INDEPENDENCE DAY - Review

"WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT! WE WILL NOT VANISH WITHOUT A FIGHT! WE'RE GOING TO LIVE ON! WE'RE GOING TO SURVIVE! TODAY WE CELEBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY!"

God Bless Americ....I mean the world.....Yeah, the world. Cause the movie President says its no longer exclusive to America. So the world.

The Plot

On July 2nd, gigantic spaceships surround the world, hovering over major cities. When a cable company analyst (Jeff Goldblum) discovers a hidden signal from their satellites that acts as a countdown of destruction, he contacts his estranged wife (Margaret Colin) who is aide to the President of the United States (Bill Pullman) to enact a large scale evacuation. But it is too late, as the aliens destroy every major city around the world. On July 3rd, the surviving military forces, including a cocky air pilot (Will Smith), launch an assault on the ships. Only to discover their weapons have no effect. But on July 4th, the aliens move to make their final strike on the planet, as humanity makes one last desperate attack on their invaders.

Review

What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July than watching the most patriotic pro-American movie ever made.... but ironically directed by a German Director. Roland Emmerich is pretty much the disaster movie king, a title he earned by creating this very film. Jaws may have been the first blockbuster film, but when people look back at what defines a Summer Blockbuster, it will be this one. 

Independence Day is a type of High Concept Summer Blockbuster film that we don't get much in the post Superhero Age of Cinema. A film that pretty much solidified to studio execs what a blockbuster film should be like. Epic storytelling, epic visual effects, massive amounts of action, and relatable yet extremely heroic everyday characters who don't have to be developed too much. It may not have been the first of its kind, but it is heavily considered the best of its kind. Because this movie was the very definition of what cinematic spectacle is suppose to be. From the dogfights to the epic wide shots of  spaceships the size of cities hovering over a famous landmark, this film has everything that is now attributed with popcorn cinema. And I pretty much love it.

The film was created in 1996, post-Jurassic Park, which means that CGI still hasn't been refined to its fullest potential yet. This is where we see a true blending between our modern visual effects and the old school practical effects that have been around for decades prior. The inferno destruction of the major American cities due to the alien blast, still holds up after so many years. Mainly because the destruction of cities was done with miniatures that were built painstakingly detailed, only to be blown with real explosions. This gives it a very tangible feeling that has gotten lost with CGI films, mainly because no matter how much watching a CGI city getting destroyed may be more accurate, there is still that realm of knowing what you see isn't real. But in here, most of what is seen on the screen is completely real. Yes, there is CGI in the movie. But to create the appearance of massive spaceship and jet fighter armadas in the background, while real miniature models fly in the foreground. It is no wonder why this film won the Oscar for best visual effects, because no matter how old this movie gets I can guarantee it will still hold up.

But that's enough praise for the spectacle and the special effects. Because one of the weakest points of the film is its characters. Yes, Jeff Goldblum, Will Smith, Bill Pullman and Randy Quaid are pretty much the only memorable aspects of the film. And an argument can be made that Brent Spiner, the guy who plays the wacky Area 51 scientist, is also the other most memorable actor in the film. However the fact that I can't remember the names of their characters or any other characters for the matter, kind of tells you how important they really are. Because the film is pretty much all story, with the characters acting as drivers for the plot rather than participants. There is some character arc developments for Goldblum's and Quaid's characters, but the changes are so small that it doesn't really seem like so much of one. Everyone in the film is pretty much a capable and heroic version of what we hope we can be if we were ever put in that situation. And given that the only true bad guys of the film are aliens, performed by animatronic puppets, it is pretty clear that the movie is not going for the type of really in depth characters we demand so much in modern blockbusters. This is a film that brings back the simple notion that the first Star Wars movie was about: Good versus Evil. Simple and clean.

The only thing that would really date this movie though is that it is pretty obvious that it is a product of the 90s. Blockbuster films of that era are known to have an occasional over the top character as well as tech that would make youngsters of this generation cringe. In an age when Superhero movies offer good guys and bad guys with a lot depth, this one is just pure fun good versus evil shoot em up.

Final Thoughts

Overall, this movie is a product of a forgotten age of high concept blockbuster cinema. In the Superhero Age of Cinema, there are rarely any original high concept films like this anymore. The closest that we have to something like this is Pacific Rim, which pretty much has a similar story except we have giant robots to fight with against giant monsters, and San Andreas, a very dumb movie that is high popcorn entertainment. I wish we can return to a time when blockbusters were something worth seeing, and not sequels or reboots of existing properties. Which ironically enough is happening with this film in the form of Independence Day: Resurgence. Why can't we have more new ideas? Why? Oh well. Watch this movie to have fun, and that's all.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - AMERICA! F#CK YEAH!

10,000 B.C. vs One Million Years B.C.

Inaccurate Prehistoric Film vs Inaccurate Prehistoric Film

There was once a time when the caveman genre was actually a pretty profitable genre. However, I think the real name should be called the caveWOMAN genre. This is mainly due to most of those supposed "caveman" films feature and sometimes put extreme emphasis on the cavewomen. Why? Because those cavewomen are extremely attractive women. I mean really hot women in animal skin bikinis. The type of women you'd see in the modern times. Sexy cavewoman were the main draw of the hairy caveman film genre along with another bonus: Stop motion dinosaurs!

But let's talk about the women in these films. It is a known historical and archeological fact that the earliest humans do not look like this. They were much more hairier and sturdier. Their concept of beauty is completely different from what our concept it today. In fact, they were all ugly. Not to them, but to us they are ugly. Now to be honest, who would watch a movie about ugly cave people? While that seems like a shallow question, the answer is very simple: Unless the cavewomen look like Raquel Welch, then there's no point in making a caveman film. Which again, I believe it really should be called cavewoman. Granted there is a caveman film starring Ron Perlman called Quest of Fire that is actually the closest thing to being a mainstream film that depicts accurate prehistoric humans. But during the 60s, the beautiful bikini cavewomen reigned supreme.

Now, when I first saw the trailer for Roland Emmerich's film 10,000 B.C. I thought, "Finally, a new prehistoric fantasy film!" While I was partially correct, I was wrong to believe that Camilla Belle would be wearing a skimpy outfit. Though believe me, the prehistoric women in the film not wearing skimpy clothing was the very last thing on my list of problems. I wouldn't even consider it a problem. But when I watched a featurette that had Emmerich stating he wanted to make this kind of film because he wanted to make something that was never seen before. Never seen before. That's nice.

So why compare the two? Because one is a B-Movie exploitation flick that succeeds on many levels and the other is a B-Movie that doesn't know it is a B-Movie while trying to be an A-Movie.

COMPARISONS BEGIN

The Prehistoric People of 10,000 B.C. 

This film should be commended on one part. The era of 10,000 B.C. is supposedly the dawn of civilization. The time when the idea of the city first took root. And around this time human beings would indeed resemble the human beings of today. And it did something amazing by casting a hugely ethnic cast...yet the lead character is still a white guy. Not only that, a white guy trying to blend in with all these ethnic people. I know one complaint would be that even though the people have nappy or untidy hair they still seem to have good personal hygiene. That didn't bother me so much as to what I discovered from the second trailer: They speak English.

A key common theme that has been used in Prehistoric Fantasy films is that the people don't speak English. Even if the cave people are all clearly Anglos, they don't speak English. They speak sounds or gibberish but never complete articulated sentences. Now it is understandable that during 10,000 B.C. there would be a form of language being spoken. So it is pretty much jarring to have these characters speak a modern language when it was recommended to Emmerich that they should use an ancient one. It worked in Mel Gibson's movies, so why not his? Well, apparently Emmerich didn't want that because he didn't want the audience to read while watching the film. He did however give the ancient language to the villains of the movie. So that's a plus.

Also, as stated before, this is suppose to be the cusp of civilization so having an Egyptian....wait, Egyptian city? I thought the first seeds of civilization were in Sumer... Oh well I guess they're in Ancient Egypt. I understand the concept of having tribal nomads battling the advanced permanent settlers but the jumps between regions seems very fast. Where exactly are these people located? I wouldn't be surprised if there were polar regions near rain forests that immediately lead to deserts but come on the shift between regions is so quick that it comes off as unbelievable. Also, civilization was just starting, that doesn't mean that large cities were being built. But at the same time the people in this film are extremely intelligent compared to any other prehistoric film. The filmmakers try to represent humans at the earliest stages of civilization, which is a good thing also. They are intelligent and working to be civilized...but maybe too much.

The Prehistoric People of One Million Years B.C.

This is where we start entering the more unbelievable. Whereas 10,000 B.C. does have legitimate reason to have humans that look like us, One Million Years B.C. goes completely off from what history dictates. Granted, during the 60s film was starting to explore different facets of what it can do and what it can show. There is a saying that sex sells, and as the film's breakout star Raquel Welch proves in her barely nothing there skin wear... it really does. The people in this film are suppose to be prehistoric humans, but if we were to take the literal historical facts, this is obviously not what they would look like. However, the way they acted would've been more in line with how prehistoric humans would be around that time period. They don't have a clear defined language. They were tribal and they were feral. Survival of the strongest was their way of life. Hunting and gathering was their livelihood. They lived for nothing else.

Now here's why I'm going to say the wardrobe is more effective than the wardrobe in 10,000 B.C. It is MEMORABLE. You remember the burliness of John Richardson. You remember Martine Beswick. And I can guarantee that you will remember Raquel Welch too! These characters may not speak properly like the ones in 10,000 B.C. but what they do have are compelling performances simply through body language and actions. Their image is striking and their actions are striking. You know immediately what they are thinking even if you have no idea what they're saying. Sure it had a narrator telling the audience the names of the characters, but at least there was no narration for the whole thing. Their actions even clearly define the vast differences between Welch's more advance and artistic tribe against Richardson's more barbaric and ruthless tribe. Dialogue may help sell a movie, but for this one it wasn't really necessary.

The Creatures of 10,000 B.C.

10,000 B.C. was unique among the Prehistoric Film genre in that it kind of did something never seen before: use Ice Age and Post Ice Age animals. This is probably one of the first times Wooly Mammoths become an integral part of a film, especially a huge blockbuster film. They have been used very minimally in other films dealing with the prehistoric, but never in a Prehistoric Fantasy film. However,  mammoths were the only creatures that were used effectively while the other creatures in the film were lackluster.

There are terror birds in the forest sequence that do add to some of the action but are not really effective in evoking a strong action scene. They come and they go, but not as badly as the Sabertooth Tiger in this film.

The Sabertooth was one of the main reasons I wanted to see this film. I thought finally they would give this ancient predator its due in a cinematic sense. The creature design for the beast is not accurate, but at least it is a powerful design that tells your brain, "that's a sabertooth tiger." I was extremely disappointed that the creature only had a cameo appearance. By cameo I mean it was trapped and then the hero of the film set it free. This creature is spoken of later in the film as being the most dangerous creature in their world, yet it comes off as something that is docile. If Emmerich wanted to sell the savagery of this time period, it would've served him better if there had been a more memorable scene with the Sabertooth. Especially if the posters give off the vibe that the hero is going to face off with the beast. Very misleading.

The Creatures of One Million Years B.C.

No one will ever top Ray Harryhausen. His stop motion creature effects are some of the most memorable and iconic in genre filmmaking. Yes, humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. But in a Prehistoric Fantasy film, the laws of history do not matter. These creatures were here to add to the drama of two people from different worlds living in a savage one. The creatures are definitely one of the highlights of the film, adding a flair of excitement at points where things may seem to turn dull. It is a great and effective use of special effects to convey a world. Yes, there are the occasional force perspective live lizards and spiders, but the stop motion creature battles make this film memorable in so many ways.

Plot vs Plot

Prehistoric films tend to not have complicated plots. Or do they? 10,000 B.C. is a straight forward beat for beat in your face telling of "The Hero's Journey" in a prehistoric setting. One Million Years B.C. is a story of two people from very differing ideologies finding themselves drawn to each other and needing each other in order to survive an ever-changing world. That sounds a lot more deep than it has any right to be. But the truth is there. 10,000 B.C. may have characters we can fully understand thanks to characters speaking a modern language, but it is the lack of true dialogue in One Million Years B.C. and the complex storytelling that saves this movie.

The Winner is Obvious 

One Million Years B.C. may be dated and also inaccurate in so many ways possible but it still offers up something completely entertaining and thought provoking at the same time. 10,000 B.C. could've been such a film. Had Emmerich went more crazy with the action, had something of a more interesting plot and used an ancient language we could've had a modern Prehistoric Fantasy film. It could've potentially revived the genre as there have been a huge lack of dinosaurs or prehistoric beasts in film that is not a Jurassic Park movie. I could say there is some enjoyment in Emmerich's efforts to bring back the genre, which there are some (the mammoth hunt) but in the end there is being straight forward and being obviously predictable. I just hope one day someone takes another stab at the Prehistoric genre because there is nothing wrong with cavemen fighting prehistoric beasts and unrealistic sexy cavewomen!

Godzilla (2014) vs Godzilla (1998)

AMERICAN REMAKE VS AMERICAN REMAKE

**SPOILERS**

This article spoils a great deal of the 2014 and 1998 Godzilla films. If you do not wish to be spoiled then feel free to watch the films prior to reading this. Or if you watched one and don't care for the other that's perfectly fine too.

I still have fond memories of the 1998 Godzilla. Like many kids growing up in the 90s there are some films that we love so much that turn out to be complete garbage as we get older. The biggest example for that would be Batman and Robin. But for some strange reason, there are two movies out of the slew of bad ones that I still pretty much enjoy. Batman Forever, a film that most people say is weak compared to the Tim Burton films yet still oddly entertaining and I agree. It was my first Batman movie and has my first celebrity crush, Nicole Kidman. And then there's Roland Emmerich's Godzilla, a movie I'm sure annoyed my parents with how much I watched the film as well as wanting to own every product related to it.

This is the action figure I used to own. No this is not a picture
of the one that I had. This is a product picture.

Its true. I loved that movie so much as a kid that my parents even bought me a life size (more like 6 feet but you know what I mean) blow up Godzilla. I'd terrorize my parents around the house with my giant friend, and it must've been comical seeing this little child trying to carry a light weight yet large creature through a tiny house. I had normal sized action figures too. In fact I remember having Zilla (the Toho canon name for Emmerich's creature) battling my deluxe Jurassic Park T-Rex toy. Which speaking of Jurassic Park, is probably why I liked the movie so much when I was young.

I mean, Jurassic Park was my first exposure to dinosaurs attacking people, so it would've been a matter of time that I would discover Godzilla. My only knowledge of him stems from small clips shown in dinosaur documentaries where the narrator or paleontologist would constantly say, "that is not how a dinosaur would act." And as kids, we always want to show how smart we are so I would always believe that statement. All of that combined attributed heavily to my love of the 1998 film.

However a year or so after the 1998 film premiered, just as Jurassic Park made me want to learn more about dinosaurs, I wanted to learn more about Godzilla. And so I asked my father to rent as many Godzilla movies as possible. The first one that he was able to get his hands on was a film that scared the hell out of me at that young age: Godzilla 1985. Since I'm unable to find a copy of it today, I can't exactly recollect my memories of the film, mainly because it scared me so much that I tried to block it out. I was so frightened of that Godzilla, but not the one in the Emmerich film. Usually when something scares you, the instinct is to stay away. Yet since I asked my dad to find Godzilla movies for me to watch, I decided to keep watching as if hoping to see something similar to the Emmerich film. I was wrong. 

The movies that my father were renting or buying for me were from the Heisei Period of Godzilla, aka the era of the 80s reboot that lasted into the 90s. This reboot's goal was to bring back the darkness from the original 1954 Gojira mainly due to the sequels turning Godzilla into a hero. The Heisei was about making him ambiguous. Most of the time he would be a villain and only turned anti-hero when another villainous monster enters the scene. This level of ambiguity fascinated me as I started to be less and less scared with this Godzilla. It wouldn't be until a couple years later that I would discover what Godzilla is suppose to be: a metaphor for human tampering and the unstoppable power of nature. 

Many years after that realization to now do I see and completely understand why people would look at the 1998 Godzilla as an atrocity. However, as I pointed out in my review of the 2014 rendition, I still find some enjoyment from the 1998 film. And this is where we compare and contrast.

COMPARISONS BEGIN

The Beast - 1998

Production Designer Patrick Tatopoulos was given one note by director Roland Emmerich: "He's got to be really fast." And with that one note, Tatopoulos completely redesigned the iconic slow moving beast into a slick fast moving Tyrannosaurus Rex on steroids. Radioactive steroids. The design has very little resemblance to the original Godzilla. Though if "it looks like a giant dinosaur" counts as a resemblance then I guess that's the closest the two of them will get.


Now, I have to stress that I'm not one of those Godzilla fanboys who are angry with the way he looks. I actually like the design. Anatomy wise the design does look like a vicious terrestrial animal that is equally vicious in the water. As a monster there is really nothing wrong with the way it looks. It is a very elegant design, which is probably why it doesn't work for Godzilla fans based purely on looks. There is also something majestic about it, which is an obvious homage/rip off of the Jurassic Park craze of realistic portrayal of dinosaurs. Those factors probably play into why I like the design of the beast in this film. However, for me, doing a complete redesign is fine as long as the personality of the character is maintained. An example of that would be Wolverine in the X-Men Films who does not look like the short yellow spandex man from the comics, yet he still maintained the savage personality from the comics. I probably would've been fine with a complete redesign of Superman if his personality traits remain in tact. And that was the key to making a physical redesign acceptable. And after binge watching several Heisei Era Godzilla films, I would eventually come to the conclusion that Emmerich's Godzilla failed to capture the personality.

I completely get that they wanted to make it act like an animal. It adds some sense of reality to it. But at the same time they're forgetting one thing: Godzilla is a FORCE OF NATURE! The film portrays him as a sympathetic lost creature that just wants to lay eggs. That's nice for an average monster movie. That's even nice if they had called this a Beast from 20,000 Fathoms remake, which would've made it somewhat more acceptable. The problem is the filmmakers are claiming that this creature is GODZILLA. The name signals mass destruction on a devastating level. A powerful brute force that can't be stopped. In other words: unstoppable. But as the films shows, this thing can get hurt. And by get hurt I mean badly. Godzilla does feel pain but it is more like an annoyance rather than actual flesh wounds. This Godzilla is weak and constantly needs to run away from danger. Which is another thing the creature was lacking as a personality trait: complete indifference to human attacks. This creature can't take a hit and keep going. Instead it has to dodge and evade before it can strike back. Which can be seen as the one plus side of this iteration. He's smart. The original Godzilla was intelligent to a degree, so it can be considered good that this Godzilla is just as intelligent. The number of problems that people have with this creature were apparently fixed by this later iteration:

 

Yes, that's right. The spin-off animated series of this iteration of Godzilla actually possessed all the traits that was missing from the movie version. The animated Godzilla even had atomic breath, a trait that was heavily missing yet only referenced to in the live action reinterpretation.


I think it is safe to say that most of my love for that movie comes from the amazing animated cartoon that followed it. That's why I have a lot to be thankful for with this Godzilla. But still...there can only be one king. And that king has returned.

The God - 2014

When Sally Hawkins character in the 2014 film referred to this beast as a God, she wasn't kidding. This creature is the purest representation of nature. The way he should be. The design that Garth's team went through was clearly a great tribute to the formidable King of the Monsters. It is a new design, based on lizards, sharks, grizzly bears, and of course the original Godzilla, yet at the same time it still feels like the original Godzilla. It doesn't even stray far from what the Emmerich version did. Though if there is a significant difference between this new Godzilla with the original Japanese design, it's him being...fat. Well, fat is not really the term I'd use. That's the term that most Japanese fans and film critics have said about Godzilla. All the "Haha America is Fat Jokes" were used everywhere. But at the same time, this thing is ridiculously huge. I mean really really huge. This is the tallest and the largest interpretation of Godzilla ever. It is twice the size and height of the original. The idea behind that was to inspire a sense of awe as well as a sense of "no matter what we do, there's no point." It is like staring at a passing hurricane being in awe of its power but also questioning if you'll come out alive. That is a trait that the 1998 Godzilla was missing, and this one definitely oozes it.

The backstory of this creature is even more aligned with the original 1954 Godzilla in that this being is ancient. It survived millions of years with the added touch that this being existed when the planet was filled with radiation. Thanks to Seth MacFarlane's Cosmos reboot, I have an idea of how far back this creature must've existed when the planet was teeming with radiation. And if it can survive that, this creature can survive anything. Except other creatures that have the same survival capabilities. But then again, if this creature can survive millions of years it really seems pointless to try and stop it.
I'm actually quite impressed that they found a way to weave in elements of the 1954 Gojira film by making this one seem like a spiritual sequel in a way. This is not the first time that has been done as Return of Godzilla (the Heisei Reboot) and Godzilla 2000 (the Millennium Reboot) both act as indirect sequels to Gojira. This brings a huge amount of respect to the filmmakers for keeping that trend in tact as well as his overall design. But what about his personality?

This Godzilla is very close to what everyone would expect from him. He's a force of nature. Unstoppable. Fairly intelligent. And indifferent to humanity. However, surprisingly that last trait of indifference is taken a little bit further. Usually when Godzilla is attacked by the military, he retaliates and destroys them then goes on to destroy a major city. Oddly enough, this Godzilla did no such thing. In fact this Godzilla didn't even bother to retaliate when the military attacked him. He was annoyed but at no time did he try to fight back. This is interesting as it shows a more animalistic side to Godzilla than ever before. When an animal is cornered, it will strike back. But in the case of Godzilla, a creature that is incapable of being cornered, it will run away. Does that make it a coward? Not really. Because again, even without knowing it, this thing indirectly kills people. What does it really want to kill? The M.U.T.O.s also known as the creatures that he preyed upon millions of years ago. His goal is only to hunt creatures that are massive and ignore combat with anything else. This is a departure from the Godzilla who would destroy buildings even after saving the world from a dangerous threat. This Godzilla does no such thing. If a building is in its way, it will go through. But really, this God avoids confrontation with humanity and just focuses his energy on the real prey.

Because of this some people have misinterpreted him as a hero. He's not a hero. His actions just seem heroic because what he happens to be doing does benefit our survival. But in fact, it really is about fulfilling his own hunter instinct. So yes, he does come off as a guardian. It definitely goes hand in hand with the Show Era Series. But he's more of a guardian for the planet, not the beings living on it.

Plot vs Plot

I don't know how many people notice this, but the two films kind of have the same exact plot. Not completely the same... well kind of. In the Emmerich film radioactive testing causes a gigantic creature to emerge. In the Edwards film a radioactive power plant causes a gigantic creature to awaken. Emmerich's film had a French agency trying to record and cover up the actions of the creature. Edwards' film had a Japanese agency/corporation(?) recording and covering up the presence of the creature. In both films a gigantic creature turns a major coastal city into a nesting ground. And in the end it is the protagonist's job to destroy the nest. Do you know what the difference between the two movies was? In Edwards film, the ones doing the nesting are the M.U.T.O.s and not Godzilla. In fact, from sources that I found on what Emmerich wanted to do for the sequel are extremely similar to Edwards film. I'm not joking. The planned sequel to Emmerich's film was about gigantic insects that were created by the same nuclear blast that made Godzilla terrorizing the world with their only hope of surviving is the surviving child of Godzilla! Yeah, that's the plot for Emmerich's sequel. And it is the plot of Edwards movie. Which is strangely like the plot of Emmerich's film. Weird huh? But who handled it better? Obviously Edwards. Why? He made Godzilla a wild card instead of the world ending antagonist. Not only that, the build up and the actions of the characters are more realistic and believable compared to the cartoon characters in Emmerich's film. Which is really weird that the cartoon characters of the animated Emmerich Godzilla were more believable than the live action characters. But when you look at it this way, it really does show you that Emmerich was not wrong with his thinking. It was perfectly sound. The problem was making Godzilla the father/mother of an apocalyptic brood.

You know the 2014 one is the winner

It's obvious who made the better film. Really obvious. However, I did this to point out the differences yet similarities that the two films have. Do I prefer one over the other? Yes. But am I one of those people who hates the Emmerich version? I want to be, but I can't. It was a key film in my life that made me obsessed with Godzilla. I even watched it recently again and still found it vastly entertaining. But I definitely LOVE Gareth Edwards' take on the King of Monsters. I look forward to what the future brings with this new reboot and hope that it remains bleak...atmosphere wise that is.