Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) - Analysis and Review

Shellshocked

That's what a lot of TMNT fans were feeling when they learned that this film was being produced by Michael Bay. And the long road to getting filmed was one filled with drama. Does it put all the naysayers to rest? Let's look at the Plot first.

The Plot

When special interests reporter April O'Neil (Megan Fox) sees an opportunity to move up the broadcast food chain, she finds herself caught in a secret war waged between the Foot Clan and... TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES.

Analysis

There's a lot to be put into consideration about the creation of this film. First, Michael Bay was responsible for bringing this franchise back into the minds of movie executives. And why not? It is one of the most beloved franchises of the 90s and definitely has a huge following. From its origins as a dark and gritty comic that was a satire on superheroes to the big screen with rubber suits to the animated shows that are still around today, the Turtles have been in the lives of a generation. A generation that has now grown and still remember the pizza loving, skateboarding, mischievous yet heroic foursome that the Turtles are. I am from that generation. And yet. I'm not a fan.

That doesn't mean I don't like them. I still watched them and know enough about them to have nice conversations with friends of mine who are fans. But I was never one of those hardcore die-hard fans.  I was a huge fan of Transformers and other things, but never a big fan of the Turtles.

So when it was announced that Michael Bay was producing the latest big screen iteration... I could care less. I didn't think anything of it. Even when it was announced that the title was just going to be called Ninja Turtles and they were going to be aliens instead of mutants, I didn't mind it. I did feel some sympathy for the fans who were outraged about hearing this. For me, I was at that point in my life when being faithful to the source material didn't mattered to me. What mattered was making a good movie. And given Michael Bay's track record, although his movies aren't good he knows how to make entertainment. Except for Age of Extinction, that was like watching someone live smear shit on the big screen. 

However people seem to be forgetting that Michael Bay is producing not directing. Those are two very different things. But from what can be seen about the final product, it can easily be mistaken for a Michael Bay film. So how was it?

Review

It needs to be made clear that this film was directed by Jonathan Liebesman. NOT Michael Bay. Jonathan Liebesman. NOT MICHAEL BAY! Having said that, this looks like a current Michael Bay movie. Everything from the high color saturation, to the lens flares, to even some of the camera movements. Liebesman has a specific handheld camera style that was shown in Battle: Los Angeles and Wrath of the Titans, that really starts to appear like a weak Michael Bay rip off here. His style in the film seems to have morphed into how Michael Bay would shoot the film, but luckily it didn't include the Michael Bay-ism of having overly sexualized women and toilet humor that goes too far. This is a more kid friendly Michael Bay, if it was directed by Michael Bay. But it isn't. Which helps this movie more so than one might think.

The story does play out a little bit similar to Michael Bay's first Transformers film in that the focus of the story is on the human characters before shifting to the non-human ones. Megan Fox rejoins the Michael Bay train as April O'Neil, the iconic reporter from TMNT lore. The story revolves around her struggles of working her way up the news food chain to discovering that she may be connected to the creation of the turtles. Given that so much of it is focused on her, this is where we really see Fox's acting chops get put to the test. And she does... well? It is a passable performance, but is very obvious that a much talented actress could've handled this character better. And given that most of the movie focuses on her, it really doesn't help that we have a barely okay performance as the lead to a very predictable story.

Then there is Will Arnett as April's cameraman, Vernon Fenwick. His character seems to have been written as a potential love interest for April. However the fact that Arnett looks a lot older than Fox, and it makes him look more like a creep than a love sick puppy, it probably would've been better if they casted a younger actor for the part. Arnett does fine with what he's given, but it is obvious that this role was definitely not meant for him.

But what about the ones the audience pays to see? The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles! How are they? Well, to be quite honest. They were...almost perfect. I say almost mainly because of Johnny Knoxville as the voice of Leonardo, the leader of the turtles. Pete Ploszek did the motion capture for Leonardo while filming, but it is Knoxville's voice that we hear in the final cut. And it really isn't suitable for someone who is suppose to be the leader. I wonder what the reason for this change is, seeing as how the other mo-cap actors get to keep their voices in the finished film.

Alan Ritchson, Noel Fisher and Jeremy Howard are the ones who have that privelage, and I'm glad they did because they are actually perfect in their roles. They play Raphael, Michelangelo and Donatello respectively and perfectly. Each of them brings out the personalities fans will know and love so well that it is a shame we don't get to see them as the primary focus of the film. Ritchson's Raphael gets more screen time than the others, probably because he's the badass of the group, but it is indeed fan favorite Michelangelo who steals the show. Fisher does an excellent job playing the lovable Ninja Turtle and has the character down to a tee. Howard's performance as Donatello is admirable as the geeky one of the group, yet given his lack of screen time we can't exactly get a grasp of him. But from what little is shown, he does it perfect.

Of course there is Master Splinter, the overgrown rat that teaches his "sons" ninjutsu...from a discarded book. Yeah, suspension of disbelief. He is voiced by Tony Shaloub, who does an okay job at it, but lacks the kind of gravitas one would expect from Splinter. It is still a nice interpretation, it just lacks gravitas.

And as for the villains, it was misleadingly promoted that Will Fichtner was going to be the iconic samurai villain, Shredder. Well, he's not. Instead we have a Japanese actor who has his face concealed the whole time in the shadows playing the Shredder. This gives Turtle fans a sigh of relief knowing that Shredder is played by a Japanese actor. However, most of the time Shredder is a CGI robot samurai that resembles a smaller version of Megatron from Transformers. Given that this is a Michael Bay produced film, it should be obvious. Even though Fichtner is the primary antagonist of the film, Shredder still comes off as the main threat. He is definitely everything I'd want from a villain. Mysterious and almost unstoppable. In all the action scenes involving him facing off against the heroes, he dominates the fight. Almost too much, but since he's too powerful, it makes defeating him feel like an even greater victory. And its that over powered nature that makes him feel like a genuine threat. Something that Marvel Films seem to lack with their bad guys.

The story is pretty straight forward and predictable, with an ending that copies The Amazing Spider-Man's finale. However given its length of being only 90 minutes, the plot doesn't drag and is a little bit more compact. Would it have benefited with more? Yes. But I'm actually happy with the length that it is. It says what it needs to say, even though it is predictable, yet it is highly entertaining. And fans of the source may feel outrage for the slight tweak that is made to their origins. No, they are not aliens. They kept part of the original origin story, but have it tie in with April O'Neil. It still doesn't detract from the overall film, just hardcore fans will find it detracting.

Final Thoughts

Seeing the 20% rating on Rotten Tomatoes makes no sense to me. Yes, this movie is not that great, but it is on the same level as other movies such as Lucy and Hercules yet it gets torn apart viciously. I don't believe it deserves all the extreme negativity that it does, because this is a genuinely entertaining film that is more appropriate for kids than the Transformers films. I think it is mainly because of the name Michael Bay, that keeps people from seeing the genuinely fun and competent storytelling being shown here. It is not a bad movie and it is not a good movie. But it is a genuinely entertaining one.

SCORE: 6.5/10 - Kids are going to love it, and maybe if you look past the Michael Bay name, you might enjoy it too

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - Analysis and Review

"Apes, together...STRONG!"

The unexpected hit known as Rise of the Planet of the Apes gave way for the arrival of this film. A powerful story with a powerful character who is not even human.

Plot

It has been 10 years since the Simian Flu has wiped out most of the human race. Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his apes have evolved due to the side effects of the drug that created the Simian flu. They're now a flourishing community that is slowly becoming a highly intelligent species. However when the first humans in two years enter the picture, the gears of war silently begin to turn. And only Caesar and the human Malcolm (Jason Clarke) can hope to stop it.

Analysis

A story is everything. A message is everything. Both need to go hand in hand together. And when it is found in a blockbuster, that is something to truly behold. It is a common belief to think that summer blockbusters just need to be fun with style over substance. That doesn't mean that there is no substance, it just isn't what makes a blockbuster. The Planet of the Apes series is not blockbuster material. I'm talking about the original series. These were hardcore science fiction films dealing with the race issues, the dangers of nuclear weapons, inevitability of the end. It was grim yet had a slight flair of entertainment value that can veer into blockbuster territory. I still believe that the current Apes films are not really summer blockbusters. They are films, promoted as summer blockbusters that deliver enough thrills to make people believe it is a blockbuster when it really isn't. That's not to say none of the Planet of the Apes films have been blockbusters. 

Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was a blockbuster. Because it had style and no substance. Remember what I said about blockbusters being style over substance? Well, that substance may not be important but it has to be there. Burton's film did not have substance. While it succeeds as a blockbuster in terms of box office, in terms of being intelligent it fails. Why would I want a blockbuster to be intelligent? Especially if Tim Burton was one of my favorite directors? Well, because the movie he was remaking was based on an intelligent movie. A powerful movie. The makeup effects in Burton's film were superior thanks to Rick Baker, but even great makeup can't cover up a movie with no substance. I enjoy the movie as a sci-fi B-movie throwback but since it is a remake of a smart film, one would hope that the film would live up to that intelligence. Luckily this new series begun by Rupert Wyatt and now helmed by Matt Reeeves does just that.

Review

The first thing to get out of the way is Andy Serkis. The man is ridiculously talented and deserves a lot of recognition for what he has done for not only this film but for the industry as a whole. His portrayal of Caesar is amplified not only by his performance but with the thousands of animators who dedicated their time to ensure that we can see his performance merge organically with the chimp leader. His contribution to Motion Capture and how it has grown into a legitimate acting art form cannot be ignored. It shows from how he was able to guide the other actors in this film in how to embrace the technology to become an extension of themselves rather than just a special effect. It shows especially for actor Toby Kebbell who becomes the tragic antagonist Koba in a performance that can even rival the king of motion capture. Their performances as two apes with the same ideals but different ways of going about it really is the drive of the film. There are moment when you forget this they are CGI rigged to actors but rather actual living breathing chimpanzees that can act. It truly is an amazing thing to behold.

The second thing to mention is the story and the theme of the movie. It is very rare for something to be billed as a blockbuster to have an incredible yet simplistic story that makes its theme known but never as something that is hit over the head. The theme being misinformation can lead to disaster. There is good in both apes and humans, but where there is good there is also the potential for evil. Because of that potential, sometimes it overshadows the idea of good for both sides. It is what makes the film compelling in that there is no clear cut apes are good and humans are bad. In this film both sides are to blame for what will eventually lead to one side returning to savagery and the other rising to power. 

As powerful as Caesar and Koba are along with the story that is driven by both of them, they are unfortunately the only strong well rounded characters of the movie supported by one dimensional characters. That's not to say that is a bad thing, because the human cast played by Jason Clarke, Keri Russell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Gary Oldman were great with the roles they were given. They served the story naturally and Clarke's Malcolm is a great surrogate for James Franco's character in the previous film. And while there is small hints of other dimensions to their characters, in the end all of them still appear one-dimensional. Which is a shame because they were all fantastic with what they're given. Even the unknown actors who support them.

It is a shame to also say that the other apes aren't really given much to work with either. The only big name among the apes that might be known to some is actress Judy Greer who plays Caesar's wife Cornelia. She doesn't do much but her presence adds a lot to the idea of family. But one cannot deny that they are all amazing.

Final Thoughts

This is one of the best movies this summer and definitely a film that is masquerading as a blockbuster. It has heart, it has soul, it has story and it has flaws. The flaws prevent it from being the best of the summer, but there is no denying that this is definitely The Dark Knight of the rebooted Planet of the Apes series.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - HAIL CAESAR!!!

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit - Analysis and Review

A reboot of a beloved character that has become obscure

I'll be honest in saying that I have no idea who Jack Ryan is. I know who Tom Clancy is, but that's because of the various video games I played. So when I learned that Chris Pine is going to be taking the role of Jack Ryan, I started wondering just who is this character? Well for one thing, it did lead me to watch now my all time favorite film: The Hunt for Red October. Which is funny because my long time favorite film has been 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I guess I just have a thing for submarine movies. Come my surprise that the character of Jack Ryan in the film played by a young Alec Baldwin comes off as more of a supporting character to Sean Connery's Cpt. Ramius. I'm not denying that Ryan is a main player in the film, yet what has been listed as the best Jack Ryan film doesn't seem to have Ryan as the star. So then comes my further investigation in finding out that only when Harrison Ford took over as Jack Ryan did he really become a central figure to the plot. So now I have some knowledge of this character. He's a CIA analyst who apparently will go on to become The President one day. So how does the reboot and Chris Pine fair against their predecessors?

The Plot

CIA Analyst Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) discovers a plot by the Russians to completely crash the U.S. Economy with a terrorist plot. After being activated by his handler Harper (Kevin Costner), Ryan gets thrown in to the shadow wars of the CIA in Moscow to confront Russian Tycoon Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh/also director). However when his fiancé Dr. Cathy Muller (Keira Knightley) discovers his other life, the game to retain the U.S. Economy gets more complicated.

Analysis

I never really understood using normal names as movie titles. Originally this film was just simply titled Jack Ryan. Which to people who would know who that is would be either thrilled or displeased that a new Jack Ryan movie is coming. But for the majority of movie going audiences, no one will know what that is. When John Carter was made as the final title to Disney's adaptation of the legendary sci-fi novel, A Princess of Mars, I knew immediately people are not going to be interested. Just from the title alone, it is a generic name which equals a generic title. It doesn't tell the audience anything about the movie or gives a hint at what it could be about. The title Jack Ryan is like that also in that unless one read about Tom Clancy or knew about the character beforehand, the average audience member will not know who or what this movie is about.

Now there is the case of Tom Cruise's film Jack Reacher doing well despite the fact that outside of the literary buffs who know the name and the fact that Reacher is suppose to be a giant, no one knows who Jack Reacher is. Yet the film had a star power draw in order to get people to watch it: Tom Cruise. Both Jack Ryan and John Carter don't possess such star power for their leads. While John Carter suffers the syndrome of being based on the original space opera only to become a movie 100 years later when so many other movies had improved on its premise, Jack Ryan is a film that does not suffer that sort of syndrome. It suffers from something else. Being safe.

Review

Its a shame that despite being an incredible lead in the Star Trek films by J.J. Abrams, Chris Pine can't seem to have the audience draw that people would believe he would have. His portrayal of Jack Ryan at the beginning of his career as a CIA analyst was a fine one. An okay performance that doesn't really show the Ryan that fans are used to till the third act. However movie goers who don't know who he is will not see that special transition that he makes in how his portrayal mirrors Baldwin or Fords performances as the character in his prime. I believe that Pine deserves to be a star, and that the Jack Ryan character would've been a great way to show he's not just Cpt. Kirk 2.0. Unfortunately the script given is not really enough to make him stand out. And that is a recurring theme I'd like to give for this review. Everyone is just...fine.

Kiera Knightley does fine as Dr. Muller. Kevin Costner does fine as Agent Harper, who honestly seems more like the Jack Ryan fans know more so than Chris Pine. Whether that was done on purpose to give Ryan someone to be influenced by, I'm not sure. But even director Kenneth Branagh as the villain Cherevin was just okay. I was a huge fan of Branagh's rendition of Hamlet, which he also starred in. In there he gives a powerful performance along with incredible direction. I was even a huge fan of his take on Thor which he didn't star in but got incredible performances from his actors. In this film, I didn't see the same flair of direction from Thor or the same acting in Hamlet. It could be argued that Branagh only excels in Shakespeare related properties, with Thor being Marvel's strange equivalent to Shakespeare. However in here it just seems like a typical thriller that was shot like a standard blockbuster without anything to elevate it. It was just fine. Nothing spectacular.

It is a real shame too because everyone involved with this film could've made it incredible. However I would probably have to direct most of the blame towards the script. The story was just standard and while there have been stories like this told before, some of those stories are capable of elevating themselves above the rest. This one doesn't. It just plays by the numbers and plays it safe. It is a safe thriller. The film is also promoted as an action film akin to the Bourne franchise. While it is clear that there is that influence, it doesn't have the same amount of intensity in the drama or the action. I especially did not like the first 10 minutes of the film before the title sequence appears. It was edited like a quick condensed prologue that doesn't have much to do with the story other than how Ryan and Muller meet. Which again, has nothing to do with the story.

Final Thoughts

I really like the cast and I really like the director. That doesn't stop me from seeing that this is just an okay film. It is not a bad film, but it will definitely feel bad for people who have seen this type of movie over and over again. It is just too safe in a time when reboots are about making bold changes.

SCORE: 6.5/10 - There is some enjoyment from the film, but not enough to call it incredible.

Let's make "DONKEY KONG" a movie

Whoever made this image, you're awesome!

For those of you who don't know, its also about Mario

Donkey Kong is a legendary video game. When young gamers hear Donkey Kong they will immediate conjure up images of a gorilla with a necktie, but only real gamers would know that it is the game that introduces the world to Mario. Well...sort of. He wasn't called Mario originally but instead referred to as "Jumpman" as a way to compete with Pacman. But for all intents and purposes this is the game that introduces the world to these two iconic characters.

Didn't they make a movie already?

The shot answer to this is yes and no. Yes, Buena Vista Pictures made a film adaptation of Super Mario Bros. back in 1993 starring Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo as the video game icons Mario and Luigi. The general consensus of that film among the video gaming community is... "act like it doesn't exist." Which is a shame because Bob Hoskins is a brilliant actor...but then again brilliant actors occasionally do bad films that they probably had no idea would be bad.

So, am I asking for a remake? Not really. Because then the title would be "Let's remake Super Mario Bros." Where I'm going with this is making a straight forward film adaptation of the original video game.

So how exactly would one were to do that? Well, the idea I have in mind, is probably not the one people want:

Dark and Gritty - The way no one wants to see....unless

Just hear me out. The term dark and gritty usually gets associated with "The Dark Knight." It is a term used to describe something that is real and grounded. Well to me Dark and Gritty means something else. When I think of Dark and Gritty, The Dark Knight does come to mind but so does a film that people seem to forget is Dark and Gritty: The X-Men Film Franchise. People don't seem to realize how dark the film is in terms of subject matter, but it may also have to do with the touches of lightness coming from the need to relieve the serious tension. This is a style that could pose a threat to a movie going experience. Do it right (X-men, The Dark Knight, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and you got a great movie. Do it wrong (Cowboys and Aliens) and that's when debates will start triggering of whether it was the right decision. And believe it or not, the storyline of the original Donkey Kong game can be interpreted as pretty dark.

The Story

The storyline of the original Donkey Kong game is about a pet gorilla that has suffered abuse and mistreatment by his owner for several years. Fed up with the abuse, the gorilla kidnaps his owner's girlfriend and holds her hostage in the owner's factory. Now, obviously the gorilla is the titular Donkey Kong. But who is this abusive owner? Jumpman, or better known today as MARIO! 

That's right, the hero of the video game is the cause for the trouble of the video game. While this plot was really created just to give it an edge against other games that came out at the time, if one were actually to delve into the deeper meanings then you'd realize that you're playing the villain. Our knowledge of Mario is that he's the hero. This is mainly attributed to the later video games that would paint him as the true hero of the Mushroom Kingdom. This can play to people's expectations of Mario in the film.

It could be a small scale rendition of the storyline told in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But have the James Franco character be a dick and change the setting to the fantasy world of the Mushroom Kingdom then it makes total sense why someone would have a gorilla as a pet. Or how about making the gorillas Mario's workforce for the factory that he runs? He keeps it out of the public eye that he is abusing these animals and instead makes it looks like he takes good care of them. Hell, he could be secretly the villain of the story. Donkey Kong can be his main gorilla who takes the most abuse due protecting the other gorillas from Mario. It would play into Donkey Kong's plan in Kidnapping Mario's girlfriend, Pauline. Yes, Pauline, not Princess Peach. The story would then borrow that element of King Kong with the seemingly villainous ape kidnapping the beautiful woman. Of course this is where that revelation would dawn her about the truth of Mario.

The film can end with Mario being exposed and loses his business, with Donkey Kong and his gorilla comrades being released into Donkey Kong Country by Pauline. As for Mario, he is forced to work with his younger brother Luigi as a plumber.

See what I did there? I left Mario in a bad place while also setting him up for a potential sequel that would serve as his redemption story to being a true hero. Clever huh? Well, maybe anyone can come up with that. But doesn't that sound cool?

The Downsides to making it that way

• People might be turned off by making it kind of serious and a little bit dark with the animal abuse subject matter that some would claim wasn't there
• The title Donkey Kong would be misleading as it is also a Mario movie so a studio might call it Mario Vs Donkey Kong or Mario Origins or something lame to get the public more interested and less confused when they see Mario
• Most people don't know this storyline so it would turn people off to have Mario painted in such a negative light
• Video game adaptations have a history of being bad so that could detract from the number of people who would see it

The Plus sides of making it that way

• It would make the subject matter stronger and the drama really intense
• It would have great action scenes that would all take place in one location, kind of like The Raid but in a factory
• The first big screen adaptation of Donkey Kong and the second stab at making a good Mario Flick
• It would add more depth to characters who are pretty straight forward in all their other games
• It could potentially open the doors to a Nintendo Cinematic Universe (I did say it ends with Donkey Kong Country being introduced and Mario becoming a Plumber)

Final words

Yes, that is the movie I'd want to see. And it may sound crazy to some. But again, any movie idea can be good if done right. What type of Mario adaptation would you want? Something like Marvel that is filled with comedy and moments of character development? Or my approach where it looks dark but it can also be light.

Godzilla (2014) - Analysis and Review

The Return of the King

I feel like I'm in the minority of my circle of friends when it comes a film called Pacific Rim. Apparently it was suppose to make me feel like a kid again because its Kaiju (Giant Monsters) fighting Mechs (Giant Robots). Who wouldn't be excited by that? I'm not saying I wasn't. I enjoyed the film. But I didn't have that sense of nostalgia that apparently triggered in them. However, for the new American remake of Godzilla directed by Gareth Edwards, that is when my childhood came flooding back with a big smile on my face.

The Plot

Caught in the middle of a conspiracy, Lt. Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor Johnson) and his father Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) witness the awakening of an ancient threat. The only thing that can possibly save the world from this old terror is a creature just as ancient. That creature being Godzilla.

Analysis

My plot summary is not the official summary of the film, but that is the straight forward plot of the movie. And while I did say that Godzilla has to "save the world," that doesn't meant that he's trying to save mankind. He's literally just a creature of instinct. It is his nature to seek out gigantic beasts and kill them then go back to the sea. At least that is the explanation of this iteration of Godzilla. Which has always brought up a question of debate as to whether or not Godzilla is a hero or villain. The answer that this film was able to hammer home was simple: he's neither. 

This Godzilla is depicted as a FORCE of nature. One that comes and goes the same way a hurricane or a tsunami does. The connection is made obvious in a scene when Godzilla causes a tsunami that kills many people, even when all he was really doing was just getting out of the water. He is indifferent about the lives of humanity because we are honestly nothing to him. We are his equivalent to ants. Small things that just happen to be in our way whether we're aware of it or not. It really makes it clear that he's really just doing what he does, which is rise up out of the ocean if a gigantic radiation hungry beast starts wandering the Earth, and really that's it.

This is definitely a slight departure from his destroy humanity nature which was in the original Godzilla (Gojira) film as well as some of the Heisei films (the 80s and 90s reboot). However, the idea of him being a Guardian was something that the Showa films (the original 50s-70s run) made loud and clear. So in fact, this Godzilla is a mixture of all that came before. He does borrow some of his nuclear metaphor origins but really it is more about the unstoppable power of nature that takes hold of what he represents for our generation now.

Review

Having read and seen reviews prior to watching the film, I was well aware that the most common complaint of the film is that Godzilla is not in it too much. Having went in with that mindset I was surprised by how much he was in it. Though the definition of "wasn't in it" probably means him on land and doing stuff. He is in the film a lot, just mostly swimming.

The story is serviceable enough to bring back the King of Monsters to the big screen. It does a smart move in giving Godzilla fans the things they love about the franchise (Godzilla vs giant monster(s)) as well as injecting a reality that can only be compared to what Chris Nolan did with Batman (real and gritty). However, I'm not saying that this is anywhere near close to a Chris Nolan movie, but it definitely has enough realism to amplify the absurd nature of the movie. The monsters were treated as animals acting out on instinct rather than some sense of wanting to destroy the world. It is a great take on the giant monster genre that usually drums up needless world destruction. Not that I'm criticizing it, because let's face it Godzilla fan love massive destruction. But in this film it is rather subdued to make it feel more like a catastrophe than destruction porn.

The acting in the film is great with Bryan Cranston being the standout performance in the film. We feel an immediate connection to his character that really helps us the audience and his onscreen son played by Aaron Taylor Johnson get sucked into what's happening. Aaron Taylor Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins and David Strathairn give great performances with what they are given. While it can be argued that Johnson's character was one of the weakest elements of the film, I don't believe that his performance detracted from the film as a whole. Even Juliette Binoche has a small but pivotal role that enhances the standout performance that Cranston has.

While I can criticize by saying that yes the story was serviceable but not anything amazing and that Godzilla doesn't show up too much I think the real criticism on everyone's mind is this: Cutting away from the Action. The film does a great job building up the tension between two monsters facing off throughout the film but always cuts away when they actually begin to fight. While I didn't mind it because they give a full blown monster battle at the end of the movie, I can understand why people would be upset about being teased through the whole film. I would argue that had they shown half of the Airport battle between Godzilla vs the male MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) then it would've sated people's need to see a battle throughout the film. However all they did was show the start then immediately cut away to the aftermath on the news. Again, there is a full blow battle between Godzilla and the MUTO couple, which completely justifies holding off on all the action till the end.

The two movies I would compare this iteration of Godzilla to are Jaws and Michael Bay's Transformers. Both movies hold off from showing the titular character as well as having human characters drive the story. However Jaws is an excellent example of this type of storytelling while Transformers is a fun film but there are times when the characters act like idiots. If anything this Godzilla is the middle ground between the two while leaning more towards the greatness of Jaws while borrowing some destruction from Transformers.

Final Thoughts

This film did what Pacific Rim could not: bring a smile to my face. This was me reliving my childhood in a more realistic sensibility. As a huge Godzilla fan, this was definitely a treat for me. Though I can understand why some Godzilla fans may not like this film, I respect them for that. However, this is a really good film. Not great. But I have a feeling when a sequel comes along, all the problems with this film will be fixed in the next one. Also as a final note: I still enjoy the Roland Emmerich Godzilla even though I can see how horrible it is.

SCORE: 7.9/10 - A great modern retelling of the legendary King of Monsters