposure to the genre but I loved dinosaur stuff so this fit right in. I've not seen it in the last 10 years though so who knows what I'd feel about it now. I just know I have fond memories of it.

Could you please do Godzilla Final Wars? That one was cheesy but likable.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 50918)