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.

WarGames.

Review #1610: WarGames.

Cast:

Matthew Broderick (David Lightman), Dabney Coleman (Dr. John McKittrick), John Wood (Dr. Stephen Falken / WOPR), Ally Sheedy (Jennifer Mack), Barry Corbin (General Jack Beringer), Juanin Clay (Patricia Healy), Dennis Lipscomb (Watson), Joe Dorsey (Col. Joe Conley), Michael Ensign (Beringer's assistant), William Bogert (Mr. Lightman), Susan Davis (Mrs. Lightman), and Irving Metzman (Richter) Directed by John Badham (#088 - Short Circuit, #1293 - Dracula (1979), and #1456 - Saturday Night Fever)

Review:

"If you get the characters right, everything else falls into place...Every actor has to be directed differently from every other actor...You have to make the set a comfortable place to be where it's okay to fail."

Films are a product of their time but some of those films represent the age they came from more than others, whether of good quality or not. WarGames is certainly a film for its decade, made in a time where computers for the home were growing in popularity but before the Internet (in other words, a time before my time). The story for the film was done by Walter F. Parkes and Lawrence Lasker, who developed their script over the course of a few years beginning in 1979. The original core involved a "dying scientist and the only person in the world who understands him - a rebellious kid who's too smart for his own good." Three people would play their part in shaping the film with computers: a meeting with Peter Schwartz, then of the Stanford Research Institute, shaped the film with hacking, since he felt a new subculture was arising in hacking with kids. Willis Ware of RAND Corporation helped inspire the idea of hacking into the computer with remote access (whether military or not). David Scott Lewis (a real-life hacker would eventually move to clean tech) would be the model for Broderick's character, and he had argued that the film has the most accurate representation of hacking. The character of Falken was originally inspired by Stephen Hawking, while the character of Beringer was inspired by then commander-in-chief of NORAD General James V. Hartinger. The original director for the film was Martin Brest, who shot for a few weeks before being let go by the studio, owing to his dark approach to the material, for which Badham would go the other way (treating it as a film to look fun and exciting rather than a dark rebellion). Noted writer and script doctor Tom Mankiewicz would also make contribution to the film, albeit without a screenplay credit.

Honestly, I was okay with the film, albeit with the observation that it just seems like a spunkier version of another film about hacking that would come out twelve years later with Hackers (1995), which also dealt with a high school hacker inadvertently getting his way into a deeper mystery. Actually, that isn't too far off, since Parkes and Lasker would return to write another film together that dealt with hacking (in this case security) with Sneakers (1992). After all, the film proved an influence to others in higher places of civic authority in the danger of "automatic dialing and access capabilities of the personal computer." In other words, it spooked President Reagan about hackers. Ten years after the release of this film saw the first ever convention dedicated to hackers with DEF CON (which happens to have attendance from folks interested in hacking alongside federal agents). This was the first major role for Broderick, who had started acting with stage and TV work two years prior. He does well what is needed here in wistful curiosity, where one cares to see where the line goes with hacking rather than wanting to see him get stuffed in a prison locker (one can only wonder what would've happened with the dark interpretation of the script by Brest, which might have been weird or really stiff). Coleman, a character presence in film and television, does well with what is needed in an authority foil with keen sense to go with what is needed in the scenes spent in the war room. Wood, known for his work in the theatre since the 1950s, does well with sardonic charm that lends itself well to the second half in maturity and futility. Sheedy (also in her second role, having appeared in Bad Boys less than two months prior to this film) is fine, breezy in those moments spent with Broderick, but the true presence of mind comes with Corbin, who provides booming bravado that is crisp in those moments spent in wavering circumstances with computers and choices. Admittedly, the one thing that sticks out to me regardless of age is that NORAD command center set, which is elaborate with all of its technological gizmos and lighting that probably makes the actual NORAD seem strange in comparison. Of course, it just happens to be a movie that tries to have a bit of adventure with hacking that will hit its target more so than missing it. In other words, it works for what it is without looking like a stodgy relic, walking that fine line between casual and tense in undertones that work for whoever wants to see where it will play out in 114 minutes. It is a movie about tech and the danger that could come from an over-reliance of it when faced with requirements of something as deep as nuclear war scenario-making. John Badham certainly made an eclectic range of warm films over the course of three decades, and while this might not be his greatest effort, it certainly stands well among his line of work in solid entertainment for engagement in tone and execution.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Deck the Halls.

Review #497: Deck the Halls.

Cast

Danny DeVito (Buddy Hall), Matthew Broderick (Steve Finch), Kristin Chenoweth (Tia Hall), Kristin Davis (Kelly Finch), Alia Shawkat (Madison Finch), Dylan Blue (Carter Finch), Sabrina Aldridge (Ashley Hall), Kelly Aldridge (Emily Hall), Josh Hayden (Ben Hall), and Jorge Garcia (Wallace) Directed by John Whitesell.

Review

Deck the Halls...is just awful. It makes Christmas with the Kranks seem tolerable, it makes the Miracle on 34th Street remake seem like a better alternative, it makes fruitcake look like a tasty treat, whatever comparison I use, nothing equates to what Deck the Halls really is: Awful. The plot itself is just...I can't really comprehend it enough to explain, but how does one equate trying to make your house visible from space to be a Christmas film? Also how does one make the film so unlikable? I don't know, but the filmmakers did it, they made an awful Christmas film with characters ranging from near unlikable to bland. What I mean is that the characters that get the most screen time are the least likable, such as the two main leads and the ones that don't get screen time are too bland to care about, such as the children. DeVito isn't awful, but I'd stick to Twins instead. At least he had a fine partner to pair off with in that film, unlike Matthew Broderick, who just doesn't work well with him. Chenoweth isn't bad, and Davis is mild, but not awful. This is one of the worst ideas for a Christmas film as instead of focusing on spending time with the family (and getting mediocre gifts you hopefully won't re wrap next year), the film focuses on...getting a house visible from space. Yes, racking up your electrical bills and nearly driving your family away from you is truly worth it. This is simply the fruitcake of Christmas film, the movie you watch to truly be depressed about Christmas. Ernest Saves Christmas had more dignity (and entertainment value) then this, but if I keep talking about this film, I will go insane. There are much better ways to spend your Fridays, reviewing Deck the Halls is not one of them. Countdown to 500 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Review #207: Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Cast
Matthew Broderick (Ferris Bueller), Alan Ruck (Cameron Frye), Mia Sara (Sloane Peterson), Jeffrey Jones (Edward R. Rooney), Jennifer Grey (Jeanie Bueller), Lyman Ward (Tom Bueller), and Cindy Pickett (Katie Bueller) Directed by John Hughes (The Breakfast Club - #046)

Review
I haven't talked about John Hughes in a while. A really long while. But here we are, with Hughes directing and writing for the fourth out of eight films. This film, like I said in The Breakfast Club review, is a fun film to watch. Hughes makes sure his characters are actually characters, which is always a good thing. They do change a bit as the film progresses, especially Frye. The landmarks in Chicago are used greatly by Hughes, who said "I really wanted to capture as much of Chicago as I could. Not just in the architecture and landscape, but the spirit." And...It is captured. The film is (I actually almost forgot to mention) funny. Bueller breaking the fourth wall, dancing in a parade and many other things are the highlights in a film that has been praised, analyzed and more (such as getting a brief run on TV). A good flick, enjoyable to say the least.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Glory.

Review #101: Glory.

Cast
Matthew Broderick (Colonel Robert Gould Shaw), Denzel Washington (Private Silas Trip), Morgan Freeman (Sergeant Major John Rawlins), Cary Elwes (Major Cabot Forbes), Cliff De Young (Colonel James Montgomery), Andre Braugher (Private Thomas Searles), Jihmi Kennedy (Private Jupiter Sharts), Alan North (Governor John Albion Andrew), and John Finn (Sergeant Major Mulcahy) Directed by Edward Zwick.

Review
This film is based on the 54th Infantry, led by Robert Gould Shaw, as it was the first all African American regiment in the Civil War. The film is told by Shaw's perspective, and it is a good film. The acting is good, especially from Washington (earning a Best Supporting Oscar for it) and Freeman (one of his many roles that he does great in). The film is grand with its locations, its battles, and especially its musical score, which is booming and perfect for a movie like this. The film has one flaw that some do point out. The flaw is that they focus on Shaw more, rather then the Regiment itself for about half the film. The purpose should be focusing on the Regiment, not just the man leading it, but I suppose the point was to have a unifying arc, and Shaw fits the bill. If you want a film dedicated to the Regiment, or interested in seeing a movie to honor the men and women who died in war for Memorial Day, or you just want to see a fragment of the Civil War, then this film is for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Lion King.

Review #073: The Lion King.

Cast
Matthew Broderick (Simba), James Earl Jones (Mufasa), Jeremy Irons (Scar), Moira Kelly (Nala), Nathan Lane (Timon), Ernie Sabella (Pumbaa), Rowan Atkinson (Zazu), with Whoopie Goldberg and Cheech Marin. Directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff.

Review
This film is gem among Disney flicks (ironically the animators thought Pocahontas would be the better flick). It delivers a story with good acting, top notch animation, and a little humor (Not too much thankfully) added in. It's a film that's also useful for any teachers wanting to use it to teach about science (and how the living turn into the grass). Anyway, this is a good film with music in there that helps the story and does not ruin anything, unlike some other "musicals" It's no wonder they made a musical adaptation a few years after the film. It's a recommended film that makes you love animation. Oh and Disney. A little...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.