comparison

A Tale Of Two Godzilla Remakes

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

It’s funny that when the original Godzilla first took the world by storm back in 1954, who would have thought it would ‘inspire’ two remakes? One was back in 1998 and the other was just last month. But how do they fare as entertainment?

For the record, I have not seen the original Japanese version of Godzilla. This movie comparison is based from what I have witnessed in the two remakes and their entertainment value. In fact even as I read the story of the original movie, I won’t compare it to the stories of the other two on whether it’s ‘true to the original.’

The 1998 remake of Godzilla had a heavy hype machine behind it but was all action and no real story.
The 1998 remake of Godzilla had an over-the-top  hype machine behind it but it ended up being all action and no real story.

Some of you may remember the 1998 remake starring Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria and Michael Lerner. I remember it well too. One thing I remember most about the movie is that it relied too much on the special effects and action moments. That is probably the areas where it most delivered. Elsewhere it completely went downhill. At first it seemed like the right thing to hire Independence Day writer/director Roland Emmerich as director and co-writer along with Dean Devlin. However what the audience received as far as a story turned out to be a lot of ridiculous fluff. The story was typical and cliched. It stars off as a lizard-like monster is making its way to New York. A Japanese man knows it was warped that way by nuclear testing. Meanwhile in the Big Apple, Audrey, a news reporter who’s too nice to succeed over her backstabbing assistant meets her ex-boyfriend Nick, who’s now an agent. Once Godzilla attacks New York, everyone’s involved. Nick tried to get the case solved, the armed forces try to kill it, Audrey tries to get a big break out of it and win Nick back. The acting was very stockish and added to the ridiculousness of the movie. Even casting Maria Pitillo as Audrey turned out to be a bad choice because it made her look too ditzy and bimbonic, almost like a Minnie Mouse persona. Overall it was a ‘quantity not quality’ picture. It’s no wonder it was nominated for five Razzies including Worst Picture and won two including Pitillo for Worst Actress. Even today I cringe whenever I remember scenes from that piece of idiocy.

The craziest thing about it was its huge marketing campaign. The film featured a CD which hit platinum and spawned a #4 hit for P. Diddy (then known as Puiff Daddy) with Jimmy Page ‘Come With Me.’ It also featured songs from some of the top hitmakers at the time like Green Day, The Wallflowers, Rage Against the Machine, Jamiroquai and the Foo Fighters. Taco Bell contributed $20 million to the campaign and even featured a special meal advertised by the Taco Bell chihuahua. There were even Godzilla toys marketed by Trendmaster which included a 11-inch Godzilla and a 22-inch Godzilla. So overall it was an overly hyped up movie intended to content for top box office honors. The hype machine behind Godzilla was spoofed in a Sprite commercial the following year shown in movie theatres where Hollywood execs are discussing marketing the movie ‘Death Slug’ with the script not even completed. The movie did succeed in making the Top 10 box office hits of the year with $136.3 million but it was only slightly over the $130 it cost to make and market. Internationally was slightly better with an additional $242.7 million. Congratulations, boys. Your hype-machine paid off.

One thing to note is that the movie ended with a hint of a possible sequel coming. Fortunately it did not happen. Another couple things to note: Maria Pitillo retired from acting a few years later and Roland Emmerich would write and direct another piece of idiocy in The Day After Tomorrow.

This summer came with the release of a new remake of Godzilla. Funny how there are a lot of movie remakes done these past few years; some remakes of movies done just ten years earlier. Before it was released, I kept thinking to myself: “I hope it’s not like that hideous remake from 1998.” When I saw it was certified fresh at Rotten Tomatoes (73% it cureently stands at), I decided to give it a chance.

The 2014 version of Godzilla impressed critics more with the story and action moments.
The 2014 version of Godzilla impressed critics more with the story and action moments.

This features a new story with Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Joe, the lead protagonist with Elizabeth Olsen playing his wife, Bryan Cranston playing his father, and Ken Watanabe playing the Japanese doctor. The story starts with a hydrogen bomb trying to kill a mutated creature in 1954. In 1999 a nuclear power plant in Japan ruptures which Joe’s father attemted to control. Fifteen years later, Joe, one of the sons of a rescue worker from that accident, is a naval officer living in San Francisco with his family because he was arrested in Japan for entering the disaster area trying to get the truth. Joe witnessed his father die as they discovered a large winged creature. It’s later learned from Naval officers the attempt to kill Godzilla forgot there were eggs and two hatched. One of the children has grown and is on the prowl. Not only that, two other large creatures names MUTO with the potential of mating. Godzilla first arrives in Hawaii and causes a devastating tsunami. The male mutant creature fights Godzilla temporarily while the female wreaks havoc in Vegas. The MUTO arrive in San Francisco and Joe is separated from his wife and son in the mayhem. Then a sign the two MUTO will mate as the two make a nest out of submarines and nuclear warheads in downtown San Francisco. However some in the military feel Godzilla might stop the MUTO. Once Godzilla hits Frisco, he battles the MUTO smashing the male and breathing fire into the female’s face. Joe is reunited with his wife and son.  Godzilla is thought to have died in the ocean but he returns to the sea with the media labeling him ‘king of the monsters.’

Unlike the 1998 remake, it doesn’t try to be a comedy-drama. Instead the story is much more dramatic, way more sensible and way better acted. Both the actors and writer Max Borenstein worked to deliver a movie that was very watchable for both the action scenes and the story lines. It actually worked in being a thriller. There were a few times in which I was waiting for a ‘fluff moment’ to happen. Okay, I’ll admit I hadn’t fully recovered from the phobia I had after the original remake. I found it very hard to remember a time during the film when I was left displeased. I won’t say that I was head over heels astounded with the movie but I was impressed with it to say the least. Oh, did I say that the Godzilla here looks way scalier too?

I will admit there were times in which I was confused by the story or wondered if it was getting confusing. Both previous Godzilla movies strictly focused on Godzilla the creature in which he’s killed at the end. This was bizarre as Godzilla was not the only mutant creature but there were two others. I thought that was awkward at first. However I will give the writers and directors credit for developing a new unique story to the Godzilla franchise. Also good to see is that this new take to the story didn’t come off as corny as it could have ended up as.

I won’t really say that this new Godzilla movie  ‘did Godzilla right’ in comparison to the 1998 tripeload. Mainly because I haven’t seen the 1954 original and also when looking back, I think of areas it could have been done better. Nevertheless I will say this remake ‘did Godzilla better,’ way better than the 1998 schmaltzfest. And the best thing is there was no hype-fest with a CD or with a restaurant deal. If you remember back in the late-90’s, it was common for fast food restaurants to take part in the summer movie hype-fest by promoting movies with special meals that included images and ads of the movies on the packaging. I still remember Burger King doing promotions for 1999’s Wild Wild West and 2009’s Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen: two over hyped dribblefests. Nowadays I don’t see restaurants hyping movies up anymore or not as often. That’s a relief. Let the summer movies sell themselves! As for the biz of this new Godzilla, it cost $160 million to make, was hyped up way less obviously and has done well at the box office so far with almost $195 million to date and still stands in the box office Top 10 at #9 with $1.9 million last weekend.

The most recent Godzilla movie is a much better remake than the 1998 fluff-piece in almost every way. Goes to show you that less can be more even during the summer movie season.

Superman Comparison: Man Of Steel Against 1978 Original

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment
Brit Henry Cavill is the latest Superman in the movie Man Of Steel
Brit Henry Cavill is the latest Superman in the latest Superman movie Man Of Steel.

For some odd reason, Hollywood feels it’s time to revamp Superman. Apparently the original from 1978 doesn’t cut it anymore and there needs to be a new Superman. Does Man Of Steel cut it?

Here this isn’t necessarily to be a review of Man Of Steel but more of a comparison to the original Superman from 1978 and I will commonly refer to Man Of Steel as ‘the new movie.’ Superman fans will notice that Man Of Steel is a lot different than the original 1978 version. First off the original movie was the telling of how Superman the legend came to be. It was adventurous and thrilling but it was also light-hearted and funny too. We saw Superman go from the sole survivor of Krypton to growing up to be Clark Kent and then the Man Of Steel. I still remember one of my favorite parts being when Clark is left behind by the football team so he shows them by running home. In the process, he dazzles a 9 year-old Lois Lane who watches him outrun her train.

The new movie is something very different than the original first Superman movie. For one thing you will notice the strife on the planet Krypton as it is about to explode. Instead of dying with the planet, Jor-El is murdered by General Zod just before he and the exiled Kryptonians are to be taken off the planet. Superman’s youth is also shown significantly different as he’s shown as a young child first disturbed with all the human images he sees. Then shown as a life-saver as a teen after a schoolbus plunges in a river. None of which are as light-hearted as the original. One difference that actually added to the new movie was Clark’s work as an adult in various odd jobs such as fisherman or oil rig worker. Even though the original featured Clark only ever working for the Daily Planet, that change from the original was one changed that worked well if not great.

One element the new movie has in common with the original is Jonathan Kent is seen as a positive father figure to Clark as he grows up on Earth. Jonathan’s death in the new movie is different from that of the original. Martha Kent’s portrayal in the new movie however is more different. First difference would be her presence as compared to that in the original; she is way more present her and shown throughout. Back in the original Martha was seen as the mother figure that Superman eventually had to leave behind in order to discover himself and define himself and his existence on Earth. Here in the new movie, Clark doesn’t leave Martha behind and even returning to her in times of crisis often looking to her as one to confide in.

Another difference you’ll notice is Lois Lane’s involvement in this. Just like in the original, Lois is again the one person who can get through to the identity of Superman while the whole world wonders about him and gets a lot more. Lois however is not a colleague of Clark Kent’s because Clark is seen through most of the movie employed outside of the Daily Planet. Nor is Lois seen dating the social awkward Clark in the new movie. Man Of Steel sets Lois’ discovery and involvement in the Superman story right as she’s on top of another story deep in the snowy mountains. It progresses further with each battle Superman has to face to the point the inevitable between the two happen.

Jor-El’s presence is another noticeable difference. Those who remember the original may remember Jor-El as the scientist who launches baby Kal-El to Earth to keep the Kryptonian race alive. Jor-el would be a mentor to Superman as he learns of his identity and of his origins. One thing about Jor-El’s existence to Superman outside of Krypton in the original is that he would only be present to Superman in voice only. Also one will remember from the original is that Superman received from Jor-El the instruction: “It is forbidden for you to interfere with human history.” Here in the new movie, Jor-El makes appearances to Superman in the flesh and even gives him words of encouragement in his interaction with humans: “You can save them… You can save all of them.”

Another noticeable difference is the villain in this. The villains in the movie were the Kryptonians: General Zod and five others. Those were the villains in the second Superman. It almost seemed like the new movie was trying to mix the original first and second movies together. The original had Lex Luthor as the villain with the Kryptonians only seen sent off in their sentencing. Here there’s no presence of Lex. That totally surprised me because I always considered him Superman’s #1 nemesis. It also dampened my hopes as I was hoping to see who Lex Luthor was in this version and what tricks he had up his sleeve. The battles Superman faced too were also more different than in the other two movies. Also in the new movie was the fact that the US Military was growing suspicious of him. Funny because I don’t remember anything about the military and its concerns in the original. In fact the police were very cooperative with Superman and even welcoming of his support.

Even the ending was different. If you remember the original, you’ll remember Superman would circle around Earth to reverse its spin and bring those killed by Lex’s missile including Lois Lane back to life and reverse the damage. I won’t give away all that happens at the end but the most I will say is Lois is not fatally hurt.

Looking at the overall picture of the movie, I have to say that it does not work as well as the original. It’s been a common theme in this millennium to either remake movies or tell tales with a much darker theme. It’s been a common belief that such a thing would work considering movies with dark themes have been hits at the box office. However dark remakes haven’t paid off as well. A darker version of Peter Pan in 2003 didn’t fare as well as it hoped. A darker version of the first Spider-Man movie from last year didn’t do as well as the 2002 original at the box office. And now a darker version of Superman doesn’t fly as well as the 1978 original. It’s like its trade of charm and lightness for a darker edge didn’t pan out as much as they thought. Those unfamiliar with the 1978 original may welcome the new movie but I feel it will disappoint Superman fans.

Outside of comparing Man Of Steel to the original 1978 movie, I would have to say that the movie did have some good acting. Russell Crowe was very good as the mentor Jor-El. Amy Adams was also good as Lois Lane however she gave a Lois that lacked the girl-next-door quality Margot Kidder gave in the original. Henry Cavill did a good turn as Superman but he was meant to have a more dramatic role than that of the light-hearted Superman role Christopher Reeve was given. Diane Lane was good as Martha Kent but she lacked the Midwestern characteristics so it was not easy for me to believe this Martha was from Smallville, Kansas. I can’t really compare the acting of the villains from the original second movie but they were believable as cold and vicious. Hans Zimmer did a score that fit the movie well even if it’s not as memorable as John Williams’ score from the original, especially the opening theme. Zack Snyder has a reputation as being a director of dramas just like Richard Donner and this movie should add to his credit. Also it’s obvious the scriptwriters of Christopher Nolan and David Goyer aimed for a story more intense and more drama driven than that from the six scriptwriters of the original.

If there’s one thing Man Of Steel did surpass the original in, it’s in its action scenes. There’s no question that the action scenes were more sophisticated and more believable and more spellbinding than in the original. Mind you that you have to give the original credit. Back in 1978 they didn’t have the technologies, especially the computer technologies, to create the visual effects we have now. Most of what was done back then had to be done in Hollywood studios and with more effort from set designers and operators than computer operators.

Man Of Steel is like a lot of movie remakes that take a risk out of giving a different version of the original and hope it will pay off for today’s audiences. Sure the effects and action are bigger and better but the story falls short and doesn’t charm as the original. It may be a hit for some but it’s a miss for others, including me. I feel like renting the original from my local DVD store right now.