Godzilla (2014)

God of Blockbuster Action or King of the Tease?

Directed by: Gareth Edwards
Released: 2014
Staring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olson, Ken Watanabe, David Strathairn, Sally Hawkins, & Juliette Binoche
Rated: PG-13

  No doubt exists in my mind that the marketing team behind the newest reboot of cinema's most iconic, foreign fiend deserve an award. The art of the tease can make or break a film; with all the anticipation that can develop, if a film doesn't deliver you're going to have several unsatisfied customers. Godzilla has been teasing us since it's first trailer release and continued to throughout the actual film.

  Of all the big blockbuster movies to be released in the Summer of 2014, Godzilla was the one I was most excited to see. Not because I had an preexisting attachment to the Monster, or a particular fondness for any of the talented actors in the cast; it was because of the trailer. That FIRST trailer was (still is) brilliant. The bone chilling suspense created in the ambiguity until the very end didn't only leave me wanting more, it had me talking. How could you NOT want to see that movie after a trailer like THAT? Emotional Bryan Cranston, Phillip Glass-esque music, and that roar...that trailer had everything to make the skin crawl...Goosebumps from start to finish. I just want you all to take the time and appreciate a finely constructed trailer, and the response it can generate. My response, I need to see that movie as soon as possible. All subsequent trailers followed a similar design, showing audiences just enough of The King of The Monsters but never revealing what we were truly up against. Smart marketing; it gets people excited, it gets butts in the seats. So the all-important question of the teasing and hype, did it pay off?

This Monster is a little camera-shy
Godzilla (2014)

  Yes, yes it did....and...no...

 Despite top billing, Godzilla isn't the film's focus. Overall, Godzilla was a highly entertaining, action-packed disaster movie. I say disaster movie because the movie isn't so much about the monsters causing the destruction, but the people caught in the middle and how they deal with it. If you are expecting lengthy, Pacific-Rim style fights, you're going to be slightly disappointed. The monster-on-monster action is there, BUT I was left wanting MORE. Like the movie's trailer, the audience is constantly teased, but never reward with any solid, lasting battles. I was (and still am) thrilled with the alluring mystery the trailer created, but I'm here now, in the theater, I WANT TO SEE GODZILLA KICK SOME ASS. Any monster action that takes place occurs either on screens (TVs/surveillance cameras/computers) or in short, interrupted snippets. Those snippets we did get to see were amazing, awesome...cool animation and theater rattling sound that will have audiences cowering in their seats. Stop me if I'm wrong, but I know I'm not, in a Godzilla film I'd expect to see the King of Monsters for longer than 20 minutes and earlier than 45 minutes into the picture.

Finally, a good look at the big guy
Godzilla (2014)

  The sparse time in which Godzilla is on screen however, is so reminiscent of the original films one can't help but cheer in their seat. This Godzilla is certainly the largest we've ever seen therefore the destruction he causes is beyond devastating; it's awesome. The design of this Godzilla is also a return to the classic 50's Monster design, disassociating the Island Iguana disaster that appeared on screen in the 1998 bomb. Not only is Godzilla's classic silhouette back but also (hold for applause) THE ATOMIC FIRE BREATH! Godzilla, engages in several quick romps with some fierce nuclear powered monsters and the monster-on-monster, LED attacks are everything the audiences go to action movies for. Loud, intense and cheer-worthy...I just wish these nail-biting assaults would have lasted...The journey of a nuclear bomb from city to harbor is not important to me, what's important is the brawl going on down the street and 500 feet in the air.
 

Bryan Cranston hunts for the truth
Godzilla (2014)

In truth this is the movie's only substantial flaw and my only real complaint. In any action picture (specifically those released in the summer months) the story is complied of cliche, sappy characters and predictable outcomes; Godzilla is no exception. That being said I didn't mind these done and done characters because that's not what I'm going to the theater to see. I came to see intense action, a bad-ass Dino-Monster destroying the city, and the brilliant Bryan Cranston. I got about 2 1/2 of the 3.
Speaking of Bryan Cranston he, just like the movie's title monster, makes an appearance that is brilliant but limited. Cranston's influence in pop culture and with potential audience members is huge! What did I tell my Mom to convince her to come to Godzilla? "It has WALTER WHITE" All it takes in Cranston's name on a poster and an heart-wrentching excerpt in the trailer to draw in those Breaking Bad/Cranston addicts. Again, smart market but lacking a fulfilling payoff. Cranston is there; he's brilliant, he's engaging. His undisputed talent shines through in this role, but is snuffed out far too soon. Parallel to the movie's monster, I wanted to more of Cranston's quality performance. His character the potential to lead Godzilla or least get him into the second act. Cranston not only understands how to portray human emotion but also how to connect with audiences'.

Cranston & Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Godzilla (2014)

  This Godzilla boast more than a handful of compelling characters, any one of them could have been
the movie's focal point; sadly, writers chose to focus on the weakest of the bunch. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is an adequate leading man and his lesser known status works in his favor. Taylor-Johnson has had his fair-share of leading and supporting roles, but he has yet to become a house-hold name. Had the role gone to a more well known, young hunk {Channing Tatum for example} the character could have gone even more banal than written. Casting an unknown or lesser known gives action movie, dare I say, a more prestigious feel. Taylor-Johnson feels (like this reboot is meant to be) fresh and new. The same can be said for his on screen wife, Elizabeth Olsen. Godzilla's script doesn't offer it's actors much to work with, but the cast gets the job done without reducing their performances to cheese. As I wrote before, hardly ever to I enter a summer blockbuster expecting a groundbreaking plot and oscar worthy script. These films are meant to provide exciting entertainment, which in the end, Godzilla does!

  Equally fresh director Gareth Edwards truly understands quality action, building suspense, and delivering adrenaline pumping sequences...even if the majority of them don't feature the movie's main monster. He's more understated than the likes of Michael Bay (heaven knows that's not very hard) and I can't wait to see what this relatively young director has to offer the action-movie genre.

  Nit-picking and cliches aside, Godzilla offers American audiences a solid piece of entertainment reminiscent of the 1954 classic. It's leagues beyond the Ronald Emmerich 1998 flop; bigger, badder, and smarter. The movie's base plot is nothing special nor are the characters, but when audiences are treated with God-sized smack downs, they are oh-so sweet! This Godzilla is a MUST SEE on the big screen. The high quality graphics and bone-rattling sound can only be fully appreciated at the theater. 2014's Godzilla will have you simultaneously cheering and cringing in your seats; you'll leave the cinema wanting more, and by the way the box-office is turning over, we'll have a sequel confirmation before the year is out.

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

You all think I'm going to talk about the 2004 Gerard Butler, Joel Schumaker adaption of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical don't you? That's adorable.

Directed by: Dwight H. Little
Released: 1989
Staring: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nye,
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 4

  There are certain movies you watching thinking...I'm really enjoying this, I know I shouldn't because it's probably a ridiculously cheesy horrible movie, but I really am enjoying this. You watch it about three or four times, making jokes in your head but it doesn't matter because it's still a good movie. Then you watch that movie with other people and you realize all those jokes you made to yourself were totally justified and you should probably hide the fact that you bought this movie off of Amazon and you really love it from the general public....Anyone else have that movie?
        Anyone?
                 No?
  Well the 1989 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera staring Robert Englund and Bill Nye is mine. It's 80's, it's gore, it's ridiculous, it's not an accurate adaption of the book, and it is AWESOME. This being said, I have to let you all know....

  The bane of my existence presents itself in two forms. Bad Dracula adaptions {we'll get to this in a review later this month} and bad Phantom of the Opera adaptions. Is it really so impossible to produce a faithful adaption to the book??? The book has all the elements of an awesome horror/romance/mystery movie because it's an awesome horror/romance/mystery novel!
As of 2007 there were over 40 adaptions of Gaston Leroux's book. 
  I really love Phantom of the Opera. I got hooked thanks to a cassette of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical my parents bought after seeing the production in the early 90's. I forgot about the show for a while until 2004 when Joel Schumaker made it into a colorless, sub-par, yet enjoyable adaption. After being reunited with the story I hunted down the book and basically every other adaption I could get my hands on...let me tell you, there are A LOT of adaptions of The Phantom of the Opera. Most bad, all cheesy, but all (save the Dario Argento adaption) have their redeeming qualities.

  The 1989 adaptions' is it's 80's thrill and gore and Robert Englund....Poor, poor Freddy Kru... I mean ROBERT ENGLUND. The poor guy signed his action soul to the Devil the day he decided to do Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm sure he's made quite the pretty penny on the series, which boast 7 sequels to the first as well as the 2010 remake, but they've limited him creatively. ROBERT ENGLUND IS A GOOD ACTOR, I truly believe he is. Sadly, like make villains of 80's horror, he's been typecast to no end. Whenever he DOES land a role that is not Kruger, the character still haunts him. Marking people are mainly to blame for this and I have to say whoever was captain for this ship should have been fired because this is not acceptable...He's basically a marketing strategy

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but what assholes. From what I've read on the web Englund wasn't too happy about this either, and for good reason! I would not want people to go to a film because they expected to see Freddy, I would want them to go to see what else Freddy can do!
.

  This all being said, the character Englund creates is brilliant but he does offer several Freddy-esque characteristics. He has some great, macabre one liners, creepy laugh, and dream-like presence...In reality this has nothing to do with Englund's acting and more about screen writing. This may be a strong statement, but Robert Englund's interpretation of The Phantom is the closes to what I had generated in my mind from the book.
The Phantom is not a nice, cuddly guy chilling in the basement waiting to watch The Notebook with you *cough* Charles Dance *cough* he's a bad ass, crazy stalker. I say this with nothing but love in my heart, but he is out of his mind. He kills people, he LIKES killing people; but he's some how charming and intelligent!

  The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, even Bill Nye is odd in the role of the Opera House manager. Please don't even get me started on Christine...the young Jill Schoelen is not the worst Christine to grace stage or screen but she's not the best either. Her singing voice {which I don't believe is her own, is no where near "angelic"} I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Christine Daae (outside the musical content) that I enjoyed. Always winy, annoying, just uh...Not much praise can be showered upon this cast apart of Englund of course.


Now let's talk about the movie itself. This is NOT accurate adaption of the Leroux novel, it takes many, MANY heavy handed liberties included name, location changes, and TIME TRAVEL. The Paris Opera House becomes the London Opera House, I see no reason for this...it's not like they actually shot in either location...Daae becomes to American DAY a change which I despise and Erik disfigurement comes for the Devil in the form of a midget in a brothel....ya I'm just gonna let that one sink in.  LIKE I SAID, heavy handed liberties...they were taken. I've seen so many adaptions I've learned to take them as they come and all the changes in this adaption, while crazy and outlandish WORK with the film and I *screams quietly* love this movie!

  One of the main reasons, it's gross. Just sick...and so good! While no one has ever gotten anywhere close to showing Erik's true disfigurement on screen, the 1989 adaptions offers a pretty nasty take. Instead of wearing a mask made of any synthetic material or fabric, the Phantom chooses to cover his burned face in HUMAN SKIN...that's right a la Buffalo Bill, this Phantom does some patch work sewing on his own face. This is where that 80's gore and horror come in. We the audience get several scenes of Erik skinning people, sewing the skin to his face, the skin be ripped off...and it's awesomely disgusting. There are some top notch make-up jobs in this film no matter how Nightmare on Elm Street inspired they may appear. Having The Phantom wear a mask of human flesh really bumps up the gross out factor that the original novel held so close {in the scene where Christine takes off Erik's mask he takes her hands, and digs her nails into her skull, pealing off dead skin}

Did I mention, Erik has a really AWESOME Red Death costume in this adaption?

  It's not perfect, it's occasionally ridiculous in it's retro-ness, and it's ghastly gory, but it's for those reasons I enjoy it! I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either! So if you've watched your collection of Nightmare on Elm Street so many times you can pin point the second a prosthetic tongue worms it's way out of a cored phone, give The Phantom of the Opera a try. Not as hokey as Nightmare but retaining a similar atmosphere and leading man of course. Robert Englund's performance is reason enough to watch Phantom but the gory 80's style are PERFECT for a Halloween viewing. Someday I hope this film will worm it's way onto the cult classic shelf along Nightmare, Halloween and Friday the 13th.

  I was going to talk about the Charles Dance tv miniseries of Phantom from 1990 but it's quite an extensive review all ready. All you need to know is I like it for unknown Charles Dance-y reasons.

I love Charles Dance...he is my favorite character on GOT and I didn't even know this until I rewatched season 2. Dance is no Lion in this miniseries however...he's almost the opposite.

  Charles Dance is an adorable English man who plays a French man with an American accent while everyone else around him keeps their English accents. I'm sorry but when I hear the voice of an Angel he doesn't sound like he's from Iowa. He is a cute and cuddly phantom who actually sings. Possibly one of the worst Christine's even if she is blond like she is in the book. It's both horribly bad and charming all at the same time. If you're bored you can watch the whole whole mini series on youtube.

 You guys...Tywin Lanister was a total FOX.

NOTE: This is definitely NOT from the 1990 adaption of Phantom.

He's just fun to look at