Godzilla - fun and destruction

I went to see "Godzilla" last evening... and liked it.  Of course, I have always been a fan of monster movies, especially where monsters roam the planet and cities are devastated.  I've seen a number of silly reviewers complaining about the actresses getting short shrive, their performances being stereotypical.  As are the actors, the actresses are only needed to advance the plot.  They are not pivotal.  In fact I don't even see their complaint as even remotely valid.  If you're going to see this film simply because Juliette Binoche, or Sally Hawkins, or Elizabeth Olson are in it, you're going for the wrong reason.  The star of the movie is Godzilla.  If you go to see it because Sally Hawkins is in it, you're likely to be disappointed.  She does a really good job at being an accessory, but then that's all she's supposed to be.  If, after watching this film,  the only thing you talk about is her performance, then this movie has failed.  That's why it's called "Godzilla."  Even Aaron Johnson, who gets star billing, is a minor character.  He is an accessory to the fact and nothing more, a witness to the events as they are unfolding.

Sometimes being a non-typical hero is best

He is the 'stand-in' for every man.  He is not your normal hero, the gung-ho soldier with testosterone shooting out every orifice as he dives head first into battle, but rather the quiet man who volunteers because he needs to, because it's the right thing to do.

I suspect that years from now, what audiences will remember most are not the battles and the destruction, instead it will be the parachute drop into San Francisco.  Visually it is stunning, it is spectacle without the spectacular: red flares falling like drops of blood.  And musically?  For those who didn't recognize the background piece, it is "Also Sprach Zarathustra," a tone poem composed by Richard Strauss.  If you did recognize it, you're probably remembering it from Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey."

I don't usually purchase movies but I may purchase this because it was fun.  I have a friend who still hasn't seen it so I may end up going to see it a 2nd time, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

GODZILLA... Can you hear me roar?

Godzilla opens today... and I'm excited.  Ever since I was a wee tot I've enjoyed a good civilization smashing monster movie.  Now this doesn't mean I will be part of the opening night crowd.  That's not for me.  I like to wait a week or so and then go on a week night, when there will still be an audience, but they're not packed in like sardines.  

In anticipation, I started looking at the movie reviews a while back, not because I value their opinions, rather it's the 15 and 20 second clips the studio gives them, clips not usually incorporated into the official and unofficial trailers.  Because of this habit of mine, I do tend to glance over the reviews.  Usually the first sentence tells me if they loved the film or hated the film.  With Godzilla the biggies didn't care for it, by biggies I mean the New York Times and the LA Times.  NPR, on the other hand, liked it.  So did Leonard Maltin.  Check out Rotten Tomatoes if you want to get a more accurate idea of what people think.

One of the things I did find amusing in the reviews I'd checked out was that the Wall Street Journal gave it a bad review.  This movie is going to make a lot of money, it made 9.3 million in the late night Thursday shows alone.  Box Office Mojo thinks, world wide, it will end up in the 500 to 600 million dollar range till all is said and done.  Wouldn't you think the Wall Street Journal would want to give it kick, a little boost, hoping it might earn another couple of million more?  Maybe their reviewer doesn't like Warner Brothers and thought he might sour profits by a couple of million.  Or, could be he's just enraptured with next week's release of X-Men: Days of Future Passed.

A word of warning to those who might decided to check out some of the "biggie' reviews (they're all available at Rotten Tomatoes).  These reviewers like to reveal spoilers to prove their points... and they don't always warn you.  Some pudding head by the name of  A.O. Scott at the New York Times actually gives away a major plot element.  When I'd read what he'd written I thought "what a dick head."  Was the information he revealed essential in validating his review of the film?  Absolutely not.  Will it ruin the movie for me?  Hell No!  Yo!  Godzilla!  Can you hear me ROAR!?