Not Being Part Of A War Is Something To Be Grateful For

“Godzilla Minus One”  (2023)  —  movie review
Today’s film review is for “Godzilla Minus One” (2023), written and directed by Takashi Yamazaki and starring Ryunosuke Kamiki as Kōichi Shikishima, a failed kamikaze pilot carrying guilt he can’t shake;  Minami Hamabe as Noriko, the young woman who pulls him back toward ordinary life;  and Yuki Yamada as Shiro Mizushima, a dockworker who becomes part of Shikishima’s improvised crew.  Supporting roles include Munetaka Aoki as the level-headed engineer Tachibana;  Hidetaka Yoshioka as the earnest scientist Noda;  and Sakura Ando as Sumiko, whose blunt practicality keeps the household running.  Godzilla himself is presented not as a symbol or a metaphor but as a physical threat—an unstoppable force that hits a country already on its knees.
Background:  My brother recommended this to me and said it was a lot better than the “MonsterVerse” versions coming out of Hollywood.  (He was correct.)  I had forgotten about it until some recent YouTube Shorts reminded me of it.  Released in 2023, “Godzilla Minus One” is Toho’s first live-action Godzilla film since “Shin Godzilla” (2016).  It was made on a relatively modest budget by modern blockbuster standards, but the production leaned heavily on Yamazaki’s experience with visual effects and practical staging.  The film became a major critical and commercial success, earning the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, the first time a Godzilla film has ever won an Oscar.  It has also been widely noted for returning the character to his postwar roots — less superhero, more nightmare — while grounding the story in the everyday struggles of civilians trying to rebuild their lives.
Plot:  Set in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the film follows Kōichi Shikishima, a kamikaze pilot who faked mechanical trouble to avoid his mission and landed on Odo Island, where he first encounters a smaller but still deadly Godzilla.  He survives, but the guilt follows him home to a devastated Tokyo.  There he meets Noriko and takes in an orphaned baby, forming a makeshift family while working as a minesweeper on a converted boat.  As Japan struggles to rebuild, Godzilla returns — larger, mutated, and far more destructive.  With no functioning military and little government support, civilians and veterans band together to mount a desperate plan to stop the creature.  Shikishima must decide whether he will keep running from his past or finally face it head-on.  The story builds toward a straightforward but effective showdown that ties the monster threat to Shikishima’s personal reckoning.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes!  Strong across the board;  excellent;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  This is (IMHO) one of the strongest Godzilla films in decades (ever), and it works because it keeps the focus on people rather than spectacle.  The story is simple but sturdy:  a damaged man trying to rebuild his life while the country does the same.  The film doesn’t over-complicate things.  It sticks to clear stakes, clear motivations, and a Godzilla that feels like a genuine threat.  It’s a character-driven disaster film that doesn’t lose track of either half.
Acting:  Ryunosuke Kamiki carries the film with a grounded performance — quiet, tense, and believable as someone who can’t forgive himself.  Minami Hamabe brings warmth without slipping into sentimentality, and their scenes together feel lived-in.  Munetaka Aoki and Hidetaka Yoshioka give the minesweeper crew a solid backbone, and the supporting cast fills out the postwar setting without showboating.  No one plays their role as “monster-movie filler.”  Everyone behaves like a person trying to survive a hard time, which makes the destruction hit harder.
Filming / FX:  The visual effects are excellent, especially considering the budget.  Godzilla has real weight — every step, every blast, every impact feels physical.  The destruction of Ginza is a standout sequence, mixing practical debris with digital work that blends cleanly.  The minesweeper scenes are shot with a good sense of scale, and the water effects are convincing.  The film uses its resources smartly:  fewer shots, but better ones.  The Oscar for Best Visual Effects was well earned.  The sound design also deserves credit;  Godzilla’s roar is sharp and unsettling, and the explosions don’t blur into generic noise.
Problems:  A few.  The film leans heavily on Shikishima’s guilt, and some viewers may find the repetition a bit much;  the government’s near-total absence is explained, but it still feels convenient for the plot;  a late-film twist involving Noriko stretches credibility, even within a monster-movie framework;  Godzilla’s “breath” has never resulted in nuclear explosions before and no attempt is made to explain either the blast or the breath itself;  and, finally, the minesweeper plan, while clever (okay… logically, impossible), depends on a lot of things going exactly right.  None of these break the film, but they stand out, even on a first viewing.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Absolutely!  The movie balances character drama and monster action better than most modern blockbusters.  It’s straight-forward, emotional without being sappy, and delivers a Godzilla that feels dangerous again.  The human story is strong enough that the quieter scenes work on their own, and the action scenes have real punch.  It’s a rare case where the smaller budget seems to have helped the filmmakers focus.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended – essential if you are a “Godzilla” fan!  “Godzilla Minus One” is THE best entry (I’ve seen) in the long history of the franchise — tight, emotional, and visually impressive.  Its Academy Award for Best Visual Effects marks a historic moment for the series, and the film earns that recognition through smart filmmaking rather than sheer scale.  If you like Godzilla, postwar dramas, or character-driven action, this is well worth your time.  It’s not just a good Godzilla movie;  it’s a good movie, period!
.
Click here (29 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Moments Of Crisis Are Also Moments Of Faith (AKA: Too Big To Fail)

“Godzilla:  King of the Monsters” (2019) — movie review
Today’s review is for the kaiju epic “Godzilla:  King of the Monsters” (2019), directed by Michael Dougherty and stars Kyle Chandler as Dr. Mark Russell, a scientist torn between grief and duty as he confronts the resurgence of colossal creatures;  Vera Farmiga plays Dr. Emma Russell, whose radical plan to restore ecological balance through the Titans sets the stage for global upheaval;  Millie Bobby Brown portrays Madison Russell, their daughter, caught between loyalty and survival;  Bradley Whitford adds levity as Dr. Rick Stanton;  Ken Watanabe returns as Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, embodying reverence and sacrifice;   Charles Dance looms as Colonel Alan Jonah, a human antagonist exploiting chaos;  and Zhang Ziyi appears as Dr. Ilene Chen, bridging myth and science.  Together, this ensemble navigates a world where Mothra, Rodan, and the three-headed King Ghidorah rise to challenge Godzilla’s reign.
Background:  My brother and I both enjoyed watching these monster movies together as children – and over the last 25+ years that they’ve been getting re-booted / re-made.  With each release in the MonsterVerse, I would drive over to his house for another walk down memory lane.  LoL.  Released in May 2019, “Godzilla:  King of the Monsters” is the third entry in Legendary’s “MonsterVerse,” following “Godzilla” (2014) (review here) and “Kong:  Skull Island” (2017) (review here).  With a budget estimated between $170–200 million, the film grossed over $386 million worldwide.  While it did not win Academy Awards, it is historically significant as a modern continuation of Toho’s kaiju legacy, reintroducing iconic monsters to Western audiences with cutting-edge visual effects.
Plot:  The crypto-zoological agency Monarch faces escalating crises as dormant Titans awaken across the globe.  Dr. Emma Russell’s “ORCA” device, designed to communicate with the creatures, becomes a weapon of manipulation.  Ghidorah, an alien apex predator, emerges as Godzilla’s ultimate nemesis, threatening planetary annihilation.  Amid battles spanning Mexico, Antarctica, and Boston, alliances shift between humans and monsters.  The climax sees Godzilla, empowered by Mothra’s sacrifice and Serizawa’s ultimate act of devotion, reclaiming his throne as “King of the Monsters.”
So, is this movie any good?  Short answers:  Yes;  spectacular monster action;  visually stunning;  uneven human drama;  yes — for kaiju fans.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Godzilla:  King of the Monsters” delivers on its promise of titanic spectacle.  It is less about human nuance and more about mythic scale, positioning Godzilla as both destroyer and savior.
Acting:  Kyle Chandler grounds the film with earnest intensity, while Vera Farmiga’s conflicted Emma adds moral ambiguity.  Millie Bobby Brown provides youthful resilience, though her role is often reactive.  Ken Watanabe shines in a poignant farewell, elevating the film’s emotional core.  Charles Dance is suitably menacing, though underutilized.  The ensemble is competent, but the monsters themselves dominate the screen.
Filming / FX:  Lawrence Sher’s cinematography captures apocalyptic grandeur:  lightning storms herald Ghidorah, volcanic fury births Rodan, and bioluminescence sanctifies Mothra.  Bear McCreary’s score, weaving Akira Ifukube’s classic Godzilla theme, amplifies the mythic resonance.  The visual effects are state-of-the-art, rendering kaiju battles with operatic scale.
Problems:  Minor (human)The human subplot often feels thin, with character motivations unevenly sketched.  Dialogue occasionally lapses into exposition.  The sheer spectacle overshadows narrative coherence, leaving some viewers disengaged from the human drama.  Much like comic-book super-hero movie adaptations, these “monster” movies have nothing to do with reality.  This is visual fantasy and whether or not the monsters and battles look “cool”.  They mostly do…
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  As a kaiju enthusiast, the film is exhilarating.  Watching Godzilla rise, Ghidorah menace, and Mothra sacrifice is both thrilling and emotionally stirring (for the little kid in me).  It is not subtle, but it is grand.
Final Recommendation:  Strong Recommendation.  “Godzilla:  King of the Monsters” is essential viewing for fans of kaiju cinema and visual spectacle.  While it lacks the narrative depth of classic courtroom dramas or human-centered epics, its historic significance lies in revitalizing Toho’s pantheon for modern audiences.  Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of monster action and destruction, it is a film best experienced on the largest screen possible.  Watch it for Godzilla’s fiery ascension, Mothra’s luminous grace, and the reminder that sometimes myth and monster are inseparable.
.
Click here (6 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Monkey Business == Monster Mash

“Kong:  Skull Island” (2017) — movie review
Today’s review is for the monster adventure “Kong:  Skull Island” (2017), directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, with Tom Hiddleston as James Conrad, a former SAS tracker hired to guide a classified survey;  Samuel L. Jackson is Colonel Preston Packard, a battle-hardened commander nursing an unfinished war;  Brie Larson is Mason Weaver, a photojournalist intent on witnessing rather than conquering;  John Goodman is Bill Randa, the mission’s true-believer architect;  and John C. Reilly is Hank Marlow, a stranded WWII pilot whose island lore and survivor’s humor become hard-won wisdom.  Supporting cast includes Jing Tian as San Lin, Toby Kebbell as Maj. Jack Chapman, Corey Hawkins as Houston Brooks, Jason Mitchell as Glenn Mills, Shea Whigham as Earl Cole, Thomas Mann as Reg Slivko, John Ortiz as Victor Nieves, Eugene Cordero as Reles, Marc Evan Jackson as Steve Woodward, Miyavi as Gunpei Ikari, Richard Jenkins as Senator Al Willis, Allyn Rachel as Secretary O’Brien, and Terry Notary providing Kong’s performance core.  Together they populate a Vietnam-era creature saga where a storm-walled island and one colossal guardian turn a routine incursion into a moral reckoning.
Background:  I grew up watching the old King Kong and Godzilla movies on TV and at the theater, so these movies are a trip down memory lane with updated special effects.  Basically, you’ll have to pardon my inherent favorable bias in these reviews.  LoL.  Released in 2017, “Kong:  Skull Island” repositions King Kong within the modern MonsterVerse and shifts the story to 1973, fusing war-movie iconography with mythic creature cinema.  It did not win Academy Awards, but it has historic significance for re-framing Kong as protector rather than spectacle and for establishing the shared universe trajectory that leads to crossovers like Godzilla vs. Kong (2021).  Its era palette—’70s rock, napalm sunsets, rotary-wing bravado — functions as texture and commentary.
Plot:  A government-backed team fronts a geological survey to breach the island’s permanent storm wall, escorted by Packard’s helicopter squadron and guided by Conrad, with Weaver documenting the mission.  Kong’s defense shatters the formation and scatters survivors into a lethal ecosystem of Skullcrawlers, giant insects, and bone fields.  Marlow’s hard-earned lore reframes Kong as apex guardian rather than enemy.  Packard’s vendetta escalates toward a showdown that pits human obsession against ecological order.  The choice becomes stark:  withdraw and respect the balance, or re-fight a war the world has already abandoned.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong ensemble;  gorgeous, muscular visuals;  thin characterization and some pacing bumps;  yes — fun and resonant.
Any good?  Yes.  A vivid, propulsive monster adventure that pairs pulp pleasures with war-haunted subtext, landing its myth-versus-militarism argument even when the script leans on archetypes.
Acting:  Jackson’s volcanic focus turns obsession into the film’s human engine.  Larson supplies quiet moral gravity, insisting the creature be seen rather than hunted.  Hiddleston plays a capable stoic — less layered, but an effective “action” anchor.  Goodman adds conspiratorial heft;  Reilly steals scenes with warmth and melancholy.  The soldiers (Mitchell, Whigham, Hawkins, Kebbell, Mann) sketch distinct notes, though several arcs feel abbreviated.  Tian and Ortiz give the science-and-Landsat contingent credible texture;  Jenkins’s senator frames the bureaucracy with crisp economy.
Filming / FX:  Larry Fong’s cinematography paints jungle war poetry — sun-baked horizons, silhouette heroics, and napalm color that echo ’70s cinema without pastiche.  Kong’s design is monumental yet emotionally legible:  muscle, scar, and gaze rendered with clarity.  Skullcrawlers move like sleek nightmares — nasty, kinetic, and readable in action.  Henry Jackman’s score mixes brass-forward heroism with percussive dread, while era needle-drops root the film culturally.  CG integrates convincingly with on-location texture;  set pieces (helicopters vs. Kong, bone fields, cliff hunts) are staged with legible geography and scale.
Problems:  Character depth is uneven — several soldiers function more as tone (“red shirts”) than fully realized people.  Connective tissue between set pieces sometimes rushes, and thematic gestures (colonial critique, scientific ethics) are hinted rather than explicit.  Dialogue dips into mission-speak shorthand.  As with almost all of these “monster” films, it’s difficult to make the monster’s big enough to do things, but small enough to make them seem human.  Example:  one minute Kong is so large he can hold a helicopter in his hand and the next Larson / Weaver practically is the width of his palm.  And then, of course, there’s the fact that heavy machine guns and explosives would almost certainly have immediately killed Kong and all of the other monsters.  But hey, that’s Hollywood…
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a muscular, handsomely shot creature saga with a point:  myth vs / rebutting militarized certainty.  The Vietnam war echoes give the spectacle ballast, and Kong-as-guardian lingers longer in memory than a mere attraction.
Final recommendation:  Strong Recommendation.   No Academy Awards here (LoL), but a historically notable film for recasting Kong as protector within the MonsterVerse and for the coherence of its Vietnam-era aesthetic.  Watch it for the fusion of war cinema and monster myth, for Jackson’s blade-edged obsession, for Larson’s humane lens, and for a blockbuster that understands scale and size – “monster” and jungle threats.
.
Click here (3 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »