• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

My Year with Godzilla

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 48: 'Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle' [2018]
Is Godzilla in it? Yes.
Sub or Dub? Dub

This CGI sequel probably follows on from 2017's 'Godzilla: Planet of Monsters', but as that was largely forgettable I'll just have to trust that there's some continuity here. Earth has been taken over by Godzilla, forcing the population to flee into space, returning in a timey-wimey way 20,000 years later. Earnest animated stuff ensues. And talking. Lots and lots of talking.

I'm not sure whether I slept through most of this one or it just felt like it. I had no idea what was going on, or why, and honestly didn't care either way. None of the characters had developed a sense of humour since their last outing - just more love of discussion - and even the visuals seemed lacklustre. It's the sort of middle-entry-of-a-trilogy film that gives middle-entry-of-a-trilogy films a bad name. Everything seemed to be there purely to set up the grand climax of the next film. (Whether there is actually a 'grand climax' remains to be seen. I'm not hopeful.) There are two short female twins, safeguarding an egg. There is mention of a fierce space monster, worse than Godzilla, whose name can only be whispered (the post credit scene gives you the name, if you hadn't already worked it out).

So, yeah, Mothra and Ghidorah are turning up in Part 3. We get it. Why not just tease that at the end of Part 1, and skip this film completely? I suppose it was entertaining for people who missed Avatar's Pandora and wanted an anime version of that, but otherwise this was a turgid mess. Here's hoping that Godzilla, Mothra & Ghidorah go back in time in Part 3 and decide to make a better trilogy on their own.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 49: 'Godzilla: The Planet Eater' [2019]
Is Godzilla in it? Yes.
Sub or Dub? Dub

This anime trilogy concludes pretty much where it began for me - slow, confusing and a wasted opportunity. As teased in the previous installment, Ghidorah emerges to battle Godzilla, albeit from a different dimension. Or something. Characters talk some more about philosophical things, and this writer falls asleep some more. Sweet dreams.

Despite being nonplussed by the first two episodes, I was semi-looking forward to this one, believing we were finally going to get some kaiju action. Alas, 'twas not to be. If possible, I was perhaps even more confused by this third entry, which definitely put the 'God' in 'Godzilla'. There were probably some profound musings on the ethereal in this film, but I was busy sleeping, possibly dreaming of a better movie where, you know, entertaining things happen occasionally. I had to later read the Wikipedia entry for this film to find out whether Mothra actually did show up and I was napping. But, no, apparently she didn't. Oh well.

I'm not sure what the point of these films are, this one in particular. Ghidorah doesn't do much, Mothra remains an egg, Godzilla spends long periods asleep (so we have that in common). I'm all for a different take on the genre, but this just doesn't go anywhere. It raises more questions than it answers. Who is it for? Where's the enjoyment to be had here? Has anyone ever been able to sit through these more than once?

Visually, it does some interesting things now and then, but there is not enough story/action to justify the combined 4 hours and 50 mins runtime. I watched this on Netflix yet still feel someone owes me my money back. Or at least my time. I could have slept some more instead.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'The Cloverfield Paradox' [2018]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Part of the 'Cloverfield' universe

The 'Cloverfield' anthology of films continues with this dumped-on-Netflix entry in which Earth is suffering through an energy crisis. Scientists are shot into space to fire up a particle accelerator in the hopes of engineering free energy. When the thing finally works, our space nerds - along with the rest of the world - begin to experience the worst day of their lives...

If '10 Cloverfield Lane' felt like a good movie persuaded to fit into the Cloverfield universe, then this one feels like the script was dragged kicking and screaming into an alleyway, knocked around a bit and had its family threatened. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 'The Cloverfield Paradox', but it really doesn't need to be a part of this larger universe.

This film wastes no time with characterization, giving us the briefest of outlines for the multi-cultural cast. None of the slow build-up of the original 'Alien' film, for example, which this film often seems to want to be. Instead, we get the hint (in the clumsiest of ways - a TV interview streaming in the space station whilst the experiment is progressing) that their machine might unleash demons and all kinds of inter-dimensional hell. And, what do you know, that's what we get.

Yes, 'The Cloverfield Paradox' is ridiculous, but it's all kinds of entertaining ridiculousness. Weird things happen - such as a new character appearing from nowhere - and our crew scratch their collective heads a bit, shrug and move onto the next weird happening. None of it makes sense, the characters don't react realistically, and yet I didn't care. This film was my kind of bonkers and I happily rode their crazy train. Chris O'Dowd needs special mention for seeming to have the most fun with his role, almost mangling his words with his tongue so far into his cheek.

The film's 'Cloverfield' subplot is the most distracting element, and an attempt at heart-string-pulling, a la 'Gravity' fails. Is this a 'Cloverfield' prequel? Or an alternative Cloverfield universe? I honestly don't care. This is Grade A B-movie stuff, which may not be your particular beverage of choice, but is certainly my cup of tea.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Monsters' [2010]
Is Godzilla in it: No. Godzilla connection: Features, er, monsters...

This film undoubtedly helped director Gareth Edwards secure the 2014 'Godzilla' gig. Here, he takes a realistic view of what a world with giant monsters would look and feel like. The film is set ostensibly in Central America, where the locals have learnt to live with the mayhem caused by the invading space beasts. A magazine owner's daughter has become trapped in the region, and one of his photojournalists is tasked with finding her. 'Monsters' captures their journey back to the US, via various means of transportation, both legal and nefarious.

This is not a kaiju film in the traditional sense, though we do get glimpses of the titular monsters (like giant octopuses). It's much more interested in the somewhat strained relationship between the main characters (a sleazy Scoot McNairy and an ambivalent Whitney Able) and how people adapt to extraordinary circumstances. The film feels real, from the set design to the improv acting of actual locals. The CGI is fine, serving its purpose. The will-they-won't-they element is a big part of this film, but didn't feel quite so natural in execution to me. I think a more ambiguous or even downbeat ending would have sufficed. Still, this is a solid film and worth a watch.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Monsters: Dark Continent' [2014]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Sequel to 'Monsters'

The monsters from 'Monsters' have invaded the Middle East. A group of new army recruits from Detroit are deployed to deal with the extraterrestrial threat as well as local insurgents. It does not end well.

'Monsters: Dark Continent' is a film of two halves, neither of which I liked. The first part introduces us to our cast as they celebrate the birth of a new son, get drunk, involve in some bromance basketball and rough and tumble, and hook up with strippers before shipping out. You can almost smell the testosterone seeping from the screen. I didn't find any of the characters likeable and they were largely interchangeable. These are stereotypical cinematic grunts.

The second part revolves around their exploits overseas, mainly their mission to rescue four lost soldiers. There are some good action sequences here, but the film quickly follows a different path. As [spoiler alert] our boys start getting picked off one by one, their team leader Frater (Johnny Harris) starts to lose it.

There isn't really anything here that is original, and I found the whole thing depressing rather than entertaining. The our-team-leader-is-crazy storyline has been done before, of course, and the macho camaraderie is hardly fresh. The actual monsters play a small role in the film - though are well executed when they do show up - but the film isn't really about them. You could argue that the 'monsters' here are actually the ones who persuade working class lads like these to join up to have a chance to make something of themselves, only to chuck them into unwinnable situations as cannon fodder, and you might be right. No one really comes out well in this film, our survivors being future PTSD poster boys.

The film looks good - it's gritty and real and the CGI fits right in - and Johnny Harris probably comes out best in the acting stakes. As a war-really-screws-you-up film, it sort of works, but even with the inclusion of giant space aliens, it doesn't stand out from others in that genre. It's a shame, as it came close, but ultimately wasn't for me.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'King Kong' [2005]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Features Kong, a Godzilla nemesis

1930s movie director Carl Denham (Jack Black) leads an unsuspecting ensemble to Skull Island to shoot his latest picture. When starlet Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is captured by the legendary giant ape, writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody) heads a team to rescue her. Denham, however, plans to capture the beast and display him on Broadway, to predictably catastrophic results.

This 2005 film is an affectionate, flashy and overlong homage to the 1933 original. Director Peter Jackson displays the same finesse he had shown in his 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy with spectacular visuals and equal lack of restraint. 

I watched the extended edition - all 200 minutes of it - over two nights, which perhaps skewed my sense of pacing but was far more manageable for this late-40-something with a full-time job and a kid to put to bed each night. Surprisingly, I enjoyed the leisurely voyage to the island more than I expected during my first evening's viewing, in no small part to the supporting cast. None of the lead actors stood out for me - Jack Black had an interesting take on Denham, but made the tone of the film inconsistent - but the other roles were excellent,  Andy Serkis, Jamie Bell, Thomas Kretschmann and Evan Parke in particular.

Once on the island, the action is relentless and again inconsistent, swinging from exciting to ridiculous to boring within each set piece. Yes, the CGI is good and still mostly holds up (though CGI humans look cartoony), but there is just too much of it. Kong looked strangely like a grumpy Anthony Hopkins in close-up, I thought, and old-time New York had an uncanny valley effect of being lifelike yet off somehow. Jackson seemed to have recreated some of his LOTR sets with Kong's wall, as well as taking inspiration from his orcs for the natives.

There are obvious nods to the original film, but even with the improved graphics, nothing that surpasses it. Despite the love that went into this, it still felt a little soulless. If I had a spare 200 minutes again, I think I'd rather watch a double bill of the original Kong and 'Son of Kong', with still time to spare to watch the special features.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Reigo the Deep Sea Monster' [2005]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Features kaiju
Sub or Dub? Sub

In the midst of the Second World War, the battleship Yamato encounters a legendary monster of the deep named Reigo. Um, that's about it.

Sometimes poor dubbing adds to the charm of a film. In a similar vein, less than accurate subtitles can be amusing too. However, in the case of 'Reigo the Deep Sea Monster', the subtitles were so bad as to be largely incomprehensible. It didn't help that the film isn't exactly visually interesting either, which made my overall experience of this low budget kaiju film a bit of a chore.

There isn't really a plot to speak of - at least, not one I could easily discern from the gobbledygook I was reading and the dark mess I was watching. The men of the Japanese warship Yamato (later to become an anime spaceship - a series I haven't seen, though I do own the 2010 live-action film) have to come up with a plan to defeat Reigo, who is seemingly too quick, too close and too low in the water to fire upon. (The method the youngest crew member devises is pretty ingenious, actually.)

The filmmakers obviously didn't have mega-yen to spend on this, but you have to applaud their effort. They get their point across, more or less, with miniatures, puppets and very basic CGI. It isn't good, but it somehow worked for what they were attempting. Most of the actors, to give them their credit, also went above and beyond to produce something worthy of the era, this appearing to be (again, as far as the subtitles allowed me to make out) a serious tribute to the real Yamato and her sailors. Yukijiro Hotaru, from the Gamera trilogy, is both the most recognisable face and has the meatiest role.

'Reigo' isn't a good film (I'm still not sure what the weird epilogue was about) but it's an honest one, with its heart in the right place, I think. Still, that's just an observation rather than a recommendation. (P.S. In researching this film for this review, I've discovered it has a 'parody' sequel. God help me, I've found it online and will add it to my watchlist tonight. I don't know why I do this to myself...)
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Deep Sea Monster Raiga' [2009]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Features Godzilla-like kaiju
Sub or Dub? Sub

Why is it so hard to make a decent kaiju parody? The kaiju genre is so full of recognisable tropes, it should be easy to spoof, you'd imagine. Yet, here is another tired attempt which strings together a series of skits in the pretense of a plot and barely manages to raise a smile, let alone a chuckle.

Yukijiro Hotaru returns in this semi-sequel, this time playing the Japanese version of Del Boy (UK reference - look him up). Raiga shows up and the local officials gleefully scheme various ways to destroy him. Laughter-free shenanigans ensue.

There were several moments throughout this film that I felt decidedly left out of the joke, not knowing who any of these actors were. I deduced that one or more of Hotaru's daughters here were played by Japanese pop stars, and a lengthy cameo in the middle of the film was probably a well known stand-up (or, in this case, sit-down) comedian. The fact that he was there to recap the original film (complete with long 'flashbacks') made this already tiresome film seem even longer.

The effects had improved in the four years since 'Reigo', but still sub-par for a kaiju film. The only point I nearly laughed was when onlookers mistook Raiga for Godzilla, and the other actors tried to shush them. It's not much, but I take what I can.

There is really no reason to see this film unless you are desperate to witness a rubber-suited kaiju piss on a burning miniature building. If you are, you are beyond any help I can offer.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 50: 'Kong: Skull Island' [2017]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Part of the 'Monsterverse'; features Kong, Godzilla's nemesis

In 1973, satellites detect an island thought to be mythical. Troops who were about to be demobbed from the Vietnam war are deployed on the pretext of mapping it before the Russians do. They discover an island of extraordinary beasts, including a giant ape. Cue helicopters, CGI mayhem and a cool soundtrack.

'Kong: Skull Island' is a prequel to a yet-to-be-released film, 'Godzilla vs. Kong' and certainly seems like it exists for that purpose alone. That's not to say that it isn't entertaining, but that it feels like an overly elaborate set-up.

The fact that this film is set in the 70s is interesting. It allows the filmmakers to indulge in some 'Apocalypse Now' type imagery, with some subtext about unwinnable wars thrown in (plus some cool tunes too, of course. Kudos to them for skipping 'Fortunate Son'; I was certain it was coming). But otherwise, the era seemed irrelevant and unnecessary. It's unlikely that any of the surviving members of the expedition will feature in any later present-day Monsterverse films, and I'm actually OK with that. I didn't buy that Tom Hiddleston or Brie Larson were from the 70s, neither looking nor acting like they belonged there. Larson in particular was wasted, the script obviously needing to add more female characters, but being hindered by 21st century expectations. Would she really have been accepted so nonchalantly by soldiers who were coming off a long deployment in Vietnam in 1973? I'm not so sure.

Samuel L Jackson plays Samuel L Jackson at his most Samuel L Jackson-ness. I couldn't help feeling that the role would have had to be completely rewritten if he had turned it down; at least, there would have been far less close-ups of the character's cold, glaring eyes. John C Reilly is similarly having a blast and it was infectious; the film sagged whenever the Middle Initial actors weren't on screen.

The effects are excellent and it doesn't leave us hanging to introduce the giant ape we plonked our money down to see. I wasn't so taken with the Skullcrawlers though can't fault how all the creations blended seamlessly into the film. The post-credits scene, explaining the Toho monsters connection, was clumsy and lazy but predictable in this Marvel-led era.

Overall, it was OK. I was expecting more, thus was left disappointed. I'll rewatch this one next year before 'Godzilla vs Kong' comes out, but can't imagine any other reason why I would revisit it after that. Like my Star Wars prequel blu-rays, it completes a set; I just don't have to see it.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,997
Reaction score
1,017
Trophy Points
138
I haven't seen King since theaters. But in theaters, I was grinning from beginning to end, and I loved it so much. I love the original King Kong, I haven't seen the others except King Kong vs Godzilla.
I haven't watched either of the recent Godzilla movies, but I'll try to watch King of the Monsters before Godzilla vs Kong, which I'm very much looking forward to.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Mighty Joe Young' [1949]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Features a Kong-like creature

Impresario Max O'Hara (Robert Armstrong) happens upon a giant pet ape in Africa and persuades his young owner (Terry Moore) to let him headline his new Hollywood nightclub. When the ape inevitably wrecks the joint, a scheme is concocted to smuggle him past the cops who intend to mete out their singular form of justice.

This is a lighter, frothier version of 'King Kong', again backed by Robert Armstrong in a Denham-like role. The star, however, is of course Joe himself, the ape, or rather Ray Harryhausen who articulates him. The effects here are wonderful, blending smooth stop-motion with back projection, animation and mattes. The scene where Joe jostles a lion in a cage still holds up today.

The actors play second fiddle to Harryhausen's wizardry, which is just as well as none shine here (Ben Johnson as the cowboy is particularly wooden). The story takes a couple of wild leaps along the way, from the expected mayhem in the nightclub, to a heist and finally a random (and red-tinted) rescue. It's rather breathless and ensures you get your money's worth for the full 93 minutes.

The depiction of the generic Africans and the casual exploitation of live lions seemingly being tossed around might make some uncomfortable, but otherwise it's a fairly harmless and entertaining film. The effects certainly equal, if not surpass, the original King Kong, even if the plot doesn't.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Mighty Joe Young' [1998]

This 1998 remake follows the spirit of the original 'Mighty Joe Young', if not the letter. Here, Joe, the baby ape, and Jill, his young babysitter, are both orphaned within the prologue by an evil poacher (played with villainous gusto by Rade Serbedzija). It is established early on that Joe is no ordinary ape, to explain (without explanation) his mammoth growth in size. Jill, played in adulthood by Charlize Theron, continues to protect her ward to the extent that he is seen as a mythical figure among the populace.

A lot of the plot points from the earlier film are hit, albeit with a twist. Bill Paxton plays O'Hara who is nice from the get-go, involved in some kind of conservation work, and his motives to relocate Joe to LA are pure. Joe's subsequent rampage during the conservation society's gala is lacklustre in comparison to mayhem his 1949 cousin wreaked in a Hollywood nightclub, though there is a bonus rampage later on.

There are some nice nods to the original: the flashlight Jill stole to buy Joe in 1949 now becomes the method she uses to summon him, and a busker plays the song 'Beautiful Dreamer' during Jill & O'Hara's first 'date'. (I admit I totally missed the Ray Harryhausen & Terry Moore cameos and only read about them afterwards.) The heist of Joe gets a cool twist and the device to save him from being shot is less random than the original (and possibly a homage to 'Beast from 20,000 fathoms'..?)

The effects are surprisingly good, utilising suits, animatronics and CGI. I'm not gonna lie - I was impressed and entertained. Charlize Theron looks gorgeous throughout (the 'fish-out-of-water' element could have been played up more, perhaps) and Bill Paxton, despite not having much of an arc to work with, is always fun to see. The original 'Mighty Joe Young' is probably not in anyone's Top Ten, but I doubt that film's fans have much to decry here. Some scenes may be too intense for the very young, but otherwise this is a solid family film - not one you'll want to revisit over and over, perhaps, but inoffensive for all ages nonetheless. CGI-savvy youngsters aren't likely to turn their noses up at this ape, Mums will probably be charmed by Bill Paxton. And us Dads? Two words. Charlize Theron. 'Nuff said.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Ultraman: The Next' [2004]
Is Godzilla in it? No. Godzilla connection: Continuation of the 'Ultraman' franchise from Eiji Tsuburaya, effects man for early Godzilla films
Sub or Dub? Sub

This re-imagining/reboot of the Ultraman story takes the basic story - pilot becomes giant superhero when necessary to fight giant kaiju - but forgets to add the fun.

I'm not sure who this film is aimed at. It's not enough of a worthy homage to appeal to the original Ultraman fans, but I can't imagine why you would want to see this if you weren't. It's a very basic Everyman-as-Superhero story filmed like a feature-length pilot episode to a TV show. It reminded me of the 70s 'Incredible Hulk' series, with a long set-up (Ultraman doesn't appear until 42 minutes in; the film is only 97 minutes long) with two obligatory change scenes, complete with our hero locked up somewhere, losing his temper and his eyes changing colour.

On the plus side, the effects are good, with a mix of old-school suitmation, animatronics and (less impressive) CGI. The ever-mutating kaiju is very well done, deserving to be in a more entertaining film than this. The acting is fine, there's a good sense of scale to the fight scenes, but as a popcorn flick it's a bit stale. I'm no Ultraman groupie, but I'd rather binge-watch 97 minutes worth of the original series than bother with this again.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,997
Reaction score
1,017
Trophy Points
138
From what I'm gathering from Wikipedia, it seems to be essentially an extended pilot for the show Ultraman Nexus. Perhaps an edit could be made to shorten it into a typical TV episode length? Or perhaps it could be combined with elements from the show to become more entertaining?

Well in any case, I'm actually kind of interested in checking this movie out. I don't know why your description sounds so appealing.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Yeah, you're right, seems the reason it had a pilot TV show vibe was because... it was the pilot for a TV show. I'm either an idiot or a genius. Either way, glad it appeals to you. For completism, I may try to seek out the actual show and review it here, but time is running out this year and I've already started watching the most recent Netflix anime Ultraman show.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
jrWHAG42 said:
From what I'm gathering from Wikipedia, it seems to be essentially an extended pilot for the show Ultraman Nexus. 

I checked out the first episode on YouTube, but even after reading this Wikipedia entry I'm not sure there's much continuity between the film and the series. If I watch more episodes, I'll post a review here. Otherwise, I wasn't impressed with either the purely-CGI kaiju nor the story.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 51: 'Godzilla' [2014]
Is Godzilla in it? Yes

America takes a second stab at Godzilla.

After a seemingly inexplicable Japanese nuclear power plant accident, former employee Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) is arrested trying to enter the quarantined facilities, searching for answers. His military bomb expert son is reluctantly caught up in his wild schemes and theories - that some beast is being hidden from the public. Over time, Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) discovers his crazy Dad wasn't so crazy after all...

It probably goes without saying that this film is better than 1998's 'Godzilla'. Here, our hero (and there is little doubt that this Godzilla is a hero) looks and moves as you would want and expect him to. This film similarly wins points for acting, effects and, perhaps, story (backstory, certainly). However, I can't help thinking there's something missing.

One of the problems is that Godzilla does not seem to be the star of his own movie. It takes a good hour before he surfaces, being teased Jaws-like style beforehand. In the meantime, we do get some excellent acting, Bryan Cranston in particular. (His incarcerated/interrogation scene reminded me of another Spielberg film - 'Close Encounters..' - and I almost expected him to yell, 'Who are you people?!") Unfortunately, Bryan is side-lined, not for any meaningful dramatic reason, but because it seemed the plot had no further use of him.

Hereby lies a couple of other issues I had. Ford Brody has a very convenient job which allows him to be involved directly in the story. He also appears to be a MUTO-magnet (the clunky acronym for Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism), as they turn up wherever he happens to be. (You do not want to take a vacation with this guy.) The film felt like it was paying service to the new franchise as a whole rather than to tell a complete, self-contained story. This is a great introduction to Godzilla, no question; it just isn't a great film, I'd argue.

That said, there are parts here greater than the sum. I probably had a big smile when I saw Godzilla's scales gradually turn blue for the first time. Elizabeth Olsen stood out for me in a relatively small but believable role; David Strathairn likewise. The effects are exceptional, with a caveat: maybe I need to re-calibrate my projector, but some scenes were so dark I could not tell what was going on. The MUTOs were new kaiju and looked more like Gyaos from the Gamera franchise than anything Toho had previously created.

Perhaps I'm being too negative for a film I honestly enjoyed. True, I finished the film slightly disappointed yet also optimistic and legitimately excited for next week's 'Godzilla: King of the Monsters'. I mean, Rodan? Mothra? King Ghidorah? Please, after a whole year getting to this, do not screw this up for me.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Ultraman' [TV] [2019]
Is Godzilla in it? Not that I saw. Godzilla connection: Continuation of the 'Ultraman' franchise from Eiji Tsuburaya, effects man for early Godzilla films

This Netflix animated show carries on from the 1966 live action TV series. Shin Hayata (the original Ultraman) is now a Dad; his son, Shinjiro, has inherited some of his powers. Thus a new Ultraman is born.

I'm no anime fan, for starters, but I vacillated between really liking the style of this 3D animation to finding it annoying and distracting back to enjoying it again. Succinctly put, I found it worked in some places and not in others.

As for the story, it starts off well. The continuity with the original series works and though I wasn't particular into Ultraman [1966], I found myself getting absorbed into the story. Episode 1 is great. I watched 2 others after that and gave up.

Perhaps the overall story isn't unique - we've seen an older hero mentoring his young protege many times ('Batman Beyond' and 'Tron: Uprising', just to name two off the top of my head) - but it went downhill really quickly for me. It felt like watching someone play a video game, complete with early 'training missions' to teach you how to use all the button combos. Episode 2 is literally one long battle. Episode 3 had mini side quests for our hero to complete, which is where I fell asleep, perhaps never to return to Ultraman [2019].

The series may get better but even at just under 25 minutes per show, I'm not willing to bother. I don't think this is for me, somehow.
 

bionicbob

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
8,265
Reaction score
2,390
Trophy Points
168
Garp said:
Week 51: 'Godzilla' [2014]
Is Godzilla in it? Yes
 maybe I need to re-calibrate my projector, but some scenes were so dark I could not tell what was going on. 

No, you do not have to re-calibrate your projector.   The movie is frustratingly poorly lit on purpose.  Even after the JAWS style reveal, the movie still keeps Godzilla in dark with night battles and dust clouds.  So annoying.

I can not wait to read your thoughts on GODZILLA KING OF THE MONSTERS.
For me, it was easily, and by far, the most FUN I had at the movies this past year. :D
 
Top Bottom