Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thats a yes then?

 Ratius wrote:
Thats a yes then?

I saw it in 3D and enjoyed it as well. Ignore Manchu's protestations, he has only hate in his heart and lives by the rule of "no fun allowed".

Saw it in 3D, enjoyed it immensely.

Cheers peeps, 3d it is so.

3D IMAX was amazing. The sound was also done up to a new level. It looked like it was actually filmed for 3D not just he sloppy afterthought you normally get.

My friend said that Zilla wasnt really the focus of the movie, tht it was the humans and that it wasntt that good.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My friend said that Zilla wasnt really the focus of the movie, tht it was the humans and that it wasntt that good.

What did he say after you soaked him with kerosene and then lit him up?

Not much, I bet.

 Ouze wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My friend said that Zilla wasnt really the focus of the movie, tht it was the humans and that it wasntt that good.

What did he say after you soaked him with kerosene and then lit him up?

Not much, I bet.

My, my...

Feel that strongly about this movie then?

On Rotten Tomato it still has %73 percent rating...

My wallet is already screaming at what it must give up to the local Imax theater tomorrow when I take the kids to see this.

feth you wallet. You're not the boss of me!

 whembly wrote:
On Rotten Tomato it still has %73 percent rating...

Because you always let professional film critics determine whether you like a movie, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
feth you wallet. You're not the boss of me!

You tell that wallet who is boss!

 Ahtman wrote:
Ignore Manchu's protestations

Oh, I enjoyed the Godzilla parts of the movie called Godzilla. I would gladly recommend this movie to the layman. (The true fan will see it at least once anyhow.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My friend said that Zilla

Just a minute -- Zilla? Absolutely not. If that person called the King of Monsters ... ugggh *spits* ... Zilla, then he's no friend of yours or anyone.

This is Zilla:Nothing at all like Godzilla.

Now you know -- and knowing is half the battle.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
On Rotten Tomato it still has %73 percent rating...

Because you always let professional film critics determine whether you like a movie, right?

I was responding to Ouze's explicit condemnation of any such critics.

I think the critics are spot on at around 75%. It's a good popcorn movie that is a little too slow for a little too long but with a few flashes of greatness and an action payoff to mostly make up for it.

 Manchu wrote:
I think the critics are spot on at around 75%. It's a good popcorn movie that is a little too slow for a little too long but with a few flashes of greatness and an action payoff to mostly make up for it.

Sounds like a two shot of So Co movie. Not a problem!

Just save one of them for a bit over an hour into the film.

Saw it.
Loved it.
Life is good.

Not that it doesn’t have flaws and rough spots. And the few times you need a little extra suspension of disbelief. But frankly I’m so pissed at Hollywood at the moment I’m glad they didn’t completely screw this one up.

 Manchu wrote:
Just save one of them for a bit over an hour into the film.

Thats usually drink three time...

As a hugh fan of Kaiju cinema from a very early eage, I definitely got the feeling while watching this that it is one of those films that is going to appeal more to diehard Kaiju fans than it will to the average moviegoer. While it is a solid action blockbuster on its own, it really shines in how well it captures the spirit and essence of classic Kaiju cinema. The lack of Godzilla having actual screen time is good, I think, and should not have been unexpected for several reasons. First, if you saw Edwards' last film, Monsters, you should have seen that coming. Second, we knew this was being heavily inspired by the 1954 film, which also had very little screen time for the titular character.

My thoughts?

As a Kaiju film, or a giant monster movie, this is an easy 9/10. A brilliant film that exemplifies Kaiju cinema with a big budget, tons of fan service, and fantastic visual effects. As a film in the general sense of the word, I give it a solid 7/10. It's a great film that did what it intended to do.



Also, I'll be the first to say that the hype and overabundance of trailers in the latter months leading up to the film did a disservice to the film.

The thing about critics is that its very clear that what they look for in a movie is not the same thing the rest of us look for. Case and point; Monsters. The guy who wrote it also wrote Godzilla and it seems kind of clear.

Critics loved Monsters, because it was artsy with vision. Audiences (self included) did not like Monsters because it ended up not being the movie they wanted. Reading the reviews of the film on Rotten tomato it becomes very clear that critics and film audiences are very different animals that just happen to overlap a lot.

@chaos, I'd agree to that. The souless production of big budget movies seems to suck the life out of good people.

Film critics are normally highly baised and narrow minded and so I pay no attention to them, they are not me so they are worthless to me.

If I like the trailers I will watch the film and make my own verdict.

 Darth Bob wrote:
it really shines in how well it captures the spirit and essence of classic Kaiju cinema

I don't think you could be more wrong about that. Godzilla is way, way too elusive in this movie. As I mentioned before, James Cameron did not only show us a little bit of the Titanic. That film lives up to its name. This one, not so much.

This film was certainly made for general moviegoers. Pacific Rim is a better example of a movie for kaiju fans, even at the expense of the general audience.

 Manchu wrote:
Pacific Rim is a better example of a movie for kaiju fans, even at the expense of the general audience.

Nothing about Pacific Rim can be considered an example of a 'better' movie when compared to pretty much everything... It was all around terrible at the expense of every audience.

Godzilla is way, way too elusive in this movie.

I don't really think that's a bad thing. While I liked Pacific Rim's fist bunching action, that film had no sense of pacing or hanging onto tension. After the first big fight it felt like the climax had passed and the film just dragged along for another half hour of cheesy dialogue.

Putting the monster front and center might be what we've come to expect from low grade monster flicks, but they were clearly trying for something better than that in this film. Hollywood should be encouraged to take risks and we should be happy they attempted something different in this movie (for whatever reason they chose to do so), even if it didn't quite live up to everything we wanted.

 Manchu wrote:

 Darth Bob wrote:
it really shines in how well it captures the spirit and essence of classic Kaiju cinema

I don't think you could be more wrong about that. Godzilla is way, way too elusive in this movie. As I mentioned before, James Cameron did not only show us a little bit of the Titanic. That film lives up to its name. This one, not so much.

This film was certainly made for general moviegoers. Pacific Rim is a better example of a movie for kaiju fans, even at the expense of the general audience.

Totally disagree. If you watch the original 1954 film, Godzilla's screen time is very minimal and in that film, he didn't additionally share the screen with a pair of other monsters. This film chose to emphasize the human element of Godzilla in the same way that the original film did. Pacific Rim was, perhaps, more representative of the Kaiju films of the 80's and 90's, but this film brought Godzilla back to his minimalist roots. It also struck me as more akin to the Gamera films of the 2000's. This film absolutely lived up to its name, and I really don't understand the relevance of comparing this film to Titanic; especially since the Titanic itself is a central setting and location within the story and not a character within the overarching plot.

I loved Pacific Rim, but it felt more like a Neon Genesis Evangelion film than a Kaiju movie.

@nkelshc:

Here are some of my thought on Pacific Rim:That movie was for people who really, really like giant robots fighting kaiju. I mean, for people who like that sort of thing so much they are willing and able to overlook a lot of characteristics less acceptable to the general audience.

Pacific Rim was certainly kaiju flavored (think marmite). Godzilla, far less so -- it's meant to appeal to a broader palette.

Shoot, why didn't I think of seeing this in 3D? And I had the option right there! In hindsight, it probably lent itself to 3D very well (at least, for the key scenes ).

I fail to see why being made to appeal to a general audience is a bad thing. I know we mock mainstreaming of films as dumbing things down, but having broad appeal in itself doesn't strike me as much of a criticism.

 Manchu wrote:
@nkelshc:

Here are some of my thought on Pacific Rim:

Spoiler:

 Manchu wrote:
That movie could not settle on whether it was serious and realistic or knowingly farcical. The resulting compromise is that it felt unwittingly absurd.

 Manchu wrote:
I also think the Pacific Rim monsters (and robots) were pretty bland.

That movie was for people who really, really like giant robots fighting kaiju. I mean, for people who like that sort of thing so much they are willing and able to overlook a lot of characteristics less acceptable to the general audience.

Pacific Rim was certainly kaiju flavored (think marmite). Godzilla, far less so -- it's meant to appeal to a broader palette.

I don't really get the realism comment about Pacific Rim when I think of realism in a movie context I think of stuff Like The Bicycle Thief, The Wrestler and Salaam Bombay not Pacific Rim.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@nkelshc:

Here are some of my thought on Pacific Rim:

Spoiler:

 Manchu wrote:
That movie could not settle on whether it was serious and realistic or knowingly farcical. The resulting compromise is that it felt unwittingly absurd.

 Manchu wrote:
I also think the Pacific Rim monsters (and robots) were pretty bland.

That movie was for people who really, really like giant robots fighting kaiju. I mean, for people who like that sort of thing so much they are willing and able to overlook a lot of characteristics less acceptable to the general audience.

Pacific Rim was certainly kaiju flavored (think marmite). Godzilla, far less so -- it's meant to appeal to a broader palette.

I don't really get the realism comment about Pacific Rim when I think of realism in a movie context I think of stuff Like The Bicycle Thief, The Wrestler and Salaam Bombay not Pacific Rim.

Yeah, never understand that comment either..

I went to pacific rim to see big mechs punch big monsters, I got what I wanted in spades.

Going to see Godzilla tomorrow.

 Darth Bob wrote:
If you watch the original 1954 film, Godzilla's screen time is very minimal and in that film

Incorrect. Godzilla had plenty of screen time in the '54 film. What's more, when he was on, he was on, dominating the screen, unlike Edwards's preference to tease and tease to build up to a bare few minutes of prime fighting. Yes, the original movie also had a lot of human stuff going on -- difference being that the human stories in the '54 movie had to do with the thematic presence of Godzilla (primo example - Serizawa's angst over the oxygen destroyer). In this movie, the main character has no interest in Godzilla at all. He just wants to get back to wife and junior. Ford's disinterest in Godzilla seems reflective of the film makers' perspective. Same thing goes for 2014 Serizawa (Watanabe) -- he projects utter confusion in response to the idea of Godzilla with his near-constant "whaaaa?" expression. Another nice mirror image of the film makers, that.

 Darth Bob wrote:
I really don't understand the relevance of comparing this film to Titanic

Clearly. The relevance is that no one who is interested in kaiju would argue that showing more of them than Godzilla (2014) did is a bad thing. James Cameron was clearly fascinated as an artist with the Titanic. Did seeing it in such extraordinary and loving detail make the movie less effective? And yet that is the argument being implicitly made by the film makers with Godzilla.

 Darth Bob wrote:
especially since the Titanic itself a central setting and location within the story and not a character within the overarching plot

If you think the ship was just a set, I submit you don't understand the movie. That's like saying Godzilla is just a special effect.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't really get the realism comment about Pacific Rim

Realism as in an appeal to reality. For example, the attempt to explain kaiju biology is an appeal to realism. It's a stylistic choice. Pacific Rim never settled on snubbing reality or appealing to it.

 Soladrin wrote:
I went to pacific rim to see big mechs punch big monsters

And some people go to the movies for pop corn. Or air conditioning.