Godzilla

[slikrapid]

this movie:
- wrong attitude, it wanted to be serious & impressive, yet turned out unintentionally silly & underwhelming (cgi/action)
- where was the fun? too dark ('barely visible' kind of dark), too depressive, too trendy ('dark, depressed & incompetent knight' trend used over and over again, must spit in the face of the hero image, ie. antihero trend of the worst kind)
- constipated incompetent 3rd rate actors (might be a bit harsh)
- beyond incompetent scriptwriting as seen above
- weak cgi, in a movie so dependent on cgi, in the age of cgi = fail
- nobody cared about such things, this was a complete money-grab, a movie probably produced for less than $60 mil., made to seem like a $160 mil. on paper and they cashed in at least $100 mil. in the process (aka hollywood accounting)
- the godzilla look was accurate, perhaps also his characteristics (wait, someone did care!)

the previous version:
- it wanted not to be taken seriously, yet impressive (effects & action close to big-budget movies of the era) - both decently accomplished
- where was the fun? there was almost too much of it, every character had some funny elements and decent actors to pull it off: broderick (has 'confused' written all over his face), his ex-girlfriend & her boyfriend (more confusion, younger gargamel), jean reno (pronounced as: renault, nuff said), their interaction & clumsiness accompanied the action scenes well - no heroes here, but no spitting either
- bearable scriptwriting
- cheese? yes, of the enjoyable kind - not top level, but not that far either
- the monster did not look like the original godzilla, more like what it 'would look like' if it were a real animal (some kind of a dinosaur)

now, we might argue how much of this was really accomplished or what element was important or not, the bottom line is: can you enjoy it, does it entertain you, would you watch it again, how does it compare to other movies of the era/genre/topic, etc. - regarding the previous version, sure, i'd watch it again, though not too often - regarding the new one: had some fun watching/writing, but once was quite enough, thank you very much

[yoco]

Why? M not a huge fan but it was good

I also think previous movie was good!

[Sazzy]

Slik, I don't really understand why you're so sure that the new one wanted to be srs bsns, while the old one wanted to be funny and silly. Care to explain what makes you so sure? I might be missing out on a few details, as I've had to watch the movie in 3 parts as I was constantly interrupted.
It seems like a bit of an excuse for the old one to suck less than it really did.

I also don't understand why the new one had all those silly old-school Godzilla features in it, if they really wanted to be all that serious. I personally didn't see it as a serious movie at all. It's probably also the reason why I'm among the few in this thread that wasn't all too bothered with the movie.



That being said, I really don't understand why so many people in this thread actually LOVE the old movie and hate the new one. If anything, I'd say you either hate both or enjoy both.

[slikrapid]

@Sazzy:

why you're so sure that the new one wanted to be srs bsns, while the old one wanted to be funny and silly.

try to find comic elements in the new one... virtually inexistent?
how do the characters behave: loosened up or constipated from worries? having fun, fooling around or displaying heavy drama? even the kid was depressed/mute/zombified... dying kids had more joy in them, it was that serious
dark, depressive, heavy atmosphere

old one:
- some of it was already mentioned
- the worms scene (clumsy/unlucky scientist), the military arrival scene (we want 'the worms guy', of all the scientists!), the transport scene (someone knows about me, my work?), the footprint scene (child-like excitement), the tent scene (ooh, handsome broderick!) and thats only the first, what, 5-15 min maybe, which sets the light, non-serious tone - any reasons to be depressed so far? maybe a little envious cause of that handsome bstard hehehe

I also don't understand why the new one had all those silly old-school Godzilla features in it, if they really wanted to be all that serious.

they wanted to make it similar to the old/true look? the thing that bothered many with the 1998 version or the thing that gives them advantage over the old version, since comparison will be inevitable

I really don't understand why so many people in this thread actually LOVE the old movie and hate the new one. If anything, I'd say you either hate both or enjoy both.

love? more like: 'like', ie. its good/decent, not very good/excellent, whereas the new one is bad or below average (and: dislike, not hate) - my position anyways

[Sazzy]

Well, I can agree with that much at least :)

Seems like I just got you into star-mode too, congrats ;-)

[hellman]

Becoz movie was lame .. expectations were big n stupid mistakes... Mutos had led's instead of eyes n they sucked energy like a battery of mobile phone is charging n many more

[yoco]

So I finally watched it! I must say I like it I'm a sucker for big monsters
Maybe only thing I kinda disliked was the fact that godzilla has, imo, way too low screen time. If sequel comes I hope they focus more on godzilla instead of human factor.

[Sazzy]

Becoz movie was lame .. expectations were big n stupid mistakes... Mutos had led's instead of eyes n they sucked energy like a battery of mobile phone is charging n many more

sounds like oldschool Godzilla stuff

So I finally watched it! I must say I like it I'm a sucker for big monsters
Maybe only thing I kinda disliked was the fact that godzilla has, imo, way too low screen time. If sequel comes I hope they focus more on godzilla instead of human factor.

i can def agree that more Godzilla would have been nice.

[yoco]

I forgot to mention I really liked that blue fire flame or whatever it's called!

[alpacino]

I loved this movie, specially because I'm a huge fan of tokusatsu.