Hollywood and Godzilla: 0 for 2.....

Godzilla 2014

Although better than their feeble 1998 effort, and despite it's modest box office success, Hollywood still hasn't cracked the proverbial Godzilla nut.  Sure, this summer's version has a very entertaining final 20 minutes with Godzilla and two MUTO's (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) going toe-to-toe in an epic battle of prehistoric radiation-induced monsters. But that alone doesn't make for a good movie.  And unfortunately for me, this battle couldn't make up for the prior 90 minutes. 

In a nutshell, the movie is about the discovery of two radioactive gigantic, nuclear hungry MUTOs (I don't even know how to describe them) who were somehow discovered underground in the Philippines in 1999. 

Simultaneously,  a U.S. scientist in Japan named Joe Brody, played by Bryan Cranston of "Breaking Bad" fame, has been monitoring recent and increasing seismic activity throughout the region.  His research shows that this activity is leading to something big, but his warnings fall on deaf ears. Once the inevitable happens, tragedy strikes him, his wife, and their young son. 

Joe and Ford Brody

Fast forward to current time, and the seismic pattern from 1999 is re-emerging in Japan. An older and more obsessed Brody, still living in Japan, tries to warn the new generation of scientists, again to no avail. Once the inevitable happens again, MUTO 1,
a flying male, and Godzilla are released from their underground prisons. We also learn that the MUTO 2, a land dwelling larger MUTO, had earlier been moved to a storage facility in Nevada, and has conveniently escaped as well. The two MUTOs are now trying to reunite in San Francisco to scope out an underground radiation source there. On the way, MUTO 1 snacks on a Russian nuclear sub while making a seemingly unnoticed stop in Oahu. In the meantime, a resurrected Godzilla is on the tail of both of them. Rather than destroy the two MUTOs, the U.S. Military decides it would be best to let Godzilla take care of it.  

At the same time, Brody's son Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), now in his 20's, a recent returnee from a tour of duty in the Middle East and currently living in San Francisco with his wife and child, decides to fly to Japan and help is dad.

Now I know we have to extend reality a bit for these kind of movies, but there was so much that happened during all of this that simply didn't make sense. At least to me. Here are just a few things (spoiler alert!):

• How was MUTO #2 (over 200 feet tall) transported from the Philippines to Nevada? 
• How did MUTO #1 arrive in Oahu undetected? Especially with a Russian nuclear sub in tow? 
• When did the Honolulu Airport get a tram?  
• The U.S. Military for some reason was basically portrayed as being inept and bumbling. Although set in contemporary times, they had a difficulty accurately tracking these behemoths for some reason! The Japanese military of the 1950's and 1960's gave Godzilla more of a fight than the U.S Military in this movie!
• In a matter of hours, how did these two MUTO's not only mate, but produce a slew of living embryos?
• The rescue buses were using the Golden Gate Bridge to get to Oakland. Hmm... 
• Finally, we were told early on that these MUTO's were not initially destroyed because they contained so much radiation that it would endanger millions of people. Which is bad news for everyone in the bay area and maybe California after Godzilla was through with them. Major contamination! 

Despite all of this, Godzilla did look great though, albeit a bit more buffed than his predecessors. Sounded a bit like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, but it was still a really good rendition. Didn't appear until more than half way through the movie, but I guess that's OK. But when he finally did in Oahu, the movie for some reason, and on several occasions, would abruptly switch back to Cole and his family just as Godzilla was about to confront MUTO 1. Not sure if it was for added dramatic affect, but I got frustrated with it!  I wanted to see them fight! But we were made to wait an hour and forty minutes for that to happen in a computer-generated San Francisco (no actual filming took place there).  At one point, I wasn't sure if the main story line was Godzilla vs. the MUTOs or whether or not Ford would be able to get back to San Francisco in time to reunite with his family!

Anyhow, I'm sure you can sense my frustration. Am I being nit picky? Perhaps on some things. But I'm sensing I may not be the only one. Godzilla and it's $160 million budget raked in an impressive $93 million it's first weekend in mid-May. But as of this writing almost one month later, it's box office total is $186 million, or an average of $31 million a week. Not too shabby, but that's a pretty big drop off considering it's taken nearly a month to duplicate what it did its opening weekend.  But despite all of this, I'm actually willing to give the movie another shot.  I'll rent it from Red Box for $1.20 this time though!  

I read recently that a sequel has already been announced by the studio. I have two bits of advice for the film makers the next time around:  

Godzilla circa 1964

1. Come up with another story line that has nothing to do with radiation or nuclear energy (the 1998 movie also dealt with that). Boring. 
2. As someone who grew up watching the old Japanese Godzilla movies, one of the appealing things about those movies is that the filmmakers didn't take their subject matter seriously. There was a "campiness" about those Godzilla movies.  Both Hollywood versions went heavy on the drama and suspense. Godzilla movies are supposed to be fun! Lighten it up on the sequel!
3. Bring back Monster Zero and/or Rodan!  Or maybe remake King Kong vs. Godzilla?

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give "Godzilla" a “2”.

Netflix SN #6 - PBS British TV on a Roll

During the past two years, my wife and I have really taken an interest in a slew of British TV series that have made it to American TV, specifically on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).  Four in particular have peaked our interest:  "Downton Abbey", "Doc Martin", "Sherlock" and "Mr. Selfridge".

Past seasons for each are available on Netflix and/or Amazon Prime instant streaming.  Here's a short write up of each:

Downton Abbey

Probably the most well-known of the four, Downton Abbey just concluded it's fourth season run on PBS this month.  Although a bit vanilla compared to the first three seasons (in particular season 2, which was my favorite), Abbey still features superb writing and top notch acting.

Downton Abby is a lavish Edwardian mansion and park nestled in the North Yorkshire landscape.  The story centers around the residents there, both the family and staff. The family is led by its patrioarch, Violet Crawley, Countess of Gratham, and her son Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham. Robert is married to wealthy American Cora, and the two have three daughters. The staff of personal assistants, butlers and maids, and kitchen personnel are led by Charles Carson and Elsie Hughes. If you think this sounds similar to the "Upstairs, Downstairs" series from the 1970's, then you'd be correct. Same type of thing.

Season 1 takes place just before the start of World War 1, season 2 during WW1, season 3 just after WW1 ends, and season 4 in the early 1920's. Strange thing is that hardly anyone in the show ages during that time!  Regardless, the inter-goingson between and within the family and staff is entertaining to watch. Multiple, inter-twining story-lines abound, all equally intriguing. The choreography in the show is top notch. Unlike recent period piece big budget films, there is a definite feel that you're in the early 20th century. The actors/actresses look and fit right in to the era portrayed.

Doc Martin

This comedy is about one Dr. Martin Ellingham, a noted surgeon in London who suddenly and unexplainably contracts a phobia for blood. As a result, he decides to give up his successful practice and accept a position as a general practitioner in the small fictional seaside village of Port Wenn, England, where everyone knows everyone. The series follows the socially challenged Dr. Martin as he interacts with the friendly, and sometimes odd, villagers, while following in love with one of them, school teacher Louisa Glasson.

"Doc Martin" first premiered as a series in 2004, and just concluded it's sixth season earlier this year (on US television).  "Wait a minute, that was 10 years ago. How can it only be in its sixth season?" you ask?  The series actually ran annually it's first three seasons, then every other year after that. So season seven, if there is one, won't be broadcast until 2016.

In another interesting twist, the Doc Martin character actually began as two made-for-TV BBC movies in Britain beginning in 2001. That Doc Martin, although portrayed by the same actor (Martin Clunes), was the complete opposite of the one in the 2004 series. The original Doc Martin was funny and easy going.  However, when a British TV studio bought the rights to the show, they decided that Doc Martin would be more entertaining if he had a ruff, abrupt and intolerant personality with lack of bedside manners. And in a way, they were right. But it is fun watching both versions of Doc Martin, which you can do on Netflix and Amazon instant streaming. Then decide for yourself!

Like Downton Abby, the writing and acting is superb. In addition to Clunes' Doc Martin, the characters of Glasson, Bert Large, PC Penhale, and Mrs. Tishell are worth watching out for.

Sherlock

“Sherlock” is a modern day re-telling of A. Conan Doyle’s classic “Sherlock Holmes”.  Many of Doyle’s original stores are re-created in modern England.  Holmes’ trademark cap and crummy violin playing still exist; but gone is the trademark pipe, and his well-documented drug addiction has been replaced by a cigarette chain smoking vice. 

Portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch (most recently Khan in “Star Trek into Darkness”), this Holmes has all of the brains and wit of Basil Rathbone’s original Sherlock Holmes of the 1940’s, and the spunk of Robert Downey Jr.’s most recent portrayal.  Although he can hold his own, Cumberbatch’s Holmes isn’t quite the martial arts expect of Downey Jr.’s character (which never made sense to me).  One prize Cumberbatch can claim over his predecessors though is that of fastest talker.  When he’s trying to sort out a situation in his mind, Cumberbatch goes in into ultra-fast speaking mode. It’s so fast that I sometimes have to turn on the closed captioning just to figure out what he’s saying!  And frequently the closed-captioning can’t even keep up with him!

Of course Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t be Sherlock Holmes without his sidekick, Dr. John Watson.  In this rendition, Watson is portrayed by current "Hobbit" Martin Freeman.  Freeman is quite good, actually, and is someone I particularly enjoyed in the UK’s original “The Office” show with Ricky Gervais some 10 years back.  He and Cumberbatch are a good pairing and work very well together.

Lestrade, Moriarty, Irene Adler, and the Hounds of Baskerville are all here. Andrew Scott in particular plays a very creepy, psychotic Moriarty.  In fact he won a BAFTA (British equivalent to the Emmy’s) for his portrayal. Sherlock Holmes’ mysterious brother, Mycroft Holmes, plays a big role in this rendition. We're never quite sure whose side he’s on. In an interesting side note, Mycroft is played by Mark Gatiss, a co-creator of the show and one of its head writers.  Speaking of the writing, some of the storylines are quite addicting and well-told. Lots of mystery and crime solving to be had.

Like “Doc Martin”, “Sherlock” is on an every other year schedule, with season 3 having just ended in February. Thus, 2016 will be the next appearance of Holmes and Watson. Just as well if you haven’t watched any episodes yet.  The season ending cliff-hangers after the first two seasons left viewers hanging with a lot of unanswered questions and quite a bit of mystery.  Making viewers wait two years to find out what happened really bordered on cruelty!  The creators of “Sherlock” also elected to create three 90 minute “mini-movies” each season rather than the typical 8-10 30 or 60 minute episodes.

Mr. Selfridge

“Mr. Selfridge” is the newest of the shows, and is based on the real life Harry Selfridge, an American entrepreneur who sought to build London’s largest department store in the early 20th century.  The first season of the series, which began in 2013, focused on the birth of the store in 1909 and its first year of existence.  Season 2 just started in late March and is set some four years later beginning with the 5th year celebration of the store’s opening and a looming World War I.

Selfridge is well portrayed by Emmy award winner Jeremy Piven (“Entourage”), even though he is a good ten years younger than what the real Selfridge was. The supporting cast is just as solid.  Like “Downton Abbey”, the writers/makers of the series did a great job replicating the look and feel of early 20th century England (hmm, I wonder if the Downton Abbey folks shopped at Selfridges?).  Because there isn’t a whole lot of drama to be had in a department store, “Selfridge” relies heavily on the many relationships that develop throughout the show. This includes Selfridge himself, whose father issues, infidelity and resulting unstable marriage is one of the primary subplots to the main story. There are lots of love interests and love triangles featuring many of the principles of the show, which, as a result, gives this series more of a soap opera feel.  Still entertaining though, mainly for a couple of reasons.

First, Selfridge in reality was quite a visionary and trendsetter when it came to how a department store was set up and run. For example, in 1909 the most common mode of transportation was still horse and buggy.  This meant the streets of London were not the cleanest, if you know what I mean.  To eliminate the “odor” this problem caused, Selfridge decided to set up perfume and cosmetics at the front of the store, something actually frowned upon at that time, so the store would smell good when anyone entered.  This was just one of the many of Selfridge innovations that is portrayed in the show.

The second is that the writers of the show decided to have actual well-known personalities of the time visit the store.  This included the likes of the King of England, A. Conan Doyle, rival (and friend) Frank Woolworth, explorer Ernest Shackleton, and Russian ballerina Anna Pavolva. This was a particularly nice touch, I thought. Overall this is good viewing, although it did take a few episodes for both Piven and the show to grow on us.


So there you have it. Four currently active British shows definitely worth checking out. All are part of the PBS Masterpiece Classics or Masterpiece Mystery series on your local PBS station. Past seasons (except for the latest) for all are available on either Netflix Instant view or Amazon Prime.  Since the latest seasons are still relatively recent, they are currently available for a small price.  Won’t be long before they are free as well though.

“Mr. Selfridge” is currently running on PBS Sunday nights, while “Downton Abbey” will be back in January, 2015, “Sherlock” in January 2016, and Doc Martin in February 2016.  Which provides lots of time to catch up!

"Noah" Struggles to Stay Afloat

Anyone who's been reading my blog for the past few months can pretty easily surmise that I'm a Christian. No surprise there. Being as such, I could easily trash Darren Aronofsky's interpretation of the story of Noah in the his new movie of the same name. But I'm not. Are there inconsistencies in it with what the Bible says in Genesis chapters 5-9? Sure, plenty of them. Here are just a few (spoiler alert below!):

• The "Watcher" angel-turned-rock creatures didn't exist and were added.
• Noah's sons, Shem, Japeth and Ham were much older than portrayed in the movie (Shem, the oldest was 100 when the flood occurred). Noah himself was 600 years old.
• Ham was Noah's youngest son, not Japeth.
• Although Tubal-Cain's name is mentioned in the book of Genesis, there is no further elaboration on him, thus there is no indication he led a revolt to get on the ark.
• All three sons had wives with them on the ark. Thus, there were eight people on the ark, not six (or seven, if you include Tubal-Cain).
• Shem had five sons and no daughters. He had twin daughters in the movie.
• As a result, the story line in the movie about Noah's family rescuing an infant girl and the two twin daughters she later had with Shem were added. And:
• The story line about Ham's failed attempt to bring a girl on the ark with him, and thus his blaming Noah and his eventual hatred for him was added.
• The entire story line about the Tubal-Cain character being a stowaway on the ark was added.
• There is no indication that Ham left the family upon arriving on land following the flood.
• God is basically portrayed as an impersonal, distant enmity, where in reality He spoke directly to Noah (and many other people throughout the Bible) several times, but this was never shown. The only "communication" he had with God was via a drug-induced hallucination.
• Following one of these hallucinations, Noah believed that God wanted to eliminate all humanity forever, and that his only role was to transport the animals in the ark to a post-flood "new world", and he and his family would then die a natural death, and humanity would be no more (which explains why Noah didn't want any 'pro-creating' women on the ark).  However, according to the Bible, God made it very clear to Noah before the ark was built that "Everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with you", clearly indicating that He was going to use Noah and his family to re-establish the human race.
• Noah's story about the six day creation that he told his kids was a little out of order.
• The beginning of this story, which stated "In the beginning there was nothing" isn't quite right. What actually is said is "The earth was without form and void" (i.e. the earth existed, but was without form and void).

Darren Aronosky

So you get the point. This film is not a word-for-word interpretation of the Bible.  And Aronosky made it very clear from the get-go that it wasn't going to be. And he further proved it by not using the word "God" in the movie.  All such references were to "the Creator".  But in reality, the people of that day could have referred to God as "the Creator", as the word "God" didn't appear in text until Moses wrote the book of Genesis some years later.  Who knows for sure though. I'm hoping that was Aronosky's reasoning, and not that he was trying to make a point. It would really be unfortunate if he was. Regardless, I went into the movie fully prepared for all of this.  And believe it or not, I actually enjoyed a fair amount of it, and did take away some positive things.

Most notably:

• The importance of repentance:  the "Watchers", were returned to Heaven only after repenting to God (the Creator) that what they did earlier to doom them as rock creatures was wrong.
• The Tubal-Cain character shows, as does much of scripture, that it takes more than believing in God in your head to be redeemed. You must believe it in your heart. Tubal-Cain believed that "the Creator" existed, but not in his heart like Noah did. Thus he was doomed and Noah, because of his faith, was blessed.

The movie itself was a pretty wild visual.  After the first few seconds, I thought I was watching one of the "Lord of the Rings" movies.  Same look and feel.  The effects were decent, particularly the ark and flood sequences. The "Watchers" could have been made better though. Kind of cartoonish. I snickered when I first saw them, as they reminded me of Walter Brennan from the old John Wayne movies, who was frequently seen hobbling around. For the most part, the film did a pretty good job of representing the evil state humanity was in at the time, a state that convinced God to eliminate them via the flood. Ironically enough, the Bible says nothing about scores of villagers (or anyone) trying to hijack the ark as the rains began and water rose.  But it wouldn't be a stretch to think that could have actually happened.

Everything in the film that happened pre-flood I actually enjoyed for the most part. What really was a stretch to me was everything that happened on the ark post-flood.  Not to give too much away, but the whole story involving Tubal-Cain, Ham and Noah was really hard to fathom. It was obvious what Aronosky was doing though:  recreating both the Garden of Eden temptation and Cain/Abel murder scenes, with different results occurring this time. The Bible describes nothing that went on in the ark while at sea, but Aronosky's version of what might have is really out there.  Same with the other ship board story involving Shem, Ila, and their twins, and Noah's obsession to be faithful.

One final comment I had was about the ending. As the movie closed, Noah's current family consisted of himself, his wife, his sons Shem and Japeth, Shem's "mate" Ila, and their infant twin girls. Noah's other son Ham was long gone. Noah announced to the family to go and "'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth". It wasn't clear however, if it was Noah telling that, or if God had told Noah to tell them that (it was God in the Bible). Regardless, I left wondering, how are they going to do that?  I could see Shem and Ila participating, but what about Japeth?  Did he wait until the two infants grew up?  Not sure what the protocol for cousins hooking up during that time was.  Ham was off by himself in a female-less country. Would he return and hitch up with the other twin?  It would have been a lot easier, and more feasible, if Aronosky would have stuck to the Biblical story line of all three sons having wives. Maybe he thought that would have been too boring!

The acting was pretty strong. Russell Crowe was very good, and Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah and Logan Lerman as Ham particularly stood out to me. Ray Winston was pretty menacing as Tubal-Cain.

In conclusion, the most important thing the movie is doing is stirring up conversation, which is a good opportunity for Christians and non-Christians to share something in common.  There hasn't been a Biblical-based movie made that hasn't suffered from some sort of Biblical inaccuracy. That includes the grand daddy of all Biblical epics, Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 "Ten Commandments". The ultimate hope, however, is that people who see these movies not familiar with the stories are intrigued enough to pick up a Bible and read them for themselves. That's my hope at least. As a result, I definitely encourage you to read the book of Genesis, or at least chapters 5-9, before or after you see "Noah"  Or read the book of Exodus before watching the "Ten Commandments again, for that matter!

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a “3” if you read the verses, a 2 if you don't!