ray59

I've been a fan of the TOHO Godzilla franchise since childhood, and that is now more than 30 years ago. Having seen all of the films made in the big G's first two decades (1954-1974), and most of the Godzilla films made since then, I had somewhat a mixed reaction to "Final Wars".

Many people have criticized this film for being too much of a departure from the traditional format. I'm not sure if that is really valid. There have been many G films that represent departures from format in the past.

The first one that comes to mind is "Godzilla vs The Sea Monster". Made in the mid 60s, when James Bond films were raking in the money, it was heavy on human action (featuring many 'spy story intrigue' type elements) and featured little footage of Godzilla.

Then there was the children's fantasy "Godzilla's Revenge" which was a huge departure from TOHO's usual format for this series. And then the early 1970s pollution-protest film "Godzilla vs the Smog Monster" was way out there stylistically. Portions of that film almost seem like a stylized drug trip!

So to say "Godzilla: Final Wars" is a departure from the usual format is really not saying it was any better or worse than previous departures. Here is a quick recap of what worked for me in "Final Wars", versus what did not work as well for this viewer:

What I liked: loved the B&W clips from prior Toho monster movies at the beginning. Once the 'new' film got rolling, I loved seeing so many monsters that had not appeared on film for many years. Some of the kaijus really never looked better. The Anguilas and King Seesar suits were cooler-looking than the originals. I liked how they brought Rodan back to his original look, rather than the Pteranodan-on-steroids he had become in the 1990s movies. I liked the mutant earth defenders (kinda like X-men) and the idea that they were the offspring of aliens who had mated with humans. I liked the parallel that was drawn between the indoor human/alien fist fight, and the outside earth monster/space monster battle that was raging simultaneously.

I liked the fact that there was an American character who was both a bad-ass and a main hero. Most of the Toho Godzilla movies I have seen from the 1990s feature Americans only as either villains, or as bozos who make idiotic, trigger-happy decisions. It was nice to see an American get some respect in a modern TOHO film -- even if he was drawn as a caricature.

What I didn't like: Minya (or "Manilla") is always a bad idea in any film, but was particularly out of place in this one. I didn't care for the rock instrumental score instead of a normal orchestral score. The rock score worked OK for the human fight scenes, but it took away from a feeling of awe during the monster battles.

Big monsters look impressively real when their movements are slow and ponderous. I thought a lot of the "high-speed" fight sequences didn't look right for creatures so large. Also, the way the fights with Gigan were done, using quasi-martial arts moves, made me feel like I was watching a big-budget episode of Ultraman or Zone Fighter...rather than a thaetrical TOHO movie. Varan was almost entirely CGI which doesn't do much for me personally. Ghidrah did not look or sound as alive as he did back in...say...1964!

So a mixed bag for me, but still well-worth watching!

Just saw this last night. I'm very surprised this film only has a 5.5 rating on the IMDb. I thought it was just terrific...and I tend to be a pretty harsh critic of horror movies in general (reference my recent review for "An American Haunting").

Must confess, I never saw the original of The Omen. Maybe that is why the remake us not rated more highly -- people are comparing it to their memories of an original I have not seen. But I found the 2006 version to be a really terrific film. Excellent and intelligent script, great acting from a top-notch cast, a film that never cops out with the cheap and easy kind of scare. Intelligent scares are much creepier...and boy does this movie deliver! One caution: this is not a "feel good" kind of movie. If you only like that sort of production, then avoid The Omen at all costs. But this movie is very good at being creepy and disturbing and raising some genuine gooseflesh.

Here is somewhat of a rarity in horror films: a movie that is beautifully shot, with an interesting and intelligent script, and a top-notch cast who plays it straight and never once feels the need to "wink" knowingly at the audience.

The Omen offers a dark, disturbing, gripping two hours.

Just read all the IMDb reviews of this film (going back years!) so I'm going to confine my posting to things that HAVEN'T previously been mentioned by others. But to briefly recap: this movie is great fun, with a plot that adults as well as kids can find interesting. It definitely hearkens back to the early 1960s 'glory days' in both its epic feel, and its portrayal of Godzilla as a serious menace to humanity.

But you got all that out of the other reviews.

I'm surprised no one else has commented on some rather unique photography techniques used in the SPFX sequences of this picture. I have seen nearly all the Godzilla films, going back to 1954, with the exception of the very recent GMK and Final Wars.

There are several things I found unique about GXM's photography vs nearly every other film in the franchise. This is the only time I have seen a sort of time-delay technique used in showing the monster. At some dramatic moments, the action inexplicably (and artfully) freezes for just a moment. At other times Godzilla's lumbering advance is shown with a surreal technique that makes his movements kind of jerky in a strobe-like effect. Rather than speeding up his movements (which would look ridiculous) this slows action into a 'flash-card' surrealistic style, like a film made with (for example) 12 separate image frames per second, rather than the usual 24.

One thing I didn't care for as much, that is very abundant in this film, is a kind of unrealistic flight effect for Megaguiras. He hangs in the air as if suspended on strings (OK, he is suspended on strings, but they obviously filmed it to emphasize rather than lessen this effect) with wings moving too slowly to be convincing. I don't think this is a "flaw" so much as an intentional artistic choice, but for me it hearkens back to some of the lesser G-films of the 1970s. I prefer the more realistic flight techniques from RODAN (1956). But that is just a personal bias. Unrealistic effects do not equate to bad effects. Too many American reviews of kaiju films make that mistake. Unrealistic is often an artistic choice.

The ending of the movie is also unique and artistic in its own way. No other film from the series ends quite like this, with the dialogue freezing midway through a human dialogue scene. It was a very interesting artistic choice and caught me by surprise. Like the director probably intended, it left me wanting to know what would happen a heartbeat later. But then the credits were rolling.

The big G's suit looks good in this film and his presence is powerfully portrayed. If I had to quibble about anything, I would say that the face lacks animation in many closeups and tends more toward looking frozen and rubbery. Godzilla's face looked much more animated and 'alive' to me in films like 'VS Biolante' or the early 1990s "VS King Ghidora".

There are a number of water effects sequences that look great in GXM. The flooded Tokyo streets, and the big G's spines surfacing out at sea, come immediately to mind. Great entry in the series!

This movie was OK (not exceptional) as a tale of a mysterious case of possession in a period setting. However, it was a mistake for the promoters to tie their film so closely to the historical events of the Bell Witch legend. Anyone who is at all familiar with this classic case of the paranormal will realize that the movie makers only used the legend as a jumping off point, from which to tell their own fictional story. This movie is only very loosely based on the actual case.

For one thing, I was wondering how the movie was going to make a disembodied voice (that once famously identified itself as a 'super smart' mongoose) living in the Bell family's wall, into something that would scare a modern audience. The answer was simple: they just ignored that major aspect of the inexplicable events.

What really set the actual case apart was the number of people that reportedly engaged this unseen entity in question and answer sessions. The movie almost totally dispenses with this aspect of the legend -- probably because while it *was* really tremendously odd, there is no easy way to sustain such a premise as frightening.

The only other thing I'll add is that while the period feel was pretty good (the film is largely set in the early 19th century), the lead actress's eye makeup seemed jarringly modern throughout the entire film.

This movie is not a complete waste of time, as some reviews here would have you believe, but it doesn't come very close to depicting the paranormal case it is supposed to be about. "Inspired by the Bell Witch legend" would have been an appropriate tag line.

As of this writing (6/2006), there are no user comments on the IMDb for this production. Based on that fact, I assume it may never have aired again after its initial 1977 broadcast. If this is the special I remember having seen on live television back in 1977, its lack of re-broadcast does not surprise me. I'll add my memories of it here from a distance of nearly thirty years.

My recollection is that this was an hour-long, primetime network television special. I seem to remember it airing from 9 pm to 10 pm on the East Coast. The hosted portions of the show were live. As I recall, the special was to feature three or four different daredevils each performing an individual stunt. The headliner – and final stunt on the show – was to be Evel Knievel's live attempt to jump a motorcycle over a pool filled with sharks.

Being a young boy at the time, I have vivid memories of the commercial that ran advertising this special in the weeks before it aired. The advert showed live sharks circling (presumably in this pool Knievel was planning to jump over), while a breathless announcer said in part: "…and if he doesn't make it, water wings won't help!"

The live broadcast itself was a let down. Although the IMDb lists Evel Knievel as the host of the show…it didn't happen that way. He was in fact lying in a hospital when the television special aired. Earlier in the day, Evel had made a practice jump over the shark tank and had crashed. I remember the hosts of the show appeared really shook up about it. Throughout the hour that the special aired, they kept passing on to viewers live updates from the hospital regarding Evel's condition.

Wide World of Sports did a follow-up story, not too many days after this special aired, that included an interview with Evel in the hospital. I believe it was mentioned that the indoor arena where the shark jump was being staged did not have sufficient space for Evel's bike to build up enough speed before it took to air – which is why he crashed.

I also recall one other sad note concerning this special. One of the other daredevils that was to perform during the hour died. I can't remember if his death occurred just before this show aired, or just afterwards, but he was not killed performing for this particular production – although he was killed attempting the same kind of stunt. He was an elderly gentleman who was famous as a tightrope walker. He fell while attempting to walk a rope strung between two high buildings, as I recall.

Overall, this TV special was kind of a let-down for the audience. It had been hyped as a live attempt by Evel Knievel to jump a tank full of sharks. But as soon as the show opened, they revealed Knievel had already made the attempt earlier in the day (albeit in a practice run). He had been so badly injured that the show's intended climax was cancelled…before it even began.

It has been over 30 years since I have seen an episode of "Devlin", but back then my 9 year old self loved every minute of it. Like most young boys in the US at that time, I was hooked on the outrageous antics of daredevil/showman Evel Knievel. Everyone had the toys; everyone watched his motorcycle jumps on ABC's Wide World of Sports.

Now, when you are 9 years old, you don't really ponder copyright issues all that much....but even back then, I realized "Devlin" was very much "inspired by" Evel's popularity and stunts.

It was great to be able to watch a weekly TV show inspired by a real life hero. I've noted other comments complaining about the quality of the animation in this series, but at the time it was never something I noticed...and I am sure I *was* the target demographic. The show was fun and exciting and featured dramatic mysteries with cycle jumping thrown in. What more could a kid of the day ask for?

Interestingly, I also recall about this same time a live action series along the lines of "Devlin" (but licensing Knievel's name) was proposed, and a pilot episode filmed. Too bad it didn't sell. I remember seeing the pilot on TV in 1970s - it aired one time, in a summer replacement timeslot occupied each week by a different failed series pilot!

I am mystified as to why so many professional critics dubbed this film a 'masterpiece' the day after it was released. It is not a bad re-make at all, but a masterpiece?

What works:

A) In 1933, Willis O'brien used then state-of-the-art special effects to give life, pathos, and sympathy to a character that was entirely a visual effect. In 2005, Jackson's crew successfully uses today's state-of-the-art special effects to achieve this same end. Since visual-effects technology has progressed over the intervening 72 years, Jackson's 'Kong' is even more sympathetic and more believable as a living character than the classic original.

B) The remake far surpasses the original in showing the cruelty and exploitive nature of man, when Kong is ultimately unveiled to be gawked at on a New York theater stage. Bravo for that sequence! Also, the island fight between Kong and the T-Rex (a highlight of the original) is amazingly even better in the remake.

So what went wrong?

A) At twice the length of the original film, you don't get twice the story. This movie cries out for editing. You would think at this expanded length there would be lots of opportunity to develop the non-CGI characters and story. Doesn't happen. I simply didn't care about any of the human characters in the drama.

B) Carl Denham, one of the three leads of the original, is much less interesting in the remake. The original Denham was a charming but reckless rogue, whose heart was always in the right place. Jackson's Denham has been scripted to be much less attractive; he is self-centered to the point of intentionally endangering the life of his crewmates while he watches from a safe distance. I don't blame Jack Black for this character degeneration, it is clearly a choice made by the script writers. The most obvious example comes when Kong is chained and on display in New York. They took an intentionally callous line from another character in the 1933 film ("Let him roar, it makes for a swell picture!") and put it in Denham's mouth. In the original, this was uttered by a clueless member of the press, while Denham was trying to get them to back off. I can't imagine why Jackson's team changed the Denham character in this way, but he is almost totally unsympathetic in the remake.

C) The sets and costumes are 1933, but the actors all have very 2005 attitudes, sensibilities and speech patterns.

So much of the story makes very little sense. Where did all the natives on the island go after their first appearance? Why does Driscoll, portrayed as an artistic cynic, fall instantly in love with Anne without any justification or development? (true, that was the case in the '33 version as well, but at twice the running time you would think their relationship could have been developed more naturally) Why is Anne's hair and makeup perfect after she is dragged through a jungle at warp speed? And when we talk about 'realism' of modern effects.... the way Kong handles Anne in this version, she would have been WAY dead before they left that island.

Overall: I wish the human characters had been brought to the screen as interestingly and sympathetically as the CGI gorilla. Now THAT would have been a masterpiece.

This one is just impossible to rate. I liked it; but I don't know why.

The dinosaur effects work is mostly terrible, and Tsuburaya should be ashamed of that T-Rex; although the man-in-a-suit Triceratops is ambitious and interesting, and the charge of the primitive mammal is beautifully done.

So why did they put those big, puppy-dog eyes on that T-Rex?

The overall story is above average for a 70s made-for-TV. I really liked Richard Boone as the world's wealthiest man. He was playing a kind of cross between Hugh Heffner (in later years) and Teddy Roosevelt! The writing actually manages a rather poignant touch at the film's close. It was an unexpected ending.

I have very mixed emotions about this film. Ray Harryhausen's stop motion octopus is wonderfully done; but, is that effect - alone - worth the price of admission?

The strangest thing about this film is how much it resembles a 1950s television drama, rather than a movie made for cinematic release. Most of the action occurs inside small, barren rooms. There are only three principal characters. They are always occupying one of these little rooms. They talk a lot.

If you are really patient, you will be rewarded with some amazing, giant-octopus-on-the-rampage sequences. The big mollusk looks wonderful, but he (or she? that is never clarified) just doesn't get enough on-screen time. One good thing: the octopus shots are all staged outdoors. It was getting claustrophobic in those little rooms.

This is a strange science fiction movie, even for the 50s. There is a clumsily handled sub-plot concerning a romantic triangle. The film does break tradition with the resolution of that one, but I won't give away the non-traditional ending...

This film has the flaws that are typical of 1950s grade 'B' horror films. The story is rather uninspired (it has been done before, and much better), the requisite love interest is handled clumsily, and aside from the male and female leads, most supporting actors in this film simply read their lines with no attempt at dramatization.

Fortunately, the film is saved by awesome stop-motion effects work directed by the master himself: Willis O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is best known for his ground-breaking animation work in the original "King Kong" (1933). "Black Scorpion" comes along 24 years later, and O'Brien has had time to further hone the smoothness of his monster animation.

I like all of O'Brien's stop-motion creatures. The only mistake this film makes, in terms of effects, is the over-use of a puppet scorpion head in close-up shots. The head looks OK, but it appears far too often to remain effective.

"King Kong" fans should take special note of the volcano pit sequence. One of the models O'brien animated here was a leftover from the famous "spider-crab" sequence that was filmed for "King Kong" in 1933, but cut before the official release.