Godzilla 2014

New ‘Godzilla’ is scary-bad

Monday June 2, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — It’s that time of year when we are inundated with super hero and monster blockbuster movies. Godzilla has arrived – once again. There just may be more Godzilla movies than any other movie remakes and sequels, combined. You’d think with all the attempts they’d finally get it right. I am sad to say this is not the case.

“Godzilla” (2014) has all the hardware, all the special effects, all the required action one should expect with today’s phenomenal movie technology. It’s even in 3-D! What it doesn’t have is a worthwhile story.

A movie like “Godzilla” must provide thrills. That’s why we go to films of this genre. We are not going for a message or a life lesson. We are going to scream, to have a few laughs, to ride the roller coaster, if you will. This latest “Godzilla” is a big bore. Our monster doesn’t make his entrance until an hour into the film and he is upstaged by two other monsters stalking Tokyo, Las Vegas and San Francisco. I’m still shaking my head in disbelief over this geographical plotting. Ah well, it isn’t Shakespeare. It’s Godzilla. OK, but must it be this stupid?

The other monsters wreaking havoc in “Godzilla” are termed “Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism” or MUTO, as they are referred to throughout the movie for economy. There are two MUTO. The MUTO eat energy, especially radiation, but they also eat nuclear waste. So, why are they the bad guys? According to the film’s logic, they are. So, Godzilla shows up to battle them and restore nature’s balance. He shows up to save mankind by wiping out the MUTO. And that’s the problem with this film. Godzilla is not scary enough because he’s just so darn good and politically correct. He’s also not very scary looking. He’s just big – very big and featureless.

As for the acting: Bryan Cranston turns in a surprisingly bad scenery chewing performance. Juliette Binoche, a great actress, is wasted. Ken Watanabe seems to possess one expression – pained. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, as the lead character in “Godzilla,” is as weak as a wet noodle.

The plot deals with cliché elements such as government secrets, one lone man knowing the truth that no one will believe and the usual destruction of major cities. The outcome is predictable and I, for one, am left with the nagging question: how will they rebuild the destroyed cities?

The film is darkly lit, which adds to the confusion. Godzilla is one of those films where we find ourselves asking “What’s going on?”

What’s going on is a gray muddle of noise, a plodding and ponderous movement of dull visuals and a directorial failure to build suspense and interest. I kept thinking during the first hour of the movie, “Where’s Godzilla? I bet when he finally appears this movie will get better.” Believe me; I wanted it to get better. I wanted to like “Godzilla”.

I still do like Godzilla, the monster. I just don’t like “Godzilla”, the movie.



“Godzilla”(2014) is currently in theaters.


http://www.thesunnews.net/news/957-New_'Godzilla_is_scary-bad.html

The Amazing Spider-man 2

‘Spider-man 2,’Most Thrilling Film This Year

                                               

                                               

 Friday May 23, 2014 | By: Tony Baksa |

Peter Parker/Spiderman is the Marlon Brando of superheroes. Brilliantly acted by Andrew Garfield, Spiderman inhabits a substantial world of angst. Like any well-written character Brando has ever portrayed, Garfield brings an amazing reality to Spiderman. Within this comic book adventure is a touching love story that is the glue that holds this movie together. For those lo...oking for high adventure and sweeping special effects, not to worry. It’s all there to be savored. But what elevates “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is its humanity.

We are given three young characters – all with father issues. They are all so appealing and likeable, even the semi-villain Harry/Green Goblin. Dane Dehaan’s debut as Harry lights up the screen with originality and a compelling pathos. Equally compelling is Emma Stone as Gwen, the object of Spidey’s affection. This trio of young actors interacts with great chemistry. They will make you care, very much so. They feel deeply. They love fully. And they live the adventure.

This film is far superior to its predecessor. The first Spiderman with Garfield was very good. This follow up is great! With kinetic direction by Marc Webb and a smart screenplay by a team of writers led by Alex Kurtzman, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the most thrilling movie of the year.

The film opens with a flashback showing Peter’s parents and their supposed fate. This bit of exposition will figure in to the plot later. We then are brought into the present. Peter is enjoying his alter ego’s crime-fighting but is unhappy, due to his promise to Gwen’s dying father to stay away from her – for her own good, he pleaded. Well, how can one break a promise to a dying man? This is Peter’s main conflict throughout the film. Staying away from Gwen is an impossible feat for Peter. Keeping away from Peter is equally impossible for Gwen.

Along the way, we meet new opponents for our beloved crime-fighter. Jamie Foxx turns in a fine performance as a good man who is transformed into a monster – namely Electro. He becomes a very formidable nemesis to Spiderman. The maniacal Rhino, played by an unrecognizable Paul Giamatti, fills the screen with terror and perhaps a small snicker of delight.

Yet, with all the battles and fireworks, at the very heart of this movie is the towering love story – beautiful and sad. For fans of the Spiderman saga, there is a shocking development to grapple with. I am still grappling with it. Frankly, I was stunned.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is a uniquely balanced film – love, betrayal, adventure, comedy and thrills – thrills and chills galore. Perhaps the movie should have been called “The Thrilling Spiderman 2.” Peter Parker inhabits a world we care about. For all the superhero trappings, this movie is not flighty – pardon the pun. It is a rich narrative – fully satisfying especially because Peter Parker has promises to keep.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is in theaters.

‘Spider-man 2,’ most thrilling film this year | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net

Bears

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears'

Thursday May 1, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |
I am so glad that I am not a salmon living in Alaska. A salmon must swim up stream, but once its journey is successful, along comes a brown bear....

Our stars of Disney’s newest nature film “Bears” are bears, of course – brown bears. Salmon is apparently an essential sustenance for their survival. But what about the poor fish? I guess that’s another movie.

In “Bears,” we are witness to one year in the life of a family of Alaskan brown bears, mother Sky and her cubs Amber and Scout. We know their names, because John C. Reilly, our cheesy narrator, tells us so. He also occasionally speaks “bear.” It is unfortunate that this movie is saddled with such a bothersome narration.

Although the story of our charming family isn’t ground-breakingly new, the visuals are appealing. Alaska is beautiful and so are the bears, the wolves and the other featured wildlife.

This is a short movie, but because of Reilly, it felt rather long. I think the idea was to have this tale appeal to children. But why dumb down the film? It is not necessary, when you have this kind of footage.

The story is a simple one: survival. We are taken along the Alaskan terrain, witnessing our bear family members hold on to their lives, avoiding predator wolves and other bears. Most importantly, they are searching for food to provide them with protein, which will allow a healthy hibernation. Here is where the poor salmon come in. It seems that they are essential to the bears’ survival.

Unfortunately, “Bears” is disappointing. It is bland and mild. It tries to be exciting and cute, but it fails. All of the bears are brown, therefore confusing the viewer. Lacking distinct traits, the “characters” are difficult to discern.

The “plot” is repetitive. The 77 minutes is a series of episodes in which the bears are doing the same thing: searching for food or battling predators. But a sense of danger and adventure is missing.

I seriously think children, this film’s obvious target audience, will not care for “Bears.” But the movie could be saved with reediting, dropping the smarmy narration, dumping George Fenton’s pompous score and giving the salmon more screen time. I perked up in the middle of the film, when a short segment was devoted to the plight of these fish.

The end credits were the most interesting; they show the film crew’s capturing the animals’ actions and, in some instances, provoking the creatures.

This closing segment spoke volumes. What particular scenes did the filmmakers create? How real was the menace? There was closing footage of a wolf standing approximately 5 feet from a camera, slowly advancing toward the crew. I am certain this footage was edited into the sequence, when the wolf was threatening to attack the cubs.

Did the filmmakers manipulate nature? Perhaps they should have let nature take its own course.

I left the theater unmoved. The movie was just OK. I don’t think we go to the movies to leave at its conclusion with that feeling.

Most especially, a film about such magnificent creatures should enthrall, excite and entertain. “Bears” is just OK.

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears' | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net