Tedious, uninspired, and emotionally detached, Godzilla makes for passable entertainment only for the most die-hard fans of large-scale disaster flicks. It’s a step up from its 1998 predecessor staring Matthew Broderick, but that bar was set so low that any director with five dollars and an iPhone could make a better film (admittedly that’s an untested hypothesis).
Two films that are much better than Godzilla are Cloverfield and the recent Pacific Rim. These two titles come to mind because they are both “disaster” films with massive “creatures”—the first being an example of an emotionally engaging story, and the second an example of pure VFX spectacle at it’s most visceral and impressive.
Here’s where one might expect a plot summary of Godzilla. Such a thing is unnecessary. Godzilla destroys stuff, and people freak out. That’s why people see these movies.
The performances from Bryan Cranston, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Elizabeth Olsen deserve a better film. They are all capable actors who give a second rate screenplay their best shot. Taylor-Johnson, however, doesn’t quite have the charisma to carry the film as expected of him.
The action doesn’t really become impressive until the final third (and neither do the special effects). Even then, director Gareth Edwards doesn’t so much dazzle as avoid any obvious mistakes given the expectations following an exorbitant budget. The creature design and rendering for Godzilla is good, but he’s rarely ever frightening.
The cinematography also had a consistently odd look. It was processed at a much lower contrast than one would expect from this genre and the overall gray dullness seemed like the exact wrong choice for terror and suspense.