Into the Woods - 12/29/14

Let's take a trip back in time to 2005, or 2006, or whenever the school musical was put on when I was in 6th grade - can't remember which half of the year it was. A young me is one of the few kids to raise his hand to volunteer to help participate in stage crew, which his homeroom teacher is taking charge of this year. I spend the next few weeks after this plunge painting sets, taping things together, and becoming part of a huge, well, huge for an overwhelmed 6th grader, huge production as a leading student of the stage crew. This opens the door to a career in musical theater stage crew that sees me through a series of odd jobs like pushing huge pirate ships across the stage, designing and timing elaborate powerpoint presentations to Schoolhouse Rock segments, and eventually transitioning away from the stage to the back of the auditorium as a high school student, where I formed part of the trio that became the light crew for 3 wonderful high school musical productions. That musical, the one that started it all, way back in 6th grade, was, of course, Into the Woods Jr. A musical that was so wonderful and compelling, that it inspired me to stick with the stage all through the rest of my public school education at Gates Chili. A musical that so inspired a deep admiration for musicals that has carried over into my deep admiration for cinema. So, you can bet that I had extremely high expectations for the film adaptation of Into the Woods - it not only had to satisfy the requirements of the 19 year old movie buff, but also the requirements of that 6th grader to once again experience the musical that inspired him those many years ago.

So did it meet my hyped up expectations? Let's find out.

Into the Woods is a story that combines a number of classic fairy tale stories into a party platter of a musical - think the animated film Hoodwinked, but actually good, and a Broadway musical. Brought to the stage in the late 80s, Into the Woods tells the story of a baker and his wife, a boy named Jack, a girl sent off to deliver goods to her grandmother, a distraught girl who is abandoned by her father and left to a terrible stepmother and her two daughters, and a witch who sets off a chain of events that smashes them all together in the woods of their kingdom. Those characters are, of course, classic fairy tale characters such as Little Red Riding Hood, Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk, and of course, Cinderella. The story follows the baker and his wife as they are sent to acquire objects from these characters in order to reverse a curse placed on their family by the witch. Along the way, they encounter princes, wolves, giants, and various other oddities only encountered in the woods of their land.

The story is essentially identical to that of its original Broadway counterpart, which means it carries with it all of the qualities that one possessed. The songs are wonderful, the dialogue is witty, and the story is engaging and fun - until the 2nd act comes around. The 1st act is everything I could have wanted out of it - its an absolutely glorious adaptation for the screen, but the 2nd act of the musical is still exactly as disappointing as it is on the stage - they probably cut it out of the Jr. version of the musical for a reason! Events occur that feel cheap and disappointing, and overall everything just kind of feels like its lost its way, and because Disney has decided to sanitize the more sexual driven character moments and the narrator character entirely, a lot of the best moments from the stage production are lost entirely. What's even worse is that they weren't very thorough in their excision, and bits and pieces remain that feel really strange without the proper context that is in the original musical.

That being said, the cast really does their best with what they've been given to work with. The ensemble cast featuring Anna Kendrick, Emily Blunt, James Corden, Johnny Depp, and even the prestigious Meryl Streep all pull their own weight in bringing this musical to the screen. The major players all really step up to the plate and embrace their roles - Anna Kendrick and Emily Blunt especially, bringing a lovely set of vocals to the screen with high amounts of quality. Everything felt as if it fell neatly into place. The only problem I really had was with trying to see Chris Pine as anything but Captain Kirk, but that's more a personal problem.

The score and songs, written by Stephen Sondheim, are, as usual with his work, absolutely flawless in almost every way. Its just a shame that entire plot can't carry the weight of these beautiful songs, as some of the best pieces come out and shine during the 2nd act, when the story is at its weakest.

The cinematography of the film,. shot with anamorphic lenses in digital by Dion Beebe, was occasionally striking, but on a whole rather uninspiring. The digital projection I saw, whether it was the source's fault or the projector's fault, didn't seem to have a whole ton of detail, especially in close ups, which was rather disappointing. I'll get a better look at it when it comes out on home video, I'm sure.

Overall, I was quite pleased with Rob Marshall's adaptation of Into the Woods, if not just because I've been starving for a major silver screen musical ever since Les Miserables hit the screens in 2012. It didn't quite meet either of my sets of expectations, but I blame that solely on the fact that it kind of flops around like a dying fish during its second half, a problem I also found when I viewed the 1991 made-for-tv live taping of the Broadway show with its original cast. I highly recommend it regardless, especially if you're not as stubborn and cranky with these kind of things I have. The movie is jam packed with entertaining performances, great vocal performances, and is a faithful reproduction of the musical, sans a few sexuallly charged moments that could have been quite useful up on the screen.

White Christmas - 12/21/14

What can be said about a movie like White Christmas that hasn't been said in the 60 years since the film's release? I'm going to assume not a lot, but I'm going to go ahead and tell you what I thought anyways, as today was my first ever screening of the movie - call my perspective a fresh one if you will. I didn't grow up with the movie, never really listened to the songs outside of one middle school chorus concert thing, and have little or no attachments to the title song or any of the major players in the movie. I do, however, have an incredibly large soft spot for 50s and 60s musicals, so this experience was certainly a welcome one.

Needless to say, I am quite enamored with White Christmas. As I sit here writing about it, I'm listening to songs from the movie, I'm thinking of the great cinematography, and I'm finding it difficult that in my 19 years of life, with a mother like mine(she planted the love for classic musical movies in my brain,) that I've never seen such a grand movie.

White Christmas is the story of a post-World War 2 singing duo that meet during wartime, only to go on and form a hugely successful musical act that takes Broadway by storm. They are contacted by an old army friend of theirs to go see his two sisters perform while they're on tour in Florida, and they immediately fall for these two sisters. A series of circumstances lead them to follow the girls to Vermont in the middle of a winter heatwave, and they're driven to help resuscitate a hotel they find in the area that's run by their former commanding officer as it faces the disaster of a snow-less winter. The film is driven along by a series of wonderful musical sequences, bouts of comedy, and runs a little over two hours at a brisk pace that feels absolutely perfect.

White Christmas was unique in that paired two of the biggest stars in America at the time - Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, both known for their musical careers, and Bing for his presence in movies like Holiday Inn - the first film to feature the song "White Christmas," and boy does it show. These guys can belt it like the best of them, and do it in the most entertaining of ways. Their on screen antics as a singing duo is absolutely hysterical, and they play off of each other with the greatest of ease. Every joke they make, every song they sing, everything is so much fun to take in, and so memorable. The same could be said of their two leading ladies - Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen. Their back and forth as sisters, and their chemistry with their leading men is outstanding. There were many times when my peers and I expressed our emotions to one another as certain points in the plot unfolded on the screen before us. The talent in this movie is just incredible, and the casting is some of the best work out of the era.

The songs are just fantastic - Irving Berlin's score and songs are incredibly catchy, and memorable. Even now, I find myself humming the songs, and watching clips of the scenes they're featured in - mostly because there's not a single complete White Christmas soundtrack album due to music rights dating back to the film's release. I can't think of a single weak song from the entire film.

Now, the film isn't perfect. Sometimes the studio sets certainly show their age, and look incredibly obvious, especially during the wartime scenes. Everything kind of looks cheap and at times unbelievable, especially compared to other pictures of day. Luckily, that all resolves itself as the war ends and the bulk of the film takes place in a far more convincing world. There were also some plot lines that didn't quite feel like they had satisfying conclusions, mostly towards the end of the movie, but its an issue that is, quite frankly, easily overlooked. White Christmas is a great movie, and movie that rightfully has acquired its status as a classic. It feels like a timeless story, and is certainly a timeless movie, full of wonderful performances, great songs, and a wonderful cast.

White Christmas comes highly recommended for those who have yet to experience such a fun movie.

Birdman(or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) - 12/18/14

I have a hard time finishing these reviews. I go into them full of energy, and end up wiping about somewhere around the third paragraph. Not sure why, its probably similar to why I've never finished any writing that wasn't for a grade. Oh well. This movie is important enough that I will soldier on. I will finish this review!

The movie in question of course, is Birdman, or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance if you'd like to confuse yourself while also attempting to understand the movie a little better. What an unbelievable triumph in film making. A movie so good, that even in a year where we saw Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Interstellar, this one reigns supreme. That's no hyperbole, which I am generally known for - I absolutely believe this is the finest film to grace the screen in 2014.

The movie, of course, is about a man who once played the lead role in a pioneering series of comic book films twenty years or so before the film takes place. Having washed up after turning down the 4th movie in his "Birdman," films, he struggles to find his purpose in life. In order to fill that void, he adapts an influential piece of literature in his life for the stage, and sets off to direct and star in his own adaptation of said story. Along the way, he tackles insufferably obnoxious actors, insecure and fragile actresses, hostile critics, and a general crisis concerning his own self worth. Sounds like a fun ride, eh?

I guess that's what makes Birdman so rock solid though. It tells a tough story, but does so in a way that makes it feel like we could relate to it. Sure, its a character piece centered around a selfish, washed up Hollywood star, and its about his craving to be loved again by the people, but its a desire we all have. We all want to feel like we're worth something to someone, whether it be a theater of people, or that special someone that we're chasing after. We all want to feel like we've done something that will leave an impact on people, and that's ultimately what this movie is about. Its an incredibly human movie, with a large pile on cinematic flair on the side. Its a 2 hour struggle to be remembered, to feel as if you exist.

This important struggle is championed by none other than Michael Keaton, who plays the lead role of Riggan Thompson. I've always thought Keaton was under appreciated as a lead, having kind of peaked with relevance as Batman in the early 90s, and only showing up in mainstream cinema in background roles, such as his role in 2010's The Other Guys. He has a talent for doing things in an incredibly boisterous way. His face is so full of emotion, so constantly charged to match the voice he projects. Its wonderful to see his full array of talents on display here, and I truly think this is the role that he will be remembered for for years to come. Forget his turn as the caped crusader, this performance is so much more than anything else I've seen on display this year. The rest of the cast is rock solid too, giving a group of amazing talent some screen time within which to stretch their dramatic legs. Emma Stone in particular kills it, with one particular scene, one which is briefly shown in the trailer, where she displays such a fierce intensity that I think it might snag her an oscar for best supporting actress, or at least a nomination. She continues to carry the same intensity throughout the film, although in a much quieter, subtle way that is absolutely wonderful. The same can be said about Naomi Watts and Andrea Riseborough, who play trouble stage actresses with romantic ties to the leading actors in the play. I even enjoyed Edward Norton's supporting role in the mess, as an asshole broadway star. He plays an incredibly good pain the ass type of character, something I've always thought of him ever since I was first exposed to him in films like Fight Club and the like. Zach Galifinakis as usual brings a strong, yet surprisingly small performance to the mix, complimenting the rest of the major players involved.

The cinematography of course, having been shot by Emmanuel Lubezki, is nearly flawless. Using the technique of stringing together a succession of long takes, he builds tension throughout the entire movie, never giving us a break from movement as we follow these characters around the stressful world of the play's production. The lack of cutting away for things like better angles and the like leads to some absolutely spectacular tight shots, especially in character interactions, where the screen is filled in just the right places, as if we were looking in on them with our own two eyes. The movie, in that regard, felt incredibly immersive. I often discredit the use of digital cameras in cinema, being a born and raised Kodak kid, but for this movie, I will make an exception. Shot with the Arri Alexa, Lubezki brings the city of New York to life with an expert use of color, framing, and choreography. If this movie doesn't win an oscar for best cinematography, I will probably break a thing.

Also, the music was fantastic, if not incredibly minimal, mostly consisting of extended drum kit pieces, with a few clips of orchestrated pieces peppered throughout. A surprisingly bare, yet fitting soundtrack to such an interesting movie.

Overall, Birdman is my top film of 2014, if not of the past five years or so. A movie filled to the brim with incredible performances, breathtaking cinematography, and a wonderful story simply cannot be ignored by mainstream audiences. Go out and find this movie, live in its world, and you will absolutely take something wonderful out of it. It isn't a traditional movie, but it doesn't try to tell a traditional Hollywood story. It just works, in every single way. I loved it, and I hope you will too.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay: Part One 11/27/14

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!


Catching Fire stands as once of the most pleasant surprises of last year. It took the frantic, wild pacing and photography of the first Hunger Games film and pulled it in to the point where it was confident and collected. The action was wild, yet framed in such a way that you could understand it, unlike the extreme shakycam utilized in the first film. The character drama felt more grounded, and easier to relate to. The use of IMAX cameras gave the move a grand feeling that few current films can replicate - everything about this movie felt like a breath of fresh air for the young adult movie adaptations. So, the question is, how do you follow up such a spectacle?

The answer is, of course, you don't. As with the book it is sourced from, Mockingjay kind of pulls a 180 in terms of its pacing, character drama, and sense of confidence. This doesn't mean its disappointing, but it never quite lives up to the expectations set by its older siblings. Instead of dropping us into the washed out greys of District 12, we're thrown into the warm oranges of the underground District 13 as our favorite heroin is built into the vision of a revolution. Most of the film is staged underground in a restricted area, and in the same way the film feels a bit restrained itself.

The story is still centered around Katniss, as she grapples with the post-Quarter Quell events in Panem. Revolution is spreading through the districts, and war has essentially broken out. People are fighting back against their aggressive oppressors, and the leaders of District 13 want to use Katniss to fan the flames of the war. They intend to use her as a piece of propaganda, an idea that she doesn't want to quietly slip into. She eventually does, and sets out on a course to incite rebellion, and save the friends that she lost in the climax of the previous movie.

What Hunger Games and Catching Fire did best was show off their extravagant action scenes, something that I felt Mockingjay sorely lacked. I get that perhaps they're saving the best for last, but they've stripped part 1 of the soul that it needed to be a little more interesting. I mean, the entire first act of the movie centers around Katniss kind of wandering through District 13 life, being sad and distressed. She kind of just meanders, and the film feels lifeless - perhaps in part of the fact that Jennifer Lawrence's sad faces are so over the top that I couldn't help but chuckle at her performance. That being said, once she rises to her role as the "Mockingjay," the film dumps all of the baggage that it carried in its first act, and injects some much needed humor and action just in time to save the last 2/3s of the film. A scene that stands out most in my mind is a humorous back and forth between the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Plutarch Heavensbee and Katniss over production of a propaganda video that is most amusing.

If you can live with the fact that the first third of the movie is kind of dreary, and a little melodramatic at times, then you will go on to enjoy the last two thirds. There are some excellent action sequences, if a little brief, and some excellent back and forth drama between characters that really picks up the movie and saves it. I'm only hoping that they bring out the big guns for part 2, and end the series on a high note - I'm hoping for grand action sequences, and a satisfying end to the Hunger Games series.

As it stands, Mockingjay Part 1 is by far the weakest of the three films out so far, so I'm hoping its second half is far superior. They set the bar a little low this time around, so they can really only climb back up from here. 

The Interstellar Journey - To My Friends 11/13/14

I talk a lot of bullshit. Like, to the point where I'm surprised my friends haven't gotten bored and walked away from me. I go nuts over terms like anamorphic(which my suitemate likes to poke fun at to this day, not sure why,) 70mm film, Super 35mm photography, digital color timing. Stuff like that. Stuff that, even though I pick up on all these things because I've fallen deeply in love with the way movies were made, they haven't. I mean, I pick apart movies, and get so into them that, on many occasions, they, deeply aggravated, have told me to shut the fuck up.

So, it came as a surprise to me, that when Imax announced the locations that were running Interstellar in 15/70mm Imax, and that the closest theater playing it was, at that time, Toronto(a three hour drive,) that they told me to go there. They told me to plan a trip around this singular event, a concept I found ridiculous at the time, and a concept that still seems kind of odd to me today. These guys never seemed to give a damn about any of this stuff before, but, for my sake, they were willing to give up an entire Saturday just so I'd be happy. And to me, this meant so much, more than words can honestly describe. It would have crushed me to miss what is most likely the last Imax 15/70mm presentation. Ever. They will probably never, ever do this again. They recognized this, and decided to support me in my foolish crusade to go see a movie.

It feels the same way, now that I know there's a 70mm Imax print here in Rochester, to know that they're still coming with me. It would have been neat to visit Toronto, seeing as I haven't been there in recent memory, but seeing it in my favorite place in the whole city of Rochester - Tinseltown, means so much more to me. It will allow me to convey the joy that I felt dragging everyone to see The Dark Knight Rises back in 2012 one more time. It will allow me to share the joy that I get from obscure terms like anamorphic, and 15 perforation film with them, and perhaps afterwards, they might feel the same way.

Interstellar's 70mm Imax run here in Rochester might be the last time I ever get to see Kodak film, the stuff my father helped perfect until February of this year, on the big screen. It will probably be the last time I ever get to see the good stuff, the best of the best, as Imax has pretty much torn out all of their film projectors and replaced them with digital projection equipment. It was inevitable - the movie guys found something better in digital, so I guess this will soon be an era only known in memories, a time that's soon to be gone with the wind. That makes me awfully sad.

What doesn't however, is the fact that all of my friends from all my different circles are coming with me to see this movie. People always have these ridiculous stories about the crazy things they did in college that they'll never forget. For me, this will be that story. I know, it won't be nearly as entertaining on playback, and it probably won't impress my kids or the people I come across someday in the future, but I will never, ever forget this. This movie was merely a movie before, regardless of how I saw it, but now its a memory. I haven't even seen the damn thing yet, but I know its gunna be good. And I know you'll be there with me, and that makes me happy in a way that I can't quite put into words.

Fury - 10/27/14

Fury has all the right pieces in place - Brad Pitt, World War 2 tanks, anamorphic 35mm photography, a moderately high budget. It has the means to become something great, I mean, if you told me Spielberg was returning to the screen with that kind of material to work with, I would have ran to the theater as fast as I could. Instead, director David Ayer brings a troubled movie to the screen, one with a bit of a troubled tone, and a narrative that feels less like a proper act of respect towards American World War 2 tank crews, and more like Saving Private Tank.

Fury is a movie about a rough and tough tank crew who take on a dangerous mission in the heart of Germany during the twilight hours of World War 2. The movie throws them up against waves of SS troopers, enemy tanks, German towns riddled with anti tank guns, and eventually themselves. It's a piece of World War 2 you don't see often on the screen - more times than not tanks are restricted to minor pieces of stationary explosion machines, and occasionally a triumphant charge into frame at the end of a last stand. It has some exceptional battle sequences, and it does an excellent job of showing the devastation that a tank can bring to the battlefield.

The problem, the main problem anyways with Fury, is that, unlike Tom Hanks and the gang in Saving Private Ryan, not a single one of the characters in this movie are painted in a way that makes you care about them. Right from the opening of the sequence, we see them cussing each other out, kicking each other, and just generally be unpleasant to one another. They spend most of the movie antagonizing their newly assigned assistant tank driver, bullying him at almost every chance they get. It makes the crew come off as a bunch of assholes instead of a war hardened group of tank veterans. They keep saying throughout the film that driving a tank is the, "best job I ever had," yet none of them seem to like each other, or the tank they drive into battle. The only one who seems remotely pleasant is Brad Pitt's character, who barks orders, and struggles to keep his team together as they push through the German front, but one character cannot possibly save an entire movie.

This issue really compounds upon itself when the tanks take a German town, and Brad Pitt and the new guy find two German women hiding in one of the town's homes. They spend their time on break sort of awkwardly befriending these women, ultimately ending with a brief, yet consensual sexual encounter that sort of helps humanize these two characters. Their brief spurt of pleasantness is interrupted when the rest of the tank crew decides to intrude, and true to their form, act like a bunch of complete assholes. They ruin the quiet, pleasant breakfast that Pitt and co. were having, making the scene feel really awkward, and ultimately unpleasant. How am I supposed to root for these guys if they run around doing everything they can to piss everyone off?

Ayer and company then decided to pull a 180 on these characters in the movie's third and final act. Suddenly, this tank crew is full of nice, decent men who care for each other, and even decide they're willing to die for one another. It's such an unbelievable transition, that it ultimately ruins the integrity of the movie's final moments. They end up being tossed into a last stand that feels so anticlimactic and forced that it just feels so implausible. It tries to redeem this group of aggressive, selfish, angry men mostly unsuccessfully. Sure, they kill a shitload of Nazis troops, but it sure as hell doesn't wipe away how they treated those German women, or how they've treated each other throughout the film.

Outside of that, there are some spectacular tank battles - a battle against a German Tiger tanks particularly impresses, and their last stand against the Germans is quite spectacular as well. The visual effects are well made, if not a bit cartoonish at times for a World War 2 movie. Sound design is outstanding as well, with good channel separation and deep low frequency usage.

Overall, Fury is not a great movie. It is at best merely watchable at times, and at other times the characters frustrate to the point that I sort of wanted to leave the theater a few times. I just had the hardest time sympathizing with these men and their fight against the Germans. Please Mr. Ayer, leave the war movies up to the directors that know how to bring good characters on to the screen. Go back to making smaller movies about less important topics, this one definitely could have used a little more finesse than you and your crew were capable of this time around.    

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - 6/2/14

Good news everyone! Walmart has decided to re-release a small selection of movies with new minimalist artwork that's merely glued to the front cover of their older budget release Blu Rays and DVDs!

Ok, so I guess that's not entirely good news, but the real good news is that classics like West Side Story, Dances with Wolves, Robocop, and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World are once again readily available for the masses. That alone wipes away all the damage that they done by lazily redesigning the pre-existing artwork.

So, let's get one with the movie:

1963 was a fairly memorable year in cinema. James Bond made his second appearance in mainstream cinema, Steve McQueen attempted to escape from a Nazi prisoner-of-war camp, and Cleopatra almost toppled 20th Century Fox.

It was also the year that something as simple as the idea of buried treasure set off the greatest chase film that we've ever seen run through a projector gate.

Stanley Kramer's It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is a huge movie. Like, I'm not even sure if I can call it a simple comedy. Filmed using the Ultra Panavision camera system, its pretty much the Ben-Hur of comedies. Its an epic in every sense of the word - sets are huge and lavish, stunts are over the top, the cast is filled to the brim with star players, and it runs two and a half hours without running out of steam.

Name me a single comedy that can match the resume that Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad brings to the table.

The film's premise is rather simple: a man dies in a tragic car accident, and reveals to the 5 witnesses of the event that he's left 350,000 dollars buried underneath a landmark in a state park in southern California. The witnesses end up blasting off in a free for all race to claim the money, leaving a trail of destruction and insanity in their wake.

Its as if someone setup an extremely convoluted set of dominoes, the kind that's extremely criss-crossed and loops around through like 8 branching paths, paths that somehow manage to all end in the same place.And then they grabbed a camera and pointed it at the entire spectacle for two and a half hours as they all fell down. That's as accurate of a description of the movie as I can possibly give you.

Seriously, this movie has everything: a sidesplittingly exhilarating plane sequence, a multitude of high speed car chases, collapsing buildings, huge explosions, close quarters car chases, fist fights, and even a little bit of river fording - not once does anyone pull out a poop joke, or kill anyone. Its comedy of the highest class, and it totally respects the audience - something I think we ought to see more of in modern comedies.

The film is carried by an absolutely all-star cast, as I mentioned before. I mean, just take a look at the names in the credits list - Mickey Rooney, Ethel Merman, Sid Caesar, Buddy Hackett, and Milton Berle. And a list of cameos so long and so deeply rooted into classic Hollywood stars that I didn't even catch most of them.

It just works. It works so well, that even as it began to fall apart during the finale, as plenty of non-comedies and comedies alike do, that it manages to pull itself back together in a manner that could only work with the talent behind this film.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is an expertly photographed, masterfully edited, and skillfully directed comedy that, in the hands of someone else, could have easily turned into a mess of cameo sketches and incoherent plot sequences. Instead, we get one of the greatest comedies - no, the greatest epics of all time.

You owe to yourself to pick up this work of art, especially since its currently in print and only 9 dollars at Walmart. Purists can even check out the 30 dollar Criterion, which includes a cut of the movie that runs an EXTRA hour. It's an absolute no-brainer. Go buy, and fall in love with this film as I have. - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Godzilla(2914) - 5/21/14

I was never a huge Godzilla fan. The closest I've ever gotten to the King of Monsters is a copy of the 1998 train wreck on Laserdisc, that I've only watched once because I disliked it so much. So, I pretty much went into this movie blind. I knew very little, I'd only seen the first trailer that was released a few months ago, and I had read some technical data of the shooting format of the film and whatnot - nothing too exciting or revealing.

My official verdict is....the film is pretty good. As long as you disregard the human characters in the movie. Focus on Godzilla. And the monsters he fights. That's how this film really finds its strengths.

Maybe this is the fault of our first time blockbuster director Gareth Edwards, or of his team of editiors, screenwriters, and other people who put this movie together, but all of the human characters that run around while Godzilla is Godzilla are either completely useless or really, really bland. Its like they decided to assemble a team of modern screen legends - Bryan Cranston, fresh off his run with the wonderful TV show Breaking Bad, Juliette Binoche, oscar winner and star of films such as The English Patient and Three Colors: Blue, Ken Watanabe, oscar nominee for his role in The Last Samurai and one of the many key players in Inception, and Sally Hawkins, who was fantastic in the recent Woody Allen film, Blue Jasmine. They got all these award winner actors together to make a disaster movie, and gave them all really insignificant parts with as minimal screen time as possible.

Instead, we get a movie centered around Aaron Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen, two younger players who have the charisma of flat tires. Seriously, why would you make Aaron Taylor Johnson a lead in your 200 million dollar blockbuster? The only good movie he's been in is Kickass, a comedic superhero film about a loser who takes on the suit of a crime fighter only to realize he's mostly incompetent. He hasn't shown any real dramatic chops, and only plays well when there's a bit of comedy on the table. You want to know what movie isn't comedic at all? This one. Its like they tried to take the same risks that Roland Emmerich took in 96' casting Will Smith in Independence Day. The difference? Independence Day was loaded with humorous one liners and bits of comedies that made it a ton of fun. In Godzilla we get Aaron Taylor Johnson running around being really serious. Seriously. There is like one scene in this movie where I laughed at all.

As for Elizabeth Olsen, well. She's in like 5 scenes. Five scenes from which I took so little that I couldn't even remember her character's name. So there's that.

But Godzilla's scenes were awesome. Oh boy, were they awesome. Who ever was in charge of those sequences deserves a raise. Hell, give em two raises. Each time he let loose one of those roars and did his thing, I couldn't help but form a ten mile wide grin. I felt like a kid again. I knew that these scenes were the scenes in which the movie reached its full potential. Unfortunately, these scenes were far and few between due to the fact that our director decided to mostly tease Godzilla's existence.

Seriously, I can't say it enough. Godzilla was so badass. I loved it. He truly did show off his stuff as the King of the Monsters, and in an attempt to keep this review as spoiler free as possible, I'm just going to say this: it isn't really an evening movie where you pay top dollar. Try and pay matinee prices, or even special early bird prices. It really doesn't have that much meat on its bones to justify throwing down 13 dollars on an expensive 3D ticket or anything.

Still, I enjoyed Godzilla as a popcorn flick. It was mostly mindless entertainment, with a cast of mostly worthless human characters that were slightly less than one-dimensional characters. It makes up for its lack of intelligence with a few brilliant special effect sequences that are so invigorating that you are guaranteed to start cheering on our title monster. Its a solid special effects laden movie that I definitely recommend if you're good at turning your brain off. Its Godzilla at his finest. He's back.