Godzilla (1998).

Review #2161: Godzilla. 

Cast: 

Matthew Broderick (Dr. Niko "Nick" Tatopoulos), Jean Reno (Philippe Roaché), Maria Pitillo (Audrey Timmonds), Hank Azaria (Victor "Animal" Palotti), Kevin Dunn (Colonel Hicks), Michael Lerner (Mayor Ebert), Harry Shearer (Charles Caiman), Arabella Field (Lucy Palotti), Vicki Lewis (Dr. Elsie Chapman), Lorry Goldman (Gene), Doug Savant (Sergeant O'Neal), Malcolm Danare (Dr. Mendel Craven), Ralph Manza (Fisherman Joe), and Glenn Morshower (Kyle Terrington) Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day and #413 - The Patriot)

Review: 

"I’m totally proud of Godzilla. I’m always saying this, I mean I know there’s a lot of naysayers, but I’m proud of it. I’m not really a fanboy, so I was changing Godzilla. It was also, probably, a situation that I was a little bit talked into it.”

Why should I be surprised? Actually, this is one time where I'm glad I was born in 1996, because I really don't want to know how the hype would have been if I was at least ten years old for the release of this film, which is now 25 years old. This is the kind of movie that had a whole promo campaign all about "Size Does Matter". The idea for an American Godzilla wasn't too farfetched. There had been dubs released in theaters, if you recall: the original 1954 film got turned into Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956), the 1955 sequel got turned into Gigantis, the Fire Monster (1959), oh, Invasion of Astro-Monster (1965) was co-produced by Toho and UPA, and The Return of Godzilla (1984) got turned into Godzilla 1985. Plans to make a feature film started bubbling in 1992, when TriStar announced they acquired the rights to the character from Toho to make a trilogy of films. Jan de Bont was considered to direct by 1994 for a 1996 release, and he apparently had something in mind involving Atlanteans, a "Gryphon", and a creature designed by Stan Winston. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio were approached to do the screenplay, although Don Macpherson was later hired to do re-writes. Budget concerns by TriStar eventually led de Bont off the project in favor of doing Twister. Despite all of this, in 1996 (the year after Toho tried to end their series with Godzilla vs. Destoroyah), Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin (right before the release of Independence Day, and I would like to point out that Emmerich apparently was big on doing his next film involving a meteor hitting Earth inspired by The Right Stuff) were hired to craft a Godzilla film, complete with Patrick Tatopoulos being hired to design an animal (not a monster) that would move fast. Emmerich and Devlin were credited with the screenplay and also the story (with Elliott and Rossio) while Devlin served as a producer. Around-the-clock work in trying to get the effects (a good deal done in CG) done meant that a final cut was only assembled just days before the premiere, with a lack of studio screenings being done before its release in May (three months later, an animated series came out as a follow-up that ended up lasting until 2000). The film, made for over $100 million, was one that made money, but a general lack of enthusiasm all the way around led to TriStar letting the sequel rights expire in 2003. Emmerich was apparently never a big Godzilla fan, describing them as just "weekend matinees you saw as a kid...you'd go with all your friends and just laugh" (he liked the first but apparently wasn't big on the follow-ups with monsters fighting each other). Devlin later stated his belief that there were two mistakes that were made with the film and its script: a lack of commitment in what Godzilla was as a character (i.e, hero or villain, since they went with "just simply an animal trying to survive") and lending its exposition of the character backgrounds in the middle of the film rather than in the start. Rossio wrote a whole essay with the title "The One Hundred Million Dollar Mistake". Some have mockingly renamed the film to such titles as "G.I.N.O." (Godzilla In Name Only) or "Zilla", and years later, Toho even went with a "Zilla" trademark. TriStar handled the distribution for a dubbed version Godzilla 2000 (which started production shortly after the release of this film) in 2000, funny enough.

At least Devlin could be given credit for trying. But Emmerich? No, he screwed up a layup of making a disaster movie where a monster goes around breathing fire and wreaking havoc that could play like an Irwin Allen epic. I haven't watched an Emmerich film in a decade, but this is shovelware for tbe birds. You might say, hey, he tries to make popcorn entertainment movies, why not give him a break if you weren't too hard on Independence Day and The Patriot...? Nah, I can't give credit here, because this being the first all-around American rendition of a Godzilla film makes for the easiest target to call a piece of crap in all of history. This is a movie that names two characters after prominent critics of Emmerich's work and doesn't even take the chance to squish them. This is a movie where the creature can just disappear for chunks of the film and... reproduce asexually while having an origin of nuclear testing...by the French. I think being hard on this stupid film is not only a wise idea but a righteous one. 2024 will see a fourth Godzilla film from the States (oddly enough, Rossio co-wrote the story to Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire [2024]), and it likely will dwarf the one presented here by the simple act that it will be made by someone who cares about what they are making. It makes Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, that movie with dubbing and Raymond Burr playing a stand-in explaining stuff, look like a godsend in comparison. Fiery breath and an underwhelming human cast is the equivalent of being served a hamburger filled with plastic while the soda cup is filled with stuff from 1978. 

At least Broderick seems to be engaging with his role rather than looking like he wants to shrink away in humiliation. That doesn't make it any easier to bear the idea that a film about a monster (sorry, animal, but that just sounds stupid) with the most boring human characters to support it. Lame gags about his character name and a horribly misplaced timing of trying to get us to be on these characters for the middle have him fare nearly the worst of everyone. According to one source, a lead executive was so displeased at what he saw from Pitillo's performance that he wanted to find someone to re-voice the role. I would like to point out that she was one of three folks that had three-film contracts for Godzilla (alongside Broderick and Reno). How mean could I possibly be? Well, I will simply just say that she would probably be better fit for the third lead in a Gamera film. Most perplexing is Reno, if only because again, when I think of guilt and trying to deal with what they create, a bunch of bumbling French operatives is not high on the list. What exactly is the purpose of having accomplishes all being named Jean? With the various little attempts at humor involving bad coffee, I'm almost surprised they didn't give the team a skunk mascot. Lerner and Dunn are probably the only highlights of the film, and all they are doing is just stuff you would expect from people playing to the check that we like. It isn't even worth making a reference with talking about Azaria and Shearer. It meanders for over two hours and fails to even reach half of the level of something like say, The Towering Inferno ever did. The "asexual reproduction" makes the whole thing preposterous, the sequences of baby Godzillas elevates it further, the end sequence of Godzilla being taken down by military missiles closes the entire thing out to the stupidest possible level, because if there is anything to learn from a series about a radioactive monster and consequences, the best way for it to go down is a credibly interesting presence to counteract it...i.e., not the military. Emmerich can say whatever he wants about what he thought about getting into the project or the result, the bottom line is that this is a hacky movie that isn't particularly thrilling or particularly noteworthy for spectacle that hadn't been done in Jurassic Park (or its mediocre sequel) or other Godzilla films before it. I can't claim to have seen all of those feature films, but even the ones that are just okay at best knew that they were trying to make something worthwhile for an audience to watch. This just exudes misery.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

In some ways, every year gets better and better for Movie Night. Happy 13th anniversary, folks. Two record-setting months of interesting reviews made a useful 2023 and hopefully sets the stage for some re-invention in 2024.

The Truman Show.

Review #1519: The Truman Show.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Truman Burbank), Laura Linney (Hannah Gill / Meryl Burbank), Ed Harris (Christof), Noah Emmerich (Louis Coltrane / Marlon), Natascha McElhone (Sylvia), Holland Taylor (Alanis Montclair / Angela Burbank), Brian Delate (Walter Moore / Kirk Burbank), Paul Giamatti (Simeon), Jen Taylor (Contralto Singer), Peter Krause (Laurence), and Harry Shearer (Mike Michaelson) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously and #1185 - Witness)

Review: 
"I'm still amazed how you can put your pen down and think not a line can be changed... You've finally got it right. You pick it up ten days later, and it's all so bad."

Intuition matters in a director, and Peter Weir has made an accomplished career built on that in his native Australia and beyond. He was inspired by people he met while studying law at the University of Sydney to take up film, and he soon became part of Ubu Films, a short-lived filmmaking collective in the region, with it being morphed into the Sydney Filmmakers Co-op that favored independent filmmakers both in the region and abroad with a focus on experimental work. When he was 24, he started in film by making his first shorts with The Life and Times of the Reverend Buckshotte (1968). Weir added television to his foray with Man on a Green Bike (1969), and his next contribution was the segment "Michael" in the TV/film anthology 3 to Go (1971). He then made his first true film with the 50-minute black comedy Homesdale later in that year. The Cars That Ate Paris (1974) later found a cult following, but it was Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) that proved his first triumph in Australia and abroad. The script had been done by Andrew Niccol (known for writing/directing Gattaca in 1997) over the course of several years (with the first treatment being done in 1991) and numerous re-writes, which originally featured prominent elements of science fiction in a New York City setting, which Weir (recommended by Niccol after failed considerations of directors like Brian De Palma) felt should be lighter. Also contributing to a wait in filming was Carrey's busy schedule, but it ultimately proved worth it as a comedy-drama triumph for Carrey that differed from his usual comedic work.

We gravitate to comfort because sometimes we are afraid of the truth that stares us in the face. People can get absorbed into the lives of others because it gives us something that we can gravitate to as a community - imagine watching someone's life at a bar. Creepily enough, the film depicts an aftershow to the main subject - I mean, how many after-shows are there about discussing the show that you literally just watched on television (or streaming, if one is into that)? In that sense, this is a very prescient winner, one that fascinates itself in tender enjoyment held in place through a dynamic Carrey and a good sense of timing in terms of harrowing reality satire. Carrey is enjoyable and convincing for our curiosity to focus on because of the fact that he draws us in through simplicity of the heart: we warm to him with no hesitation or desiring some sort of cheap gag or rubbery movement - in other words, an average Joe that draws humor from what we the audience know at first. Linney does pretty well in generating humor through a retro-inspired act of dubious normalcy that generates an amusing one-two punch with Carrey when there. Harris (hired after Weir let Dennis Hopper go a few days into production) comes along for the second half with an aura of visionary exploitation that pulls in a craven nature of wanting to show entertainment with complicity and conviction without even needing to go past the viewing room like a scientist looking upon his specimen with fascination. Emmerich makes for an adequate assuming pal, while McElhone does okay in small parts involving being the one sane person in this land of television.

The look of the film is certainly very interesting. It was filmed primarily in the master-planned community of Seaside, Florida, which Weir found about due to his wife telling him about Seaside, which falls in line with the inspiration of old-style postcards and paintings and a surveillance-like touch to certain shots. Perhaps it is no surprise that there is actually a delusion suffered by people that relates to the film, one in which people that believe their lives were reality TV shows (such as climbing the Statue of Liberty in the belief that it would release him from the show). If you believed that people all over the world were watching you, would that be a comforting feeling or outright horrifying? Imagine the people you loved or were friends were actually liar-I mean actors. I bet there's probably at least one person who really would like to be on television for the masses to see, or if that fails, stream it to the Internet for unchecked audiences. Perhaps people might really just might watch anything if you give them something to look at, whether that involves surviving on an island, or living on the shores of Jersey, or other representations of supposed "reality television." It lingers for 103 minutes with a fair hand on the wheel in prescience of human satire without becoming consumed in just showing off its premise to pull cheap tricks or diverge itself from keeping its adventure on point right to the very last moment of choice. In the end, we see a lot with our eyes, but it is our choices with what we see and hear that means the most to being free.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Simpsons Movie.

Review #814: The Simpsons Movie.

Cast
Dan Castellaneta (Homer Simpson, Abe Simpson, Groundskeeper Willie, Krusty the Clown, Mr. Teeny, Sideshow Mel, Mayor Quimby, EPA Officer, Itchy, Barney Gumble, Hans Moleman, Plopper, Burns's Lawyer, Rich Texan), Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson, Patty and Selma), Nancy Cartwright (Bart Simpson, Nelson Muntz, Ralph Wiggum, Todd Flanders, TV daughter), Yeardley Smith (Lisa Simpson), Pam Hayden (Maggie Simpson, Milhouse Van Houten, Rod Flanders), Hank Azaria (Moe Szyslak, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, Comic Book Guy, Cletus Spuckler, Carl, Bumblebee Man, Dr. Nick, Chief Wiggum, Gabbo, Officer Lou), Harry Shearer (Mr. Burns, Smithers, Ned Flanders, Rainer Wolfcastle, Reverend Lovejoy, Lenny, Dr. Hibbert, Kent Brockman, Scratchy, Seymour Skinner, Otto Mann), Tress MacNeille (Medicine Woman, Colin, Cookie Kwan, Lindsey Neagle, Agnes Skinner, TV son, Mrs. Muntz, Elly), Albert Brooks (Russ Cargill), Marcia Wallace (Edna Krabappel), Russi Taylor (Martin Prince), and Maggie Roswell (Helen Lovejoy, Miss Hoover) Directed by David Silverman (#074 - Monsters, Inc.)

Review
I suppose this is a hard one to review in part because The Simpsons has been a culture phenomenon before and after I was even born, with no end in sight even after 25 years, and it was only fitting that a movie was made. The discussion of the series and its impact (and apparent decline) is one that will last even longer than this review, if not the next bunch. For me, I remember watching reruns of the show on local TV when I was growing up, but I haven't really watched that many episodes in the past few years, old or new. It's nothing personal, it's just I haven't had as much time for it. But I decided to watch the movie, in part because I wanted to end the month off with a review, and what better than the Simpsons?

While The Simpsons Movie could not possibly live up to any conceivable hype, it is at least an entertaining movie that succeeds enough to work. There is enough gags and enough of the family dynamic that helps it shine, even if it may be a bit short under 90 minutes. The animation is good, showing some excellent depth, such as the mob scene, or even when showing Alaska. The characters are faithfully brought to the screen, and there is some good scenes with them, such as when they are trying to escape the mob, or when Bart helps them escape from a convenience store by "drawing". I wish the movie had been longer, but I almost wish more that it was about something else. Granted, it does try to be more than just an extended episode of the show, but there's just something about it that feels missing. Sure, the environmental plot is fine and all, but it doesn't really seem to come off as meaty enough to leave much of an impact. The villain (played by Brooks) isn't terrible, but he isn't really anything that special either. The movie didn't need a cartoon-ish over-the-top villain, but I think it needed something a bit more defined. The scenes with Bart and Flanders are well-handled, and it is at least nice to see some sort of variation of Homer that actually seems to learn some sort of lesson, in a strange quirky scene no less. On the whole, The Simpsons Movie is passable enough, with the characters we all know and love in their own movie, and it pushes itself just over the edge to work.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: This Is Spinal Tap.

Review #108: This Is Spinal Tap.

Cast
Michael McKean (David St. Hubbins), Christopher Guest (Nigel Tufnel), Harry Shearer (Derek Smalls), Rob Reiner (Marty Di Bergi), Tony Hendra (Ian Faith), R.J. Parnell (Mick Shrimpton, drummer), David Kaff (Viv Savage), June Chadwick (Jeanine Pettibone), Bruno Kirby (Tommy Pischedda, limo driver), Ed Begley, Jr. (John "Stumpy" Pepys), Danny Kortchmar (Ronnie Pudding), Fran Drescher (Bobbi Flekman), Patrick Macnee (Sir Denis Eton-Hogg) Directed by Rob Reiner.

Review
This is the essential rockumentary, that is the lesson you've learned after watching this movie (Also to power your things up to 11). The film has decent acting (you really can't have bad acting in a rockumentary), but it's most important thing that it has is its music. Two words: So Cool...It's a film that satarizes other rock bands and while not being very smart and all, it makes up for it by being enjoyable and just plain awesome. Actually, it's not just "plain", it's rocking awesome. It's cool, funny, rocking, 11venating, and most of all cool.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 11 stars.