#a lot of the doomed scientist's characterization can be explained by way of. His Original Version Had That Too.

[thegreatyin]

the thing about caeru is that he's not as obviously Completely Batshit Insane like 99.9% of seekers because he has the sheer willpower of a semitruck. he's like the terminator. if he decides something needs to be done god help you if you're in the way of doing it. if he was still in the undertale universe he'd probably end up melting from determination a-la undyne the undying during the no-mercy route. at all times every single bone in his body is screaming crying throwing up chomping at the bit to go utterly fucking feral and at least 25% of his brain is devoted solely to keeping that impulse under lock and key no matter what. and thus most of the time whenever he wants to eat silverware and/or paperwork and/or people and/or furniture he ends up staring into space like a neurotic weirdo and biting giant holes into his scarf instead. he's the guy of all time

the funny thing is originally caeru was that kind of character. at least in the very early days during his original incarnation. and then as time has gone on he's very definitively solidified into the self-sacrificing brooding fool full of love we all know and at least mildly tolerate

[loopy777]

whats your thoughts on Venom, the green goblin and doctor octopus, the three characters who are generally held up as spidermans archenemies? which one do you think has the best potential as spidermans definite enemy if they were written perfectly, and which series do you think had the best portrayal of each of them respectively?

If I had to crown THE Spider-Man Archnemesis, I would have to give it to Green Goblin. Doc Ock is the oldest, and the first to both defeat Spider-Man and make him consider quitting, but ultimately Norman has taken more from Spidey, gotten more personal in their conflict, and created more of a legacy for the mythos. Sorry, Otto.

That said, I don’t really like designating a single archnemesis for Spidey because Norman hasn’t completely dominated the field. Ock runs the Sinister Six, Spidey’s big Villain Team and one of the best Villain Teams in all of superhero comics. (And let’s face it, the Legion of Doom is bigger only because DC characters got more media exposure for a long time and Superman’s villains are so good that Lex Luthor, Brainiac, and Bizarro lift up the likes of Solomon Grundy and Cheetah when they’re all on a team together.) Venom has the whole Evil Knockoff thing going and a unique and terrifying ‘stalker’ gimmick that puts him in a special class, not to mention how he directly overpowers or counters all Spidey’s abilities.

And, honestly, the whole ‘Goblin’ gimmick is kind of arbitrary and has nothing to do with spiders. Clowns and bats don’t have a direct relation, but at least they’re opposites in terms of color and purpose, so Batman and Joker kind of seem like twisted rivals. Goblins and spiders are only linked in that they’re both kind of Halloweeny, but Spider-Man has little to do with Halloween or spooky stuff, anyway. But I better cut this line of thought off before I start explaining how Spider-Man shouldn’t be Spider-Man at all and him being Frog-Man would make just as much sense and then we wouldn’t have to deal with pictures of icky spiders in all Spider-Man media.

But yeah, Norman Osborne is still indisputably a cut above the others.

Ock is really just a typical mad scientist with a robot-arm gimmick that allows him to directly fight with Spider-man. He’s well-written and constructed, granted, and I love how his arrogance contrasts with Peter’s humility, how they’re such opposites in terms of empathy, and how different their paths become after science-based accidents that granted them unusual powers. Bendis’s “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics nicely honed in on this theme, and I also appreciate how both Stan Lee’s prose story in the unrelated “Ultimate Spider-Man” short story collection (...it’s a title Marvel loves to reuse for some reason) and John Byrne’s attempted origin revision linked the irradiated spider to the explosion that created Ock. All great villains should be dark reflections of their heroes, but while Ock has gotten some great stories that make him a top-tier villain, he still offers little storytelling potential beyond his mad scientist archetype. Now, I know what comics-readers are thinking at this point: Yes, I did read the original “Superior Spider-Man” run and I think there’s some real potential there, but honestly I feel like it was under-served by Dan Slott’s pacing and foibles. And I haven’t seen an adaptation of it yet that I think really fulfills the possibilities. But the idea is great, so maybe Otto will get his chance to level up his rivalry with Spider-Man.

Venom’s problem is that he’s a little too focused on his revenge on Spider-Man. The stories where he stalks Spidey, wandering into Peter’s life to fold laundry with Aunt May, popping up to have a surprise tussle with Spidey just to throw him off-balance, etc- Those are great and make Venom seem super-scary, especially since Spidey can’t beat Venom in a fight without some kind of edge or gimmick. But all Venom wants is revenge on Spidey, so after he’s failed a few times to get it, what do you do with the character? He’s not scary if he keeps failing. The original idea was to have the symbiote pass on from Eddie Brock and take on other hosts, and that might have opened the door for some new kinds of stories. I know this was eventually implemented 20 years later, with the original Scorpion getting to be Venom for a while, and symbiotes becoming a whole Thing with a bunch in various colors, but I didn’t read any of those stories and they don’t seem to have left much impression on the general Spider-Man fandom. Ultimately, it was chosen to ‘redeem’ Eddie Brock and make Venom into an “anti-hero” (for a definition of the term that means “protagonist who kills people but doesn’t have to worry about that whole ‘consistently laid low by their fatal flaw’ thing”) which did sell a bunch of comics in the 90′s and set up some tension-filled team-ups with Spidey. Nice idea, if implemented in a really shaggy way, but -- again -- what do you do after that? Venom/Eddie isn’t really a compelling lead who you can keep telling stories about. (Yes, I saw the Venom movie. It has like two minutes of amusing material and two hours of boring dreck, and none of it is memorable.) And making him evil again runs into the same problem as having left him evil in the first place. Venom was a good idea whose time came and went, and perhaps someone will find a way to make him fresh again. But until then, I think he gets by more on his visuals than anything.

The Green Goblin, in contrast, has a lot going for him in terms of storytelling potential. He’s a mad scientist, a wanna-be crime boss, a dark shadow of his civilian identity looking for revenge and/or illicit thrills, and personally has that ongoing personal hatred/rivalry for Spider-Man. That offers a whole bunch of storytelling paths, all of which have been taken and proven fruitful over the years. And that’s without getting into how Norman Osborne is the father of Peter’s best friend Harry, a flawed father figure to Peter in his own right, a ruthless millionaire industrialist before Lex Luthor gave it a try, and another dark reflection of the paths Peter could have taken in both aspects of his life. Even when Norman is dead, his legacy continued to be felt for 20-odd years with how Harry fell from grace. You can even link Norman to his spin-off the Hobgoblin; just Norman’s equipment getting passed on created another enduring villain. And, again, that’s without even looking at Norman’s murder of the one-time romantic lead Gwen Stacy being the event that ended the Silver Age of comics. Norman Osborne is just plain a truly great, versatile villainous character who has managed, despite being almost 60 years old, to still maintain an “Oh, no!” impact among Spidey fans when he shows up. Sure, there have been bad stories about him, and some over-exposure at times, but that hasn’t diminished his impact or ongoing potential.

As for portrayals, I’m overall a fan of the 90′s animated series and their takes. That show really petered out after a few seasons, but it introduced Ock with a bang and got a lot of mileage out of him. Venom got to do the whole scary stalker thing, and then the show put him on a shelf until his ‘redeeming’ death to avoid over-exposure, so that worked out fairly well. And while it’s odd how Kingpin and Hobgoblin took over most of the Green Goblin’s role in Spider-Man’s stories, what we did get of Norman was good, and the performance that went into the Green Goblin really sold the weird psychology of the character. Those three villains definitely got a chance to shine in this series, even if Green Goblin was under-used.

I also think the Sam Raimi movies overall did a good job. Green Goblin was perfect- aside from the costume. Willem Dafoe utterly nailed every aspect of the character, right down to the body language, and the movie did a good job condensing his rivalry with Spider-Man into a single movie. As for Doctor Octopus, I’m of two minds about how he got a sympathetic backstory and characterization. On the one hand, it made him a more compelling character and Alfred Molina danced nicely between the human side and the villainous side. On the other hand, though, Ock has classically never really been sympathetic; he’s an utter monster in behavior, and the insertions of bullying in his backstory have never changed that. Venom is the only one I think didn’t really get a chance in these movies; I like this version of Eddie Brock (really!), but he barely got an opportunity to be Venom and you can tell no aspect of the character really inspired the storytellers.

Spectacular Spider-Man, naturally, did a good job. I think this version of Green Goblin is the best of them all; I even got my DVD set signed by Steve Blum! Ock was also done well, getting to be the Master Planner as well as leader of the Sinister Six, although I don’t think I quite buy the timidity they gave the character before the accident. Similarly, I didn’t buy Eddie’s fall from grace as Peter’s best friend; one episode he’s upset because Peter’s blowing him off for hanging out, and the next episode he’s nearly killing Mary Jane just to mess with Peter. You might as well just start with Eddie being a monster, like the Raimi movie did.

I also think Bendis’s Ultimate comics did well by all three characters. I’m not really a fan of Goblin-Hulk, but Norman’s impact was fully in effect (even if we had yet another toothless homage to Gwen Stacey’s death with Mary Jane getting thrown off a bridge and surviving), and they fit him well into the Super-Soldier Arms Race aspect of the setting. Ock got some really great use, including an arc of character development and ‘redemption’ that still managed to allow him to be an arrogant monster to the end. Venom was under-used, but this might be the best ever interpretation of Eddie Brock and obviously inspired the Raimi version, and I love the origin of the symbiote here and how it tied to Peter’s father. My only complaint is that after that first great story, Bendis didn’t seem to quite know what to do with Venom; the video game and its comic adaptation seemed to be setting him up for more, but that didn’t come to anything.

So, those are my thoughts. As a Spider-Man fan, I think I’m spoiled for choice in picking an achnemesis. Despite the little flaws that keep Ock and Venom from topping the Green Goblin, they’re still heavy-hitters as comic book villains and could run the game in the rogues gallery of most other superheroes. But Spidey has one of the best sets of villains in the business, so that’s not surprising.

[petty-crush]

An open letter/retort to the “honest trailer” for “Alien Covenant”

Of course people can disagree and of course this is a sarcastic video. But since this contains a lot of knee jerk, being negative for views comments, (and because people may get fooled by just watching this video)I think this is a good place to dissect frogs.

My bias; I think “Covenant” is a truly great film. Spectacular in ideas, behaviors, visuals, and pure fun. I loved it. I am clearly willing to die on a hill for it

The main gap is that it’s really a different series, under the mask of the “Alien” series. It actually veers closer to the 1932 film “Island of lost Souls”. Ship of survivors representing normal veer into uncharted territory; a mad scientist bending the rules of biology encounters and clashes with them; the monsters he creates go to war with the ship. And in this film evil wins.

It also contains genuinely great performance(s) from Fassbender, grand sketches of gods wrecking the cosmos, humanity abandoning its children to go after unanswerable questions, and more that harken back to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” sandbox of sci fi.

To me, this film is all about David. The humans are cannon fodder for them. Which justifies their characterization. Also, he’s clearly a stand in for Ridley Scott and the work + wonder of being an artist, film director in particular.

I love this. I can see others liking it less, but is beautifully realized, staged, and executed.

So what are people looking for? Well…

[quotes around their words, mine by themselves]

“From Ridley Scott, one of the best directors… And one of the worst”

-first off, I think an artist is judged by their best work, not overall average

Scott can be quite varied. I personally favor going to cosmos than staying in your lane. Sometimes that make mistakes, but interesting ones.

Make no mistake though: “The Counselor” is a first rate film, acidic in the extreme, but so totally gonzo that it makes you breathe a different air. It’s the kissing cousin to “Covenant”, and both show a director willing to try new ideas and tones, and pulls it off spectacularly. Both have no interest in making the viewer feel good or flatter them, which definitely pushes some people away

“There are now more bad alien films than good ones”

-first off, where is “Prometheus”? Isn’t it an alien film? If not, and “covenant” is clearly a sequel to it, then maybe this film should be judged apart from the Ripley saga.

-I have wondered at times if calling it “Prometheus: Covenant” would have cut down on the confusion

-“Alien 3” is a spectacular film. It fully commits to the idea of Ripley having courage and purpose to her life as she knows she will die. It is completely different to “Aliens”(which may have been its problem concerning reception,as we will see) and “Alien”, it forms a perfect trilogy. Fincher may hate how fucked he got by the system, but it is a beautiful and wonderful film

“Alien resurrection” less so. But it is an odd, French splatter cartoon; certainly worth watching, not at all bad.

The “vs predator” films are largely minor, and I have no qualms with considering them less successful films.

-What makes the alien series great is that with each film the xenomorph changes to be what the film needs it to be. It’s flexibility storytelling wise is impressive. The problem comes when a audience only wants one type of story done

“When Ridley Scott wanted to talk about the meaning of life, he wanked for two hours”

-“Prometheus” has nothing to do with life, and everything to do with death. The characters in the film want to know about life (particularly Shaw since she can’t give birth) but they are punished at every turn, showing the universe to be uncaring.

Disagree with that statement or not, that is the rule that “Prometheus” and “Covenant” is abiding by.

Hell the first shot of “Prometheus” is an engineer killing himself. “Covenant” starts with life and realizing how the creator will die. There is consistency in this film universe.

And it also totally vibes with “Alien”.

“Save the philosophical stuff for ‘Blade Runner’, I want a short haired girl, in a tank top, fighting a xenomorph, who kills it by sucking it into the vacuum of space”

-and now we come to the real discussion/thorn in the side; this film isn’t a damn thing like “Aliens”

One thing that makes the alien series so fascinating is how it allowed two totally different filmmakers to make their masterpiece.

Also, it’s the rare series where the sequel brought in a bigger and wider audience.

I bet money that most people really only like “Aliens”. And that’s no shame, it’s a brilliant film. It’s strengths are the set pieces, the use of xenomorph as locusts, and characters that are simple but snappy and endearing.

In comparison to “Alien” which is cold, weird and slow moving (and brilliant) “Aliens” charm is more warm and dynamic. It doesn’t ask you to wait, it asks you to hold on. It gets kids in the door with Newt, it sets up a deep chord with Ripley giving her mother like affection , and it also makes Ripley more feminine and kick ass (she was wonderfully butch and joyfully selfish in “Alien”)

Cameron said it best in his critique of “Covenant”; “ I don’t like films where you invest in a character and they get destroyed at the end.”

Some people share that opinion. Ridley Scott does not. (Nether do I)His films generally have had the protagonist go through hell and often destroyed them. I admire that in him.

But that point of view explains why “Aliens” is so successful; it makes us love the characters and be sad when their friends die. Cameron is a genius, and is warm with his characters. Scott is also a genius, and picks their wings off like a cruel child.

Every alien film post “Aliens” has had to bear that cross, of creating such lovable stock characters. “Alien 3” didn’t give a shit, and made a impressive gathering of detached male prisoners. “Resurrection” came close with goofy space pirates, but were weird as shit.

In my opinion, if “Alien” came out after “Aliens” it would have not been as warmly received, because, got damn, is it cold and weird and hurts its people. It’s suppose to. The reaction to “Prometheus” and “Covenant” shows that all too clear.

Finally, Scott clearly does not give a shit about any alien film after his. I don’t think the Prometheus saga will show the queen alien because it came after Scott and he considers it invalid.

With this in mind, I can see how people are upset. Cold, hateful, sadistic are what “Covenant” are. And I love it for that.

I love mean films with a purpose and artistic flourish. And the Prometheus saga does it so well.

If you came to “Covenant” to root for its human characters, you are fucked (and kinda an idiot). Scott is making big budget sci fi epics about the mass murder of nature and survival of artists.

You can hate that, but call a spade a spade.

“In a franchise full of unforgettable characters”

(Shows only “Aliens” characters)

What about Dallas? Ash? Clemens? Golic? Call? Elgyn? Gediman?

There exists good characters other than the second film, guys

Once again, this love for “Aliens” blinds people to everything else

“Forget the humans”

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

-but also, that slipping on blood part was (intentionally) hilarious

“Freshman philosophy class…two versions of same pretentious professor..flute”

-why do I get the feelings that the people who say stuff like this never study philosophy and just consider anything even slightest bit about talking about feelings and ideas just stoner shit, because they are the only people that talk about those subjects they let in their social circle?

I dunno, the idea about humanity killing its children for vague reasons, someone trying to better himself against cruelty and going mad himself, and finally having the courage to create something even when everyone else tells him to stand down sounds pretty universally relatable and human to me.

And even if it was pretentious, that is what art is, to subtract the distractions, and focus on what you want the world to be

-to me, David is sad Walter cannot create, like Scott is upset younger directors don’t get to make original universes and material. But David is also a fucking maniac who will stop at nothing, to whom other lives means nothing. That kind of grand vainness is perfectly at home in the world and its what art leisure to create out of whole cloth

But all of this gets in the way of watching strong men blow things away with guns, doesn’t it? (“aliens” did this to show how ineffective the marines were, not to worship them)

-the flute adds to the fantasy element, of the pied piper trying to lure others away, to their doom

Plus, it’s just fucking funny

“Snickers at 'I’ll take care of the fingering’”

See? This film is just so much fun

“I was not expecting this much flute playing”

I love it when films surprise me. I adore it when filmmakers follow their strange urges and give us scenes I never saw coming.

I love the scene of David tempting Walter with the flute.

I marveled at the scene where David drops his black plague on the engineers(who look totally different).

I looked around as David played the fucking theme to “Prometheus” on his flute. I starred at the other audience members, as if to ask “is this the real life?”

I laughed uproariously as just when you think it’s safe the xenomorph tracks the two pilots shower sexing, like it’s 1982 slasher time.

As soon as the humans delver us to David, I could see who this film was about. And really, the humans are just for showing his gentle and different Walter is.

Ridley Scott delivered a new horror classic, with a eye towards the 70’s and 30’s, but both feet in the present, with the score and design to make it work.

The first victim convulsing and back blood shooting. David acting as satan. Terror of trapped in the sick bay. The aforementioned shower scene. The cross bearing xenomorph rejects. The puppet master pulling the strings of the first post face hugger.

This is a brilliantly conceived, written, directed, and persevered treat for horror fans. I loved every second of it.

“Thrill of seeing the xenomorph move. In full daylight. Which just looks…wrong”

This is the best point of the video, though I disagree with the conclusion.

It is weird and against the vibe of the Ripley saga for the xenomorph to be a servant. But clearly these creatures are the hounds to mr burns. Satan. Evil mad dr Moreau.

It definitely gave the the film a totally new vibe. As did all the green life. But isn’t that what films are about, showing new images?

It just looks so damn different. I like different. Different and great-even better.

“Cgi Ripley?”

That would be pretty weird. But since I more or less wash my hands of any continuity, why not?

It’s probably just a spur of the moment statement. But also incredibly funny

“It asks [x] questions but leaves you wondering [y]”

Mac, the real question is, do you like to create? That’s all this film is about. The joy of creation. Of weaving something new out of something old.

Like, Ridley is literally exploiting his own creation. It’s surreal and the best.

“Compares terminator series to Alien series”

This is more apt, but in a different way.

For both series, The first film is a stand alone classic. A low key masterpiece. The second is an expansive blockbuster which really really skewed expectations for future films.

The comparison ends there though. Sigourney Weaver has way way more character to work with. Poor Schwarzenegger had so so directors to work with, while the Alien series put down the work of real filmmakers making challenging art.

I enjoy the terminator series, but it’s clear that it’s so much the work of one man (James Cameron) so no one else can make it work. But the fluidity of the xenomorph makes every single film worth watching and honestly essential.

The second film in both series cast a long shadow. But while the following films in the terminator series really don’t hold up if stand alone, the following xenomorph films all showcase a different side to hubris and death

Which is honestly the best way to approach this film. Something new, vibrant, and bizarrely personal

Respecting and knowing horror and monsters films for what they do helps too

“Me at the idea of six more alien films”

I love it. I usually get tuned out after a few films, but this Prometheus saga just works. The possibilities are endless.

Ridley Scott deserves the highest kudos for turning this series into greatness

In a certain way, “Alien” is “Halloween”, perfect in its execution and of its singularity.

Prometheus saga is Friday the 13th series. Messier, off to an odd start, but a snowball of its own delights that fosters an utterly nihilistic universe. Like Jason, David is too good for just one film, and we need those eight films of him. It may indeed prove to be the essentials space monster-mad scientist series, just like Jason is the essential slasher killer.

Is this pizza to a steak? Yes, but each have their own pure delights, and like a certain pie, it just gets better and beautifully blurrier with each dizzying bite

Long live Prometheus saga; may it rule in hell for an eternity. Just as “Covenant” does in my heart.

[ljones41]

"GODZILLA" (2014) Review

"GODZILLA" (2014) Review "Godzilla again?" That was my reaction when I learned about a new Godzilla movie to be released for the summer of 2014. The last movie about the iconic Japanese monster had been released some 16 years ago and was met with a good deal of derision. Mind you, I rather liked the 1998 film, but I did not love it. But . . . I was willing to give this new film a chance. 

"GODZILLA" 2014 begins with a montage of atomic test bombings in the Pacific Ocean by the U.S. Navy. In the last montage, a large creature emerges from the ocean depths. The story immediately shifts to the Philippines Islands in 1999, when a pair of scientists named Ishiro Serizawa and Vivienne Graham investigate a large skeleton discovered inside a collapsed mine. They also discover two egg-shaped pods. The broken one leaves a trail leading to the sea. The Janjira nuclear plant in Japan experiences unusual seismic activity. The plant's American-born supervisor, Joe Brody, sends his wife Sandra and a team of technicians into the reactor to check the sensors. When the team is inside, an explosion occurs, threatening to release radiation to the outside. Sandra and her team are unable to escape and the plant collapses into ruin. The disaster is attributed to an earthquake. But Brody suspects otherwise and spends a good number of years investigating the disaster. Fifteen years later, Brody's son, Ford, has become a U.S. Navy bomb disposal officer, living in San Francisco with his wife and son. When Brody is arrested for trespassing at the Janjira exclusion zone, Ford is forced to travel to Japan. Convinced of a cover-up of the true cause of the disaster, Brody convinces Ford to accompany him to their old home to retrieve vital seismic data he had recorded before the plant disaster. Father and son discover that Janjira is not contaminated with radiation, unlike the official report. After recovering the data, they are arrested and taken to a facility containing a massive chrysalis within the plant's ruins. As they watch, a colossal winged creature emerges and escapes. After Brody is wounded by the creature, he dies from his wounds. Ford, Serizawa and Graham join a U.S. Navy strike force led by Admiral William Stenz on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Saratoga to track the creature, which has been labeled as a MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism). Serizawa and Graham reveal that only one creature can stop MUTO, an ancient alpha predator known as Godzilla. When the MUTO causes the wreck of a Russian submarine, Godzilla emerges to feed off the sub's radiation and pursue MUTO. More bad news arrives when Stenz, Serizawa and Graham learn about the emergence of a female MUTO in Las Vegas. The two scientists suspect that the MUTO from Japan is on his way to breed with his female counterpart. Well, this was a first . . . at least for me. Godzilla as the main protagonist? That is exactly how writers Max Borenstein and David Callaham portrayed the monster. I suspect this has been done before in previous Godzilla films. Since I have never seen one, aside from the 1998 flick in which he was clearly the antagonist, this was news to me. Did I like the movie? Hmmmm . . . yes and no. Let me explain. There are aspects of "GODZILLA" that I liked. The cast is pretty decent. Bryan Cranston chewed the scenery during his appearances in the movie's first half hour. Usually, this would bother me, but for once I welcomed his over-the-top acting for I thought it gave the movie a lot of energy. One would think I dislike the rest of the cast. Honestly, I do not. I enjoyed Aaron Johnson-Taylor's subtle portrayal of Brody's more reserved and equally intense son, Ford. Actually, I thought Cranston and Johnson-Taylor balanced each other very well and it seemed a pity that the elder Brody was killed off after a half hour. Elizabeth Olsen, who portrayed Ford's more ellubient wife. Like Cranston, she also balanced very well with Johnson-Taylor. Unfortunately, the two younger stars spent most of the movie away from each other. Ken Watanabe and David Strathairn gave solid performances as Admiral Stenz, who is willing to resort to anything to get rid of MUTO (and perhaps Godzilla) and Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, who believes that the only way to solve the situation regarding MUTO and Godzilla is to let them fight it off. "GODZILLA" also benefited from some first-class photography, thanks to cinematographer Seamus McGarvey's stunning work. I was especially impressed by one sequence featuring the HALO jump of Ford and a team of Army soldiers into San Francisco in order to prevent a missing warhead from detonating, as shown in this image:

There were some sequences in the movie that I enjoyed, including the original accident at the Janjira plant, the first MUTO's emergence in Japan and especially the arrival of Godzilla and the first MUTO in Honolulu. Unfortunately, "GODZILLA" is not perfect. I feel that "GODZILLA" lacked two qualities that made the 1998 movie so likable for me - a more centralized story and more colorful characters. I hate to say this, but Borenstein and Callaham's story could have been a little more tighter. Actually, it could have been a lot more tighter. It seemed to be all over the map. Although the movie more or less ended in San Francisco, it took a long time for the story to arrive at that location. Gareth Edwards' lackluster direction did not help. Also, I was not that impressed by the writers' use of Godzilla as the main protagonist. It just did not work for me . At least not now. Perhaps one day, I might learn to embrace the concept. My problem is I found myself wondering why Godzilla went after the MUTOs in the first place. I doubt it he went after them for the sake of the human race. And this movie lacked some serious characterization. Characters like Admiral Stenz, Doctors Serizawa and Graham were tight-lipped and professional, while struggling to keep their emotions in check. But I did not find them particularly interesting or found myself caring about their fates. I also feel that Juliette Binoche (who portrayed Cranston's doomed wife) and Sally Hawkins (Dr. Vivienne Graham) were simply wasted in this movie. I realize that many critics do not seem to care for Aaron Johnson-Taylor. I simply feel otherwise. I like him a lot as an actor. But he has a rather subtle screen presence and he needed someone more colorful to balance his more quiet persona. He had the explosive Bryan Cranston and an emotional Elizabeth Olsen. But Cranston's character was killed off after the first half hour. And Olson had very few scenes with him. In the end, the writers failed to provide Johnson-Taylor with more colorful characters to balance his style . . . something that Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich managed to do for Matthew Broderick in the 1998 film. Did I bothered to purchase a copy of "GODZILLA" when it was finally released on DVD? As a matter of fact, I did. It is far from perfect, but I cannot deny that I liked it a lot. In fact, I even managed to develop a stronger liking for the film in the past two to three years.  And I never thought I would.