Ash Ketchum

That doesn't quite work. Maybe if that same audio played over the SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE trailer?

Giantrobo

But again, I said:

So yeah, some will be different. But most are very close to that theme especially older stuff.

dom56

Pretty much on what Gareth did on his first movie Monsters. Movie was pure crap. I feel I was watching a talkie/roadie movie instead of sci-fi flick. The monsters at the end wasn't real that great. Haven't seen Godzilla yet but I'm hoping it be much better than that Monsters turd flick.

Dan

I didn't LOVE the movie, but I enjoyed it. I'm easy to please, though. Even though the fights and destruction scenes were short, I was entertained. They teased us a few too many times with doors closing, or power going out or whatever, but I kind of expected that going in.

Thanks for this. I ended up buying the Criterion disc last night, so hopefully I can watch it soon.

Giles

what isn't on the Criterion disc but worth trying to see if it's online somewhere is the 'The Making of the Godzilla Suit' on the DVD deluxe edition from Classic Media; as well as 'Bringing Godzilla Down to Size: The Art of Japanese Special Effects' on the Rodan DVD special edition.

TomOpus

The movie looks great. It's nice that they included the American version. It's amusing to watch how they edited in Raymond Burr.

Ash Ketchum

I've seen both versions many times over the years, but I found it very instructive to watch them back-to-back. It gave me new appreciation for the Raymond Burr version, which is how so many of us Baby Boomers first experienced Japan on film.

RocShemp

I love the Criterion disc as well and am glad that the Raymond Burr version was included and nicely remastered as well.

hanshotfirst1138

I've always thought that as far as "Americanizations" go, GKM was definitely one of the better ones. It's handled in a very respectful and classy way, actually at least tries to logically incorporate Martin into the narrative in a way which makes sense, and tries to use as much of the original dialogue as possible. Yes, once you've seen the original, the changes definitely stick out, but compared to man other hack-jobs like what happened to KKVG, I think it's pretty good in its own right. Even the body doubles and stuff, though obvious, indicate that the whole thing was done fairly intelligently, IMO.

van der graaf

Tekkonkinkreet says konnichiwa.

The Antipodean

A movie has to stand on its own somewhat, and not be compared to how the 1954 Godzilla did the exact same thing with not revealing Godzilla or that they're just setting up for a better sequel. This is where 2014 Godzilla fails - on its own it's a slow, inept tease of a movie, IMHO. The '54 Godzilla may have had a similar arc but it's a much better movie that stood the test of time.

Ash Ketchum

So what happened to Akira Takarada's cameo?

Well, here's the answer:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news...ut-due-to-time

TomOpus

How long was his scene? They could've easily cut the scene in the car when Cranston's character realizes it's his birthday and Binoche's gets goofy with him. It felt oddly overacted.That's disappointing he didn't make the cut. If they come out with a longer cut he better be in it.

Hokeyboy

To use the excuse "What do you expect? It's a Godzilla movie!!" is basically acknowledging the movie's moments of ineptitude and then casually dismissing them. It'd be like accepting every crappy pre-X-Men or pre-Blade superhero flick by saying "What do you expect? It's a comic book movie!!" In other words, doing nothing to improve or evolve beyond formulaic mediocrity that's to be expected of them.

I still gave the movie 5.5 out of 10 because I enjoyed the monster scenes in spite of the film's numerous flaws, but in the end it's a Nothing Special movie. It restrained itself to the self-imposed limitations of the genre, instead of trying to branch out as something better. Imagine how comic book movies would have come along if the filmmakers behind the first X-Men movie took their creative cues from the Joel Schumacher Batman movies... because hey, "it's just comic books".

I guess my expectations were way too high, but I really believed Gareth Edwards was gonna knock this one out of the park.

gp1086

Went again last night.

Still really enjoyed the second time around. The first act and third act are quite solid - second act could have been improved on a little bit, not bad - just not quite as good as others. LOVE Desplat's score, especially the theme of the movie.

New nitpick.

The Cow

^^
They were trying to bring in the military from the other side. Tanks and such.

The Bus

Deadline said this was done by WB.

ivelostr2

I'm planning to cut out of work early today and go see this. 3 showing this afternoon i can make, the most convenient is an Imax 3d showing, but i generally stay away from 3D because it gives me a headache I did see Pacific Rim and Gravity in 3D, both didn't bother me, but When i saw the Hobbit in 3D I hated it and had a huge headache.

I know others have experienced the same type stuff, any recommendations for those who have seen either?

kvrdave

You are in luck. You can see this in 2D and still get the same headache. It is that bad.

Brack

The Cinemark XD screen is saw it on used RealD 3D or whatever it's called. The 3D was actually pretty subtle and didn't bother me one bit

Why So Blu?

Correctamundo!

Giantrobo

Hey!!! My good Man, that was a thing called "Character Development". It makes the Humans more human so you can really hurt when they die.

Giantrobo

This film looks good in 3D but it's not one of those 3D films that has shit flying in your face as a deliberate gag. It also doesn't have a lot of thrill ride types of scenes that a 3 D film might do for effect. I would say the 3d style is similar to Pacific Rim but taken down a notch. You'll probably be ok.

Giantrobo

Yeah plus having people jammed on a bridge as danger approaches is pretty standard fair these days. Pacific Rim, X3, and so on...

Traxan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...o-heroine.html

Godzilla featured a heroine at its centre before the role was excised in favour of Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s brooding hero, the director has disclosed.

The action epic stars Taylor-Johnson as a bomb disposal expert out to save the world, and Bryan Cranston as his scientist father.

Women are notable by their absence from leading roles. Actresses Juliette Binoche and Elizabeth Olsen appear in the cast as either wives or assistants, and their portrayal has come in for criticism – Indiewire noted that “the most frustrating aspect of the uninspired cast is a strange neglect of the story’s female characters”.

Sally Hawkins, Oscar-nominated earlier this year for Blue Jasmine, is required to “express worry when the camera calls for it” and little more.

The Hollywood Reporter referred to Olsen’s “thankless role” as Taylor-Johnson’s wife, while Empire’s critic wrote that “a criminally under-utilised Elizabeth Olsen is a wife-mother-nurse permanently stuck on the end of a phone”.

It could all have been different, according to director Gareth Edwards, who conceded that women play secondary roles in the film.

“We had a version of the screenplay that had a heroine in the film,” Edwards disclosed at a press conference in London.

“But you’ve got to pick a hero and we ended up with a male, and then everything supports the hero in some way.