Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

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.

Movie Night: The Patriot.

Review #413: The Patriot.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Benjamin Martin), Heath Ledger (Gabriel Martin), Jason Issacs (William Tavington), Joely Richardson (Charlotte Selton), Chris Cooper (Harry Burwell), Tcheky Karyo (Jean Villeneuve), Rene Auberjonois (Oliver), Lisa Brenner (Anne Howard), Tom Wilkinson (Charles, Lord Cornwallis), and Peter Woodward (Charles O'Hara) Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day)

Review
The Patriot boasts authenticity in costumes as they do look very nice, and very well made, the filmmakers even consulted the Smithsonian on advice, and it does look like there was real effort made into this film, especially given it's massive attempts at being a Revolutionary film, which isn't easy to do. This film manages to last over 2 and a half hours to try and tell a story that while sometimes veering into melodrama, does manages to be coherent. Whether this is a good film or not depends on what you want in this film. Action? The film has plenty of it, axes and weapon fights about. But if you want a film that has compelling villain that isn't one dimensional, you won't get that. It is not Issacs' fault, he's just the actor reading the lines that make this one dimensional character who is written to be evil without much thought to it. The rest of the actors are alright, and Mel Gibson tries his best. While this isn't a perfect film by any means, it manages to entertain, and it does a better job than Emmerich's previous film, Independence Day, so if you want some roaring action for July 4th and have time on your hands, I suppose this could work for you. Just take it in consideration.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

original:

Movie Night: Independence Day.

Review #193: Independence Day.

Cast
Will Smith (Steven Hiller), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (Thomas J. Whitmore), Margaret Colin (Constance Spano), Vivica A. Fox (Jasmine Dubrow), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Robert Loggia (William Grey), and Randy Quaid (Russell Casse) Directed by Roland Emmerich.

Review
Fixed for your consideration, everyone. This review was originally published two years ago and later transferred here; I've fixed some errors to help make it look a little better. Enjoy, and welcome to Earth.

First of all, happy Independence Day. The movie is almost a hack of Star Wars, but at least Star Wars had control and some sort of plot. It has one scene I find really good though, and that would be the destruction of the White House, it's such a memorable scene and also because it doesn't use much dialogue.  The aliens are decent, if you like beige monsters, but the ships are so dull looking. One thing I notice is in the beginning when the ships start to enter in the Earth, I thought they look like movie tin cans being dropped through a background. Maybe it's just me though. The acting is alright, with Will Smith being the main standout. Look, whatever he's in, he makes the film more enjoyable, it's just his charm that carries the movie.  

There are three things that happen near the end that I find a bit...mentionable. One, why don't the other nations have a plan instead of waiting for the U.S to do one? I'm sure the other nations of the world have scientists and such to figure it too, ya know. Secondly, the president's speech. I won't repeat it here but just search for it and you'll know what I mean. It's either the most over the top speech ever spoken, or...the most over the top speech ever spoken. Third, why did Emmerich delete scenes that help explain the film's end? Apparently, there were scenes to help explain this a bit better, that were deleted in the final cut, like how aliens get hacked by a virus that Google would laugh at, though I guess if you let a ship that previously crash landed 50 years ago in Roswell (just go with it) into your fortress, you deserve what you get. Overall, it's been 16 years, and there hasn't been a sequel. Yet. 

Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars