Shin Godzilla

I watched a movie and it was Shin Godzilla, co-directed by Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi, starring Hiroki Hasegawa, Yutaka Takenouchi, and Satomi Ishihara, released in 2016. It is the 31^st installment of the Godzilla franchise from the Toho Company in Japan. It is not like any previous Godzilla film. On the dvd it says it is a “reboot” but I don’t see it as such. Have you ever imagined what it would be like if Godzilla was treated like a natural disaster? This movie treats Godzilla as such in a modern setting, showing the minutia of how much red tape there is during a natural disaster and how far we are willing to go to fix this natural disaster. I will admit, this is not what I was expecting as far as a Godzilla movie goes but it does follow within the mythos that is Godzilla. However, there is more focus on how Godzilla effects people rather than just seeing him rampage through the city like in times past. Some were critical of this (I got a message on my social media about it). I see that criticism. The greatest of all Godzilla films is Gojira (1954), the Japanese one, not the American one, and that established Godzilla as a force of nature, born of nuclear testing. He wreaked terrible havoc on Tokyo and the devastation caused was an allegory for the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Godzilla is the embodiment of nuclear destruction. The later films, I'm not really sure about since they represent the time they were made, to a certain degree, but the military and people still treat him as a threat. I can understand where fan's criticism comes from; you come for Godzilla and get a lot of talking and very little Godzilla. I can relate in that is what disappointed me about the  Godzilla (2014) Legendary Pictures put out. However, that didn’t seem to bother me so much in Shin Godzilla.

As for Shin Godzilla, there is some interesting and creative ways to try and stop Godzilla that are really fascinating to watch. It is about teamwork and what the greater good is for. There are sections where it is frustrating to see where the government breaks down because of personalities and/or policies. Many of the countries are portrayed in a lighter tone, with some digs here and there but that’s understandable. Ultimately, it comes down to the choices they have to make to stop Godzilla from destroying and killing so many people, which in itself is interesting since it is a living organism and the question becomes even more difficult than say if it was a hurricane or earthquake (which they address in the movie)and how to rebuild from that. It also brings up other questions of whether to destroy Godzilla as a pest or keep it alive for testing since it is a new organism, which is similar to the Gojira (1954) in that respect.

Godzilla, for the most part, is very different from what you expect but it works better in the context of the story. There is evolution of both Godzilla and how the people in the Japanese government try to contain it. That gives much more depth to how much is at stake as the movie progresses and that adds a fresh perspective on the Kaiju drama. The Godzilla effects are well done and you (or at least I couldn’t) tell the difference between if it was CGI or suit actor (it was motion captured!). The design of Godzilla was familiar but very different from before, which is nothing new since Godzilla has gone through design changes since 1954. There is a different way Godzilla defends himself from attack though again, this change goes more in line with the kind of story we are dealing with. The crumbling buildings and devastation looked pretty spot on as well.

All the elements are there in this Godzilla installment: people running, Godzilla rampaging through the city, the government talking about how they will contain Godzilla, personal sacrifices of main characters (no romance though) and ultimate resolution. It is a Godzilla a film and I commend Toho for doing something different rather than rehash something over and over. Each Godzilla film is different (have you seen Son of Godzilla or Godzilla v. Hedora?) and though it might not be liked by many Godzilla fans, I think it stands on its own as a thought provoking piece much like the 1954 Gojira.

It (2017)

I watched a movie and it was called It, directed by Andy Muschietti, starring Jaeden Lieberher and Bill Skarsgård, released in 2017. It is an adaptation of the 1986 novel by Stephen King. The movie follows 5 kids who are terrorized by a malevolence in a small town, Derry after one of their own, Bill’s brother Georgie gets killed by It. It is a complicated story to synopsize without revealing too much of the plot. Though to be fair, this is the second adaptation of the classic horror novel, the first being in 1990, as a tv movie and that one was more or less a condensed version of the book. Here, the 2017 version, focuses solely on the kids and how they navigate through the town. All of the kids are terrorized by 3 bullies AND their parents in different ways (Bev’s dad is sexually abusive though it is mostly implied and not shown so explicitly and Eddie’s mother is a hostile hypochondriac) as well as the adults in town avoiding helping Ben when he is getting abused by the bullies. There is something off about Derry, that is very conveyed through the style choices that Muschietti uses, as I mentioned earlier. There are some differences, as Ben is now the historian of Derry rather than Mike though in one scene Mike mentions his grandfather knowing something was not right about the town and even calls out the It curse.
Bill Skarsgård does an amazing job as It. Even from the first scene with Georgie, you can tell there is something most definitely wrong. However Bill adds a childlike voice to It that just feels off as well. The effects of It and everything surrounding it are really spot on, the jumpiness of the character when it attacks the children, the manic change of faces and the way everything just escalates was frightening. The kids all sold on their performances, sounding like kids, rather than Adult kids. It helps that they were all age appropriate so that there was some realism there, as with the dialogue overlapping in certain scenes and really terrified looks on their faces and in their actions. It has a weird air to it too since it rides the line on winsome tween coming-of-age story to terrifying clown horror. Ive read some of the book (online and it was hard to follow as I am distracted by school and life in general) and I felt that there was enough in this adaptation to see that it was adapted really well. A lot of what I imagined was on screen which is pretty rare and it also changed enough, not in 1958 rather in 1988 setting the story this time, that it could be relatable. Additionally, the terror comes from both ends which really has meaning and was not really conveyed in the first tv movie adaptation.  I am sure that a lot people will have mixed feelings about it but I would recommend it. Something that is interesting here is the adaptation of two films and using the same source material; what gets cut? What gets saved? How does one adapt such a thick book into a different medium? How does one make it fresh for new audiences while there is another version that is 27 years old? Overall, it is a great adaptation to King’s work which has been called hard to adapt many times. Little things have changed but the message is still there overcoming fear both as a child and an adult.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (In honour of Dario Argento's 77th birthday today)

Today is Dario Argento’s 77^th birthday and I received in the mail, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage that I ordered a week ago! In honor of Dario’s birthday, I will write a review of it.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage is a giallo film, and it was released in 1970, making it the directorial debut of Argento. It is part of his Animal Trilogy (that also includes Cat o’ Nine Tails (1971) and Four Flies on Grey Velvet (1972). The story of Bird with the Crystal Plumage concerns a man named Sam (played by Tony Musante) who is in Italy, trying to get over his writer’s block with his girlfriend (played by Suzi Kendall). He witnesses a murder of a woman (played by Eva Renzi) in an art gallery, and gets sucked into a web of mystery and violence involving the woman and a serial murderer.

Unlike Argento’s later work, this one has very little blood in it; though that does not detract from the use of suspense and terror to keep the story moving. In fact, there is an element of Hitchcock in that you see a lot of the murders through the eyes of the killer or you get this air of anticipation with everywhere that Sam goes, playing detective. The sets are sparse and in many instances dark, which adds to that mood.

The soundtrack is done by Ennio Morricone and it gives it a suspenseful feel however it does seem out of place in a lot of scenes. Luckily, it is used sparingly.

It is an interesting start to Argento’s film career I will say because it conveys so much without having so much gore and really makes you want to know what the hell is going on. It does not confuse like many giallos do (at least for me) and has really great pacing to keep you riveted. Like Sam, you want to solve the murder to with every new clue.

Overall, this is a great Argento film to begin with if you have not seen an Argento film and really showcases where he began and where he will be going with his future films.

Buio Omega - Beyond the Darkness

I watched a movie and it was called Buio Omega, which loosely translates to Beyond the Darkness, directed by Joe D’Amato, starring Kieran Canter, Cinzia Monreale, and Franca Stoppi, released in 1979. It is an Italian horror movie about a man, played by Kieren Canter, whose fiancé, played by Cinzia Monrele, dies and he falls into the arms of his maid, Iris, played by Franca Stoppi, then things take a turn for the worst and weird. It’s a very shocking movie, to be sure, as it is quite graphic, like a good Italian horror movie should be (autopsy, dismemberment, and a few other scenes).  The music by Goblin is really great and gives it a very interesting vibe along with being very ear wormy. Kieren Canter has pretty good charisma on screen despite having one expression; however I have to admit that it works because he is in mourning and a lot of weird stuff is happening to him. Cinzia Monrele as the fiancé plays a really great dead woman. Franca Stoppi is menacing as Iris and chills you to the bone at how ruthless she is through the whole movie. She is scary looking and has a very Norman Bates Mother quality about her. The action takes place mostly at a villa and it is creepy as hell in a few scenes here and there, creating such an atmosphere.
                Gobin does the soundtrack and like I said, it is very earwormy. The main theme is toe tapping and really adds to the weirdness in what is happening. It still has that very 70s prog rock sound though which makes it listenable outside of the movie. It makes a lot of the scenes really tense when the scenes are already tense. A lot of the time there is no music in some scenes, which, again, adds to the tense atmosphere.

The story is kind of drawn out, for a 94 minute movie and it does take a while to get anywhere. It can be confusing too but mostly it makes sense. There is also a fair amount of nudity in addition to the gore and some other questionable parts that I’ll let you see for yourself. The version I saw I got is uncut as part of a “Necro Bundle” from Severin Films.
                Definitely a weird movie and I only recommend it if you have a very, very strong stomach! OR if you are into Italian Horror films or horror films in general and want something very different.