GuyWhoWatchesMoviesSometimes Reviews

Godzilla (2014)

Extraordinary Action Sequences, Mediocre Plot and Acting

[3/10 · 1 June 2014]

If you are a fan of Godzilla, chances are that you'll love the reboot. I left the theater loving it myself, but it didn't take long for me to realize that there are several somewhat crippling flaws to the movie. However, the reason they don't much make a difference is simple; very few of them have to do with Godzilla himself.

To put it briefly, the primary problem with Godzilla (The movie, not the monster) can be summed up in three words. Aaron Taylor Johnson. I'm not trying to be too hard on the guy, because I do like him, but he is the pinnacle of mediocrity in this movie. His character could win the Oscar for Most Generic Protagonist. The plot rests so heavily on him as a character, and while Johnson is a good actor, his character is given so little personality and Johnson does so little with the personality he HAS been given. He just can't hold up the weight of the leading character.

That role should have been given to Bryan Cranston or Ken Watanabe, as both have better parts in the movie and both are better actors than Johnson (No offense Kick-Ass). It's bizarre just how little screen time the two are given despite the fact that they both have interesting, flawed personalities. The issue of the terrible lead is only exacerbated by the movie's attempt to hold off unleashing Godzilla until the final moments. Yes, this decision, one made for the purpose of inducing suspense, is one that I can admire, but it is executed somewhat poorly. We see Godzilla first after about 1/3rd of the movie, and so holding him off at that point is strange given that we've already see him in his true form.

However, keeping Godzilla from chewing up the scenery (Figuratively and literally) does work out well in the final moments. The last twenty minutes of Godzilla (Again, the movie) are spectacular. We get to see Godzilla battle with two other giant monsters in an extraordinary and grand fashion. It's simply stellar, and everyone in the theater drew aback in awe of the size and scope of the finale. However, because the the first 3/4ths of the movie focus more on the characters and the aforementioned two other creatures, neither of whom are as cool or interesting as 'Zilla himself, the film suffers.

But as I said, Godzilla fans will love this installment, because it brings to the table a reboot of the King of the Monsters with style and panache greater than any other film in the franchise. Plus, the series was never known for incredible acting: it's known for having giant lizards kicking each other around a whole bunch. And for those of us who LOVE to see giant lizards kicking each other around, Godzilla 2014 ultimately delivers there. But as for the plot and characters, two aspects of the film that were given much time and attention but not a whole lot of talent, they suck.

But let's face it, you already know if you want to see a Godzilla movie before you even see it.

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975)

Divisive in Nature

[6/10 · 1 June 2014]

It is impossible for me to tell you if you will enjoy watching Salo, because it is a film made for anyone able to stomach it, and while most probably can, they won't want to. Salo is, as many readers will know, often hailed as the most disgusting film ever made. That is, in my opinion, not true. Salo is disgusting, yes, extraordinarily so, but its graphic violence is not unheard of. Most horror fans will have seen more gruesome imagery than is in Salo. The reason why Salo is purportedly disgusting is not merely because of what its about, its because of how it goes about it. This is not a shock-exploitation film. It is a film that shows us sexual, physical, and mental abuse in a realistic fashion. No buckets of blood, no intestines, just violence. This is done to prove a point, which is, I think, to show just how inhumane we can be as a species. Marquis De Sade's novel on which the movie is based was made to do the same.

We are often very much out of touch with what members of our species are doing to one another. People who claim that Salo's level of violence is unrealistic have never heard of places like Abu Ghraib or Guantanomo Bay. People will say the movie shows political officials abusing children just to make a hackneyed political statement, and while I believe the director Pasolini did intend for their conduct to be metaphorical, I don't think that was the point of the movie. In an age of patriotism, religion, pride, zealousness, colonialism, and other such facades that we create for ourselves to convince us that we are still the good guys, Pasolini reveals that we are, in fact, not.

Salo was made almost forty years ago, but I cannot see a time where it will not be relevant. Until we can, as a species, unite and end these pointless wars and conflicts and battles, we will always see the kind of violence that Pasolini exhibits here. He was an angry filmmaker, and his aggression shows in a film that, without it, may have lost its way. It takes an angry, aggressive, brutish individual to remind us that we are no better, if not worse, than animals. We torture, murder, maim, abuse one another and think nothing of it. Those who don't do it directly do it indirectly, and feel content to sit on the sidelines. The movie in fact indicts the viewer for being, in essence, a voyeur into the torture of other human beings. And it couldn't be more right.

Many people say that certain films have to be seen to truly appreciate cinema. I am not sure if I believe that, but if it is true, Salo is one of those movies. A movie driven by an idea and a competent filmmaker, Salo is not really a film in the traditional sense. It's a piece of art, an intangible object which we can witness but never truly grasp.

I implore you to watch it, but be prepared to have your soul sodomized beforehand.