Skip to main content

This alpha predator of yours, doctor, do you really think he has a chance?

Godzilla
(2014)

(SPOILERS) In more ways than one, Godzilla is very much this year’s Pacific Rim.  A movie giant monster-adoring geeks are willing themselves to love, amped up beyond words by the prospect of great leviathans duking it out, but which fails to deliver in some fundamental respects. On a movie-making level Godzilla is the more admirable of the two, taking an almost classical slow-burn approach to the telling, but this ends up ensnaring the picture, making its shortcomings all the more apparent. It is sure to receive many a salutatory gesture for respecting its source material in a way the 1998 Hollywood version never did, but this serious mindedness throws a whole lot of attention on how goofy the whole enterprise is. Most damagingly, the (very valid) Jaws approach of keeping the creatures on the periphery leaves fundamentally uninteresting characters and plotting front and centre, and it’s this that kills the picture for long periods. Godzilla ends up kind of boring.


I’m not really one to get behind the mainstream critics, but the Godzillites seem to have picked up mainly on how slow they all say it is and found their rebuke in “Would you rather it was like Emmerich’s version or (shudder) Transformers”. Which is rather missing the repeated and salient thrust of the complaints; the reason the picture seems slow is that the characters fail to engage. The one character that does (and the trailers are highly misrepresentative in the amount of screen time they suggest for him) is killed off before the first act is over and, when he’s gone, there’s a vacuum left that can’t be filled. The complaints about complaints that the title character takes his time to stride out of oceans and batter through crumbling cityscapes are ones I can get behind more, but this wouldn’t even come up if the human interest worked. In that way, for all the comparisons, Godzilla is completely dissimilar to Jaws. The characters in that movie are the movie; they drive the plot every bit as much as the shark. Here, you can sense the writers tripping over themselves trying to get (insert Etchasketched character here, in this case Ford) from A to B to C, and the result induces interminable subtitles announcing yet another military base and yet another dimwitted conversation between David Strathairn’s admiral and Ken Watanabe’s muto-dino-astute doctor, in which the former asks the latter about the peril they face to vague and ominous response.


Roland Emmerich’s version is roundly and resolutely slated for it’s betrayal of the character, although I wonder how much it would be chastised if he looked like a guy in a suit as here. Like Jonathan Ross (hallowed company, I know), I seem to be one of the few who admit to finding it quite enjoyable; I watched it again last year and, some irritating and obvious characters and plot beats aside, I still can’t find too much to complain about. There’s nothing to get overly excited about either, but it is engaging in that formulaic blockbuster manner at which Emmerich excels (its failure has been much overstated too; it was far too expensive to make a tidy profit, but it was still the third biggest hit of ‘98 worldwide). I’m just not a purist enough, I guess.


To me, Godzilla was always the ‘70s US cartoon. The one with Godzooky and “Up from the depths, 30 stories high, breathing fire he stands in the sky”. The one that saw him battling a new weekly monster over 20 minutes and habitually ended with a coterie of humans congratulating him for graciously saving the day. I watched a few of the founding film series when they were screened on Channel 4 in the late ‘80s – early ‘90s, but couldn’t really take them to my bosom. Perhaps I needed to be of a certain age. And really, I can get only so much enjoyment from seeing giant creatures knocking each other’s tonsils out at the expense of human interest these days. Del Toro attempted to incorporate the people into the giant fisticuff fest in Pacific Rim, but unfortunately his characters outrageously cardboard to a man (and woman). So I guess I’m maladjusted when it comes to monster mash mayhem. I can’t much see the appeal of Transformers, even beyond Michael Bay’s paralytic editing and Shia LeBouef’s LaBoeuf-ness. It’s the same thing, but with robots. Only King Kong (not Peter Jackson’s) really succeeds but then it has a much stronger backbone, and it isn’t, the occasional interlude aside, about a great big dust-up. I’m not saying it’s impossible to successfully integrate the elements, but 90% of the time it will fall back on the thinly sketched specimens of humanity sitting back while a couple of great plodders get down to business. And so it is here.


Dave Callahan (The Expendables!) is credited with the story and Max Borenstein (the, er, delayed The Seventh Son) with the screenplay. But also over-stewing the pudding are David Goyer (why not, he manages to get his undistinguished paws on most Legendary Pictures properties) Drew Pearce and Frank Darabont (both of whom are solid talents, so presumably their lack of credit suggests they didn’t have enough influence). Together, they opt to go down the route of Godzilla the defender of the natural order and balance, as opposed to the metaphor of nuclear Armageddon of the first movie (you know, the nasty monster; which is where Emmerich took his cues, knowing, as an adept if wholly predictable storyteller, that it guaranteed greater peril and predicament). The only problem is, it’s an utterly daffy idea for a movie that takes itself as morbidly seriously as this one. In some respects these confounding antithetical elements are perversely appealing, in the same way monsters in suits are reimagined as expensive CGI monsters in CGI suits. You admire the balls in envisaging Godzilla this unadjusted way, but that doesn’t make it work as a piece of cinema or encourage narrative suspension of disbelief.


And it is disconcerting, the way Godzilla stomps about as if he’s a blown up baby dressed in an oversize romper suit. The MUTO (the movie doesn’t have many laughs, but the best is the explanation of the acronym as “Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism… except that it’s airborne”), meanwhile, is commendably abstract, with the crazy dislocated joints of one of those costumed carnival stilt walkers. It’s definitely the strangest looking creation you’re likely to see in a mainstream blockbuster, where creature design generally conforms to anodyne templates. But you’re left wondering “How, what, why?” when everything else is played for real. As for their monster-on-monster confrontations, Edwards lays on some brutal WWF slamdowns for the big lizard but when push comes to shove the kills prove to be both amusing (some grievous thwacking tail action) and uproariously ultra-violent (puking blue fire down a MUTO’s throat, then tearing its head off, is so batty you have to love it – but again, this kind of off-the-leash sense of fun comes out of nowhere in the context of the picture as a whole).


The nuclear nightmare origins are retained from the original iteration, and we have a special new creature that feeds off radiation as a result of its origins in a period when the world was many times more radioactive than now (which in a way rather lessens the whole nuclear threat idea; don’t worry, it was once perfectly normal to be full of radiation). The MUTOs are the ideal solution to the world’s nuclear waste problem, so it’s a shame the duo have to be killed off (and their spawn; as with the Emmerich movie, the third act revolves around the threat of the menace breeding). The archive footage device is over-familiar now, but it’s nevertheless appealing the way Gareth Edwards retrofits the Bikini Atoll tests with the current menace (this idea was reportedly at the director’s behest, so people should probably follow his instincts more, or he should get involved enough for a story credit). The redacted opening credits are also a great place-setter for the presumed tone of the picture. The problem is, as successfully mythologising as this is, it falls down when the plot kicks in and the awe subsides. The narrative is so literal, no manner of strange, majestic, apocalyptic visuals than can make the overall piece resonate.


Which is a shame, as post-Fukushima the nuclear nightmare is as relevant in our consciousnesses to an extent it hasn’t been since the Cold War era. But it’s squandered with a movie reality version of the dangers of the split atom. The opening sequence is superb, and grips the emotions in a way the rest of the Godzilla sorely lacks. Bryan Cranston, a physicist at a Japanese nuclear plant, is forced to watch wife Juliette Binoche succumb to a lethal dose of radiation when the something he has been monitoring causes a massive breach of the reactor core. This is stirring stuff, but almost immediately spoiled by the sight of the entire facility, huge chimneys and all, collapsing in on itself (viewed from the vantage of young son Ford’s school – later to be Aaron Taylor Johnson).


And then we cut to 15 years later, so all that devastating radiation unleashed in the immediate aftermath (I know, I know, the MUTO absorbs it all, but not straight away, right?) has caused no ill-effects on Cranston and Son? In an Emmerich movie (2012, for example) that would be fine hyperactive bollocks and par-for-the-course, but Edwards desperately wants you to find verisimilitude in his world.  There’s a curious disconnect generally with the nuclear age Edwards and co. are playing with. The military, being idiots (and yet also the heroes, as embodied by our naval leading man) want to give the MUTOs a super-dose of an enormously powerful atom bomb to chew on. Of course, plans go awry and it becomes necessary to defuse the damn thing. But it never happens. Instead, as with The Dark Knight Rises, it is transported away to explode “harmlessly” at sea. It gets to the saturation level where one has to wonder if this is some kind of covert propaganda; radiation is only a problem in massive doses and even then its okay it won’t be a problem unless you are locked up with it; and don’t worry about all that nasty waste, something will come along eventually to suck it all up (let’s commission a few more plants, eh? Future generations can worry about it if we don’t figure out a solution).


The other unappetising aspect of all this is the preponderance of military personnel and hardware. Sure, they may not be able to defeat the menace without the help of a Japanese monster, and they have the help of a wise Japanese man (although not so wise that he doesn’t need the help of a soon-to-exit Bryan Cranston), but they’re resolute and dependable, never less than defenders of the nation. There’s little other perspective and it becomes entirely tiresome, no matter how well staged individual scenes are (and most are superbly staged). It doesn’t have to be this way; just look at Cameron’s Aliens for an engaging portrayal of grunts (no offence). As it is, Broderick et al in Emmerich’s take are many times more appealing, without even being especially appealing.


The biggest mistake Edwards makes, or at least his writers make, is killing off Cranston. It’s not just that he brings the requisite conviction and Heisenberg energy to the resolutely unmemorable dialogue that besieges the picture; he has presence. (Sally Hawkins, so good in Blue Jasmine, also makes an impression in as an exposition-friendly sidekick to Watanabe.) Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a good actor, and he’s a very pretty fellow, but at current reckoning he’s a character player not a charisma monkey. He’s as good or bad as the writing he’s given to work with (well, bad would be overstating it but non-descript is about right). Poorly catered for as he is, and he’s on screen most of the time Godzilla isn’t, the writers constantly strain themselves finding something for Ford to get busy at on his mission to get home, handily fetching him up in the right place at the right time for some dramatic shenanigans with a MUTO or Gojira, poor Elizabeth Olsen fares even worse. Perhaps the actors’ prettiness is inversely proportional to how meaty their role is, as Olsen is even pretty than her on-screen husband. And she has absolutely nothing memorable to do, apart from luminesce before the camera.


I feel a bit bad about laying into Godzilla, because it really is a beautifully made movie. Joe Wright’s regular DP Seamus McGarvey ladles on the familiar desaturated green-grey wash, but there’s something more here. Edwards allows his movie to breath. There isn’t the feeling of over-editing (Bob Ducsay worked on Stephen Sommers movies, so perhaps he going extreme Cold Turkey) that afflicts the modern blockbuster. If only Edwards had content to work with too, this might have been a classic. I rated Edwards’ first, micro-budget feature Monsters, which managed a similar air of ambient foreboding. The impressively realised creatures there were also sidelined, with a front-and-centre but subdued love story that I found quite affecting. I know others found this element weak swill; if so God knows what they will make of Godzilla, where there isn’t a single merit-worthy characterisation.


Edwards mounts sequences with consummate skill; I just wished I cared about them. The HALO drop set piece, set to Gyorgy Ligett’s Requiem (better known for it’s appearance in 2001: A Space Odyssey) is breathtaking, the jumpers’ descent lit up as red flares against a grey, crumbling city. The overgrown urban landscape seen in the first act’s quarantine zone is a masterpiece of production design, and recalls both Monsters (both have gasmasks in common besides giant beasties) and I Am Legend. A sequence in which a little girl looks out to sea, the waves turning to a tsunami initiated by the arrival of Godzilla, recalls the opening of The Lost World: Jurassic Park in the way it endangers the little ones. Except that, unlike Spielberg, Edwards doesn’t pull his punches. There’s no suggestion the child escapes the tidal forces. Elsewhere, the director appears to be summoning the spirit of John McTiernan as camera tracks in on the mud encrusted motionless body of Ford. And there’s a nice moment – well, there had to be one, didn’t there? – when Ford and the giant lizard make eye contact on a smoke-shrouded street. There’s none of glossy emotioneering of Bay’s LeBoeouf and his Bumblebee buddy, but it’s still a moment where the only impact is how wonderfully adorned it is. Likewise, the newfound hero status of Godzilla amongst humanity is confirmed via a huge video screen announces it is so; this the kind of really barrel-scraping, intrusive “tell-don’t-show” that adorned the (much less forgivably) TV commentary climax to Spider-Man 3.


The recurring theme developing in big movies this year seems to be hugely talented filmmakers coming unstuck with under-developed screenplays (ah, ‘twas ever the case). It blighted Aronofsky’s Noah, and now it sabotages Edward’s first bash in the big leagues (I might add Transcendence to that list, but I’m dubious Pfister could have made great things of even a great script). And then there’s the waste of a talented cast; the downside to the gradual exit of the movie star vehicle is that good solid actors aren’t able to fill a gap in character substance. Borenstein and Callaham have their work cut out for them trying to sustain the Godzilla narrative, so perhaps it’s little wonder there’s no time left to make us care. Gareth Edwards is going to make a terrific big budget movie at some point; maybe next time.


**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

Yeah, she loused up one of the five best days of your life.

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
(SPOILERS) The zeitgeist Best Picture Oscar winner is prone to falling from grace like no other. Often, they’re films with notable acting performances but themes that tend to appear antiquated or even slightly offensive in hindsight. Few extol the virtues of American Beauty the way they did twenty years ago, and Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t quite seen as exemplifying a sensitive and balanced examination of the fallout of divorce on children and their parents the way it was forty years previously. It remains a compelling film for the performances, but it’s difficult not to view it, despite the ameliorating effect of Meryl Streep (an effect she had to struggle to exert), as a vanity project of its star, and one that doesn’t do him any favours with hindsight and behind-the-scenes knowledge.