Godzilla (2014) – Review

Review: Godzilla is visually striking and features a few very compelling moments, but overall is quite disappointing, pulled down by a fairly terrible script. The film is about engineer Joe Brody and his family. Joe works at a nuclear power plant in Japan that melts down due to a presumed natural disaster, killing Joe’s wife. Fifteen years later, Joe is still searching for answers, believing that the plant meltdown is being covered up and that something else entirely is responsible. Meanwhile, Joe’s son Ford has moved on from the tragedy and has his own family in San Francisco. Ford must come to Japan, however, after his father is arrested trespassing on the site of the old plant. Joe convinces Ford to come with him one last time to search the site for answers. Once there, they discover something profoundly terrifying. This is a film about a giant monster after all.

Godzilla is very polarizing for me (the film, not the character). On one hand, I found it to be mesmerizing aesthetically, often thrilling me with its fantastic visual spectacles and the best score of 2014 so far. But on the other hand, the characters and script are just plain awful. Sadly, despite very impressive visuals, this is just not a good film.

Director Gareth Edwards seems poised to deliver a classic monster movie, delaying Godzilla for most of the film’s first two acts, seemingly instead to focus on building strong characters.  The problem is that his characters are paper thin and their emotional exchanges are laughably clichéd and contrived. The scenes involving the human characters are mostly unwatchable, especially when they attempt to convey some sort of emotional exchange. Edwards never takes the time to give his characters any real character attributes or character-centric moments to involve the audience on a deeper emotional level; they are all hollow shells that just blankly say poorly written lines of dialog. The audience could care less about any of these human characters. They are essentially pointless; and yet, they take up most of the screen time. Thus, Edwards structuring the film to delay Godzilla’s appearance for a large chunk ends up hurting the film overall as the first half plays very slowly (due to the lousy characters).

It is as if Edwards devoted all his time and effort into making sure the visuals and the action involving Godzilla worked, forgetting that for the film to exist outside of being just pure spectacle he also needs strong characters at its core that the audience can care about and invest in, which in turn allows the drama and action the play bigger. Clearly, the human characters were an afterthought, only included at the last minute with little effort taken because someone told him he could not have a film without human characters (pure speculation).

But even with all that said, Edwards gets the visuals completely right. Once Godzilla gets involved and the action ramps up, the film actually becomes fairly interesting, as the viewer is thrilled by the pure ambiance created by the smoky, overcast, dark, foreboding cinematography and the brilliant thunderous and sort of spooky score. The atmosphere created is wonderful. And then Edwards introduces the monster and is able to pull off the epic imagery with panache.

After being bewildered by just how bad the characters are in the film, I found myself entranced by the film, enchanted by the striking images and atmosphere Edwards employs in the second half. The characters themselves are still pointless, utterly, but the visuals take over carrying the film.

At the end, one might even call the film satisfying – but that is completely dependent on one’s expectations for what the film should be or aspire to be. For those looking for something that is pure spectacle featuring a massive monster engaging in grand terror and destruction then this film will probably work quite well, as essentially that is all it does well. For those, however, looking for a complete narrative film with strong characters, Godzilla will be a letdown. Again, even with its tremendous visuals, it is just not a good movie. But, and this is its saving grace, it does entertain once it gets going.

On a side note, Edwards seems to be highly influenced by Steven Spielberg. There are a number of moments that feel like they are carbon copies of similar moments across Spielberg’s films. Particularly, Edwards utilizes “The Spielberg Face”, especially when it comes to using children to employ the dramatic device; though, I will say that Edwards uses it much less effectively. Even worse, Godzilla ultimately feels like a remake of Jurassic Park, mirroring many scenes and thematic and stylistic elements (but with far weaker characters). Everything somewhat shamefully copies everything else in filmmaking generally, but I kept thinking that the two paralleled each other very closely throughout, as if I were watching a updated version with slightly better visual effects.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Gareth Edwards has made two feature films, both of which focus on large monsters making landfall engaging in carnage and creating dread among human inhabiting the areas. His first film Monsters somewhat feels like it could be a sequel to this Godzilla film, as Godzilla introduces monsters to the human world, while Monsters is about humans living in a world also inhabited by monsters. They are similar in many ways, but what sets them apart is that Monsters feature reasonably good characters while Godzilla has terribly underwritten characters, and thus its seems as if Edwards has taken a step backwards as a filmmaker. But that said, I look forward to seeing what he does with Godzilla 2, as again his visuals were rather good.

The wonderful aesthetics are thanks to the collaborations with the great group Edwards worked with on the film. Composer Alexandre Desplat delivers a phenomenal score given the genre and style of the film (here is the full score; it is honestly far better than the film it is in). It has a great chilling power to it, often sounding as if it were written for a horror thriller or ghost story. It is spooky and very fun; and, I like the Japanese influences and accents as well. I will be surprised if it is not among my three favorite scores of the year when all is said and done (Desplat already gave us the fantastic The Grand Budapest Hotel score earlier this year as well, which I also loved). Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography perfectly sets the mood working in dark and gloomy tones. There is a scene in which paratroopers deploy through the clouds which is just visually astonishing and kind of beautiful. Owen Paterson’s production design does a good job grounding the film in reality, even though it often feels ridiculous (the sheer spectacle of watching Godzilla traipse through a city is kind of just as hilarious as it is mesmerizing). Designing sets that feel and look obliterated must have been fun. Overall, the film being as good as it is in moments (not overall) is thanks in large part to the work of these three.

It is hard to say that any of the actors are good in Godzilla as it is not really true, but it is not their fault. The script is one of the poorest of this year so far. They do their best. David Strathairn plays a typical military man type, while Juliette Binoche plays Joe’s wife who has the tough task of making the audience feel something (unsuccessfully) by dying in the first five to ten minutes of the film. Ken Watanabe plays a scientist who just wants to see Godzilla flourish, while Sally Hawkins plays another scientist who follows his lead completely (neither serves any purpose except maybe for some exposition). Bryan Cranston plays Joe, a crazy person who is vindicated while also wearing a horrifically terrible wig. Aaron Taylor-Johnson plays Ford, a military man who is fed up with his father being a crazy person. Ford finds Joe being obsessed by the tragedy that claimed the life of his wife (because that seems unreasonable), believing that it is being covered up, annoyingly tiresome, as he has moved on. Elizabeth Olsen plays Ford’s wife Elle, and like Ford she too has no personality or character whatsoever. These actors have all been very good in other things, but here with Godzilla they are basically being paid to kill screen time until Godzilla shows up (as presumably the budget could not pay for two hours of Godzilla smashing stuff) with little care given to actually creating fully realized characters of any kind.

Summary & score: Godzilla is everything one could hope for in terms of being a grand monster movie. There is just one hitch; it is not a very good film in every other regard. 6/10

Lincoln (2012) – Review

Review: Lincoln is a historical political drama built on wonderful performances and historical significance that still resonates today. The film is about President Abraham Lincoln’s battle within the House of Representatives to pass the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution (essentially making it illegal to own slaves, among other things) before the end of the Civil War (which, in its fourth year, saw the South beginning to wane considerably), as with the war ended it would be much more difficult (negotiating the peace with the South).

Director Steven Spielberg has structured the film to be essentially a political drama centered around the struggle to pass a piece of legislation – a historic piece of legislation but one nonetheless – and thus the connection to the main narrative journey for the audience comes from whether or not they care about the consequences if the legislation does not pass. Spielberg faces a difficult challenge from the start, as this being famous (in at least that everyone knows that Lincoln freed the slaves, in simple terms) informs the audience of the outcome before the film even starts. Thus, the audience must be drawn into the story by more than just the outcome of the narrative. Spielberg accomplishes this by also making the film a character piece focusing on Lincoln (not so much biographically looking at his career, but more about the man himself, his personality).

Looking first at how the film works as a political drama, excusing the fact that the audience already knows how it ends, the film achieves its narrative goals but lacks a powerful deeper dramatic impact. Its main flaw comes from how Spielberg manages the tone of the film. For the most part, the film is presented as a very serious drama with grave consequences to the actions of the characters, matching the backdrop of the very bloody and devastating Civil War ravishing the country – the stakes could not be higher. Plus, the importance of passing the amendment in the House quickly (as it had already been passed in the Senate), a main narrative point that sets the plot and characters in motion, stems from Lincoln’s understanding that the North mostly agrees that making slavery illegal will help end the war, but if the South is going to surrender in short order then the amendment is not necessarily essential (as Democrats and conservative Republicans do not support it as adamantly as liberal Republicans). Thus if the amendment is going to pass at all, it needs to happen before the South begins its surrender (and thus the urgency). Spielberg is able to convey how critical the urgency is, but Washington D.C. in the film seems unaffected by the war. Yes, there are graphic images of the war, but for the most part it feels very removed from the drama in the film. Spielberg uses an almost playful tone in many of the political scenes (especially those featuring Bilbo, Latham and Schell and their mission to buy votes – though, these are among the most fun moments in the film, but should we be talking about fun moments in a serious political drama?), which undermines the tension that he is otherwise building. The House is also comprised of laughable caricatures, with many of the representatives (particularly the Democrats) portrayed as exaggerated buffoons (again, how can the audience take the film seriously with characters such as these). The film at moments feels like a political farce, like In the Loop, and yet, again, the stakes could not be higher (is Spielberg really making a satire addressing today’s political climate?). It is as if Spielberg is worried that the film will be overly dramatically weighty and wants to infuse light moments into the narrative to allow the audience to breath (especially given the film’s long runtime). However, this is ultimately problematic because the audience no longer feels just how important the passing of the amendment is (even if they intellectually understand it) nor do they feel the grave pressure that the war is putting on all of the characters, as the whole political drama is presented to them as a satire of sorts tonally. The saving grace of the drama however comes in the form of a few serious characters that convey the full weight of what is going on (namely Thaddeus Stevens), but it is not quite enough.

 To compliment the political drama structure of the film, Spielberg lays a character study of Lincoln on top, giving the audience a look into the man. The tone of the character work juxtaposed to the political drama (satire) does not always mesh well (as the character stuff is seldom light), often leaving these moments of the film feeling overly tedious and slow (especially those involving Mary Todd Lincoln). Spielberg wants to give the audience a full understanding of Lincoln, not just his role in politics but also his personal life (reminding me of the HBO miniseries John Adams in this way). However, despite how good the performances are, the film is first structured as a political drama and thus the character moments should play into the narrative of getting the amendment passed (and for the most part they do), everything else is not needed. Lincoln’s interactions with his family, which Spielberg uses to develop the character, add very little to the film, even detracting from it greatly as they drag down the pacing, because they do not inform Lincoln’s decision-making process in regards to the main narrative, they are merely present as fluff (and thus unnecessary). It is as if Spielberg presents Lincoln as a great man accomplishing great things in spite of his personal family drama, even going so far as to have Mary say as much. Yet, Lincoln seems unaffected by his personal life when it comes to his handling of the affairs of state, which again makes these moments narratively and dramatically unneeded. The audience never feels the toll that his personal life has on him (because it seems to have none). Spielberg does have some great character moments as well, however, specifically those featuring one of Lincoln’s many stories (wonderfully illustrating both the man and his thoughts on particular matters). The stories reveal much more emotional character detail about Lincoln that resonates with the audience in relation to the film’s main narrative. If Spielberg wanted to dive deeper into the character, the film should have been structured as a character piece primarily, not centering all the dramatic tension and action on the passing of the amendment, or sought out a longer format to tell a more in-depth story (like a miniseries).

These two main faults do hold Lincoln back from being great, as despite its grand scale, social relevance and overall strong filmmaking (though, I would argue that the finale image in the film is very sloppy, including the awkward dissolve) it is far too tedious, infuriatingly so. The film is filled with beautiful, powerful and electric images and scenes, but is constantly undermined and compromised emotionally by slow pacing (resulting from a flabby secondary narrative) and an uneven tone.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Steven Spielberg is a master of Hollywood filmmaking. What that means is that he is the master of making grand event films that are both highly entertaining and dramatically impactful (regardless of the genre, be them blockbusters or serious dramas). With Lincoln, Spielberg certainly tries to achieve this balance, which probably accounts for the lighter tone and caricature-like characters in a number of the scenes juxtaposed to the serious social and political importance of the narrative – i.e. he is trying to make a blockbuster serious drama. However, the film is quite flawed, and thus should not be counted among his best Hollywood dramas (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich), and yet it is still impressive.

John Williams’s score gives Lincoln an added emotional depth. It has a weight to it, which coveys to the audience the significance of the characters and events taking place. Williams also gives Lincoln a classic theme (maybe not among his best, but a fitting one nonetheless). Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski’s lighting gives the film an overall an almost cheerless feel, matching the season in which it is set (being the dead of winter) and general mood surrounding the country (that of devastating war). However, it does clash a bit with the tone at times. In terms of shot composition, Kaminski’s photography is fantastic. Lincoln is often cast in shadow or in silhouette, playing off his famous features. Rick Carter’s production design compliments the cinematography adding a very realistic grit and grim to the images. The world of 1865 was a very dirty place, and Spielberg, Carter and Kaminski are not afraid to present a more realistic look for the period (instead of the usual gloss that Hollywood films have) with faded colors, dirt and incessant shadows clouding everything in darkness and gloom. Overall, the film is very strong aesthetically.

The acting throughout Lincoln is very good (even if some of the performances tend towards the side of caricature). It has a massive supporting cast with many great and well-known actors. However, James Spader (sorting of playing an 1865 version of his The Office character Robert California) steals almost all his scenes and is very entertaining (the montage retellings of his Bilbo et al. acquiring votes is hilarious and completely engaging). Lee Pace (playing the vocally opposing Democrat Fernando Wood) is also fantastic and highly entertaining. David Strathairn (playing Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, who was also targeted for assassination on April 14^th, 1865 but his assailant failed) has the difficult role of being the audience’s in to what is going on, being forced to mainly convey exposition and context. However, Strathairn is still very good often playing devil’s advocate to Lincoln. Sally Field has a thankless (and grating) role playing Mary Todd Lincoln, left to be an irritation (both for the audience and) in her husband’s life. She does accomplish being annoying (so I guess she played her role well?). Tommy Lee Jones is brilliant in the film, playing a man (Thaddeus Stevens) that must comprise his beliefs to ultimately take the first step forward. He is able to exist both in the exaggerated silliness of the House arguments and still maintain an emotional connection with the audience (it is quietly the best performance in the film). As always, Daniel Day-Lewis completely embodies his character (in this case Abraham Lincoln). Every line of dialog or movement feels organic. It is a tough task to take on such an iconic historical figure, but Day-Lewis brings so much humanity to Lincoln that the audience leaves the film feeling like they really got a sense of the man.

Summary & score: Lincoln in many ways is a triumph and a disappointment. 7/10