![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mimi_sardiniaSo I went to the movies today, and despite not getting much sleep, I managed to get through two movies Maleficent and Godzilla.
So last night I came across
a review of Maleficent over on Fandom Secrets that was very critical and... well I more agree with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lunabee34's opinion here that it's a good movie. As an Anon over on F!S says, it's more of a "this is an explanation for why she's evil, not an excuse".
I like the idea of giving Maleficent reasons why she has enough of a grudge to cast that curse. Also, if you're going to have a story that gives her reasons, then why would those reasons result in the curse? The king doing her wrong is a good reason for that.
I do feel like I am seeing a similar idea with the "True Love's Kiss" fake-out as happened in Frozen, but a few movies where True Love's Kiss is not some guy the princess barely knows is not a bad thing.
Also on the point of the irrelavence of Aurora becoming queen over the fairies at the end, when it's claimed they didn't need a ruler? Look what happened with two kings in a row hell-bent on attacking the Moors! At least now with Aurora there is not a constant royally ordered seige happening!
But I will make mention of a comment I made somewhere on F!S some time in the last few days' posts (about a Doctor Who secret) - I am really the sort of person who sits down and watches something to be entertained, not to pick it apart critically on first viewing. That does not mean I totally disagree with some of the common critical opinions that go around, it just... I see what you mean but I can still watch it even with those questionable factors.
Thing is? I liked Maleficent enough that I do disagree with those critical opinions. I think it was a goood movie. I think Maleficent is not hurt having a reason for her evil. Instead of her being the pointlessly evil monster who dies in the cartoon movie, in this movie, she gets to be both evil and a hero.
Like Maleficent, I have seen critical opinions of Godzilla (and in the same place), and like Maleficent, I would like to politely disagree.
Probably the biggest complaint I see is that it has too much story about the humans and not enough screen-time for Big G (as I like to call him). You know, I have to wonder if a lot of the people saying that are fans of the Japanese movies and are used to seeing Godzilla holding most of the screentime with little to no human story in it.
But then I can claim no expertise about Godzilla movies, the only one I have ever seen (other that the 1998 Roland Emmerich movie) is one from the mid to early 1980s, which was likely a dub of a Japanese movie.
I will however express my thoughts as a general disaster movie fan (which includes disasters caused by monsters, robots, etc), and that is the whole modus operandi of American disaster movies is to concentrate on how people are affected and how people react. Even Michael Bay tries to do that, but I think he handles it badly in his movies (I mention him because he once called Transformers a disaster movie where the diaster is giant robots).
This Godzilla movie is also an intro movie. Intro movies have to set a lot of things up. If there manages to be a sequel, those things don't need to be explained, or at least the explanation can be cut down drastically. The same thing happens in superhero movies - the first movie is usually an origin movie, telling us how "Normal Person" becomes a hero.
Put those two things together and we get a movie about people and how they are caught in a giant monster disaster and how they react.
Now the factors I loved include having the scientist tracking Godzilla being Japanese (not the father whose wife died in the neuclear plant disaster, but the guys who is later advocating letting Godzilla deal with the MUTOs). It makes it really feel like the connection to his conceptual Japanese origin is preserved. In a very superficial detail, that scientist, with his Japanese accent, always pronounces "Godzilla" more like "Gojira".
I really loved that the plot has Godzilla turning up in reaction to the MUTOs, which reminds me of the factor I do know of Japanese Godzilla movies where he is fighting other monsters.
I rather like the sense through it that Godzilla either doesn't care about what the humans do, doesn't consider them a problem and prettymuch ignores them. The image of his spine-plates sticking out of the waters as he swims and he's got several battleships all sailing around him and he doesn't care amused me greatly.
Little things like news broadcasts calling him "King of Monsters" also amused me.
I absolutely loved that he had genuine fire-breath. The 1998 movie cheated in not really putting it in, with the only scene like it looking more like Iguana-zilla merely breathed and a car petrol tank burst into fire and was blown by Iguana-zilla's breath, not that Iguana-zilla had legitimate fire-breath. This new Godzilla? His spinal plate light up and he legitimately breathed blasts of blue fire. I was glad of that.
And then to cap it all, the way that, at the end, he wakes up and just heads off back to the sea, as if "Well, my job is done, I'm going home for a nice long sleep!" is something I'd seen a comment on before, but I love it.
And then while I stayed through the credits, I saw who did the creature designs for the movie - Weta Workshop. I had to outright squeal about that. You know I have to wonder if they had a hand in Maleficent too. One of the big plant-monsters fighting the old king's army looked rather like a cross between an Ent and a Balrog.
So to sum up, I liked both of these movies, and I really should avoid critical reviews on Fandom Secrets if I am planning to go see something. Usually they make me doubt whether I should, and I'm glad I ignored them (and paid attention tolunabee34's review) and did go see these two movies.
So last night I came across
a review of Maleficent over on Fandom Secrets that was very critical and... well I more agree with
lunabee34's opinion here that it's a good movie. As an Anon over on F!S says, it's more of a "this is an explanation for why she's evil, not an excuse". I like the idea of giving Maleficent reasons why she has enough of a grudge to cast that curse. Also, if you're going to have a story that gives her reasons, then why would those reasons result in the curse? The king doing her wrong is a good reason for that.
I do feel like I am seeing a similar idea with the "True Love's Kiss" fake-out as happened in Frozen, but a few movies where True Love's Kiss is not some guy the princess barely knows is not a bad thing.
Also on the point of the irrelavence of Aurora becoming queen over the fairies at the end, when it's claimed they didn't need a ruler? Look what happened with two kings in a row hell-bent on attacking the Moors! At least now with Aurora there is not a constant royally ordered seige happening!
But I will make mention of a comment I made somewhere on F!S some time in the last few days' posts (about a Doctor Who secret) - I am really the sort of person who sits down and watches something to be entertained, not to pick it apart critically on first viewing. That does not mean I totally disagree with some of the common critical opinions that go around, it just... I see what you mean but I can still watch it even with those questionable factors.
Thing is? I liked Maleficent enough that I do disagree with those critical opinions. I think it was a goood movie. I think Maleficent is not hurt having a reason for her evil. Instead of her being the pointlessly evil monster who dies in the cartoon movie, in this movie, she gets to be both evil and a hero.
Like Maleficent, I have seen critical opinions of Godzilla (and in the same place), and like Maleficent, I would like to politely disagree.
Probably the biggest complaint I see is that it has too much story about the humans and not enough screen-time for Big G (as I like to call him). You know, I have to wonder if a lot of the people saying that are fans of the Japanese movies and are used to seeing Godzilla holding most of the screentime with little to no human story in it.
But then I can claim no expertise about Godzilla movies, the only one I have ever seen (other that the 1998 Roland Emmerich movie) is one from the mid to early 1980s, which was likely a dub of a Japanese movie.
I will however express my thoughts as a general disaster movie fan (which includes disasters caused by monsters, robots, etc), and that is the whole modus operandi of American disaster movies is to concentrate on how people are affected and how people react. Even Michael Bay tries to do that, but I think he handles it badly in his movies (I mention him because he once called Transformers a disaster movie where the diaster is giant robots).
This Godzilla movie is also an intro movie. Intro movies have to set a lot of things up. If there manages to be a sequel, those things don't need to be explained, or at least the explanation can be cut down drastically. The same thing happens in superhero movies - the first movie is usually an origin movie, telling us how "Normal Person" becomes a hero.
Put those two things together and we get a movie about people and how they are caught in a giant monster disaster and how they react.
Now the factors I loved include having the scientist tracking Godzilla being Japanese (not the father whose wife died in the neuclear plant disaster, but the guys who is later advocating letting Godzilla deal with the MUTOs). It makes it really feel like the connection to his conceptual Japanese origin is preserved. In a very superficial detail, that scientist, with his Japanese accent, always pronounces "Godzilla" more like "Gojira".
I really loved that the plot has Godzilla turning up in reaction to the MUTOs, which reminds me of the factor I do know of Japanese Godzilla movies where he is fighting other monsters.
I rather like the sense through it that Godzilla either doesn't care about what the humans do, doesn't consider them a problem and prettymuch ignores them. The image of his spine-plates sticking out of the waters as he swims and he's got several battleships all sailing around him and he doesn't care amused me greatly.
Little things like news broadcasts calling him "King of Monsters" also amused me.
I absolutely loved that he had genuine fire-breath. The 1998 movie cheated in not really putting it in, with the only scene like it looking more like Iguana-zilla merely breathed and a car petrol tank burst into fire and was blown by Iguana-zilla's breath, not that Iguana-zilla had legitimate fire-breath. This new Godzilla? His spinal plate light up and he legitimately breathed blasts of blue fire. I was glad of that.
And then to cap it all, the way that, at the end, he wakes up and just heads off back to the sea, as if "Well, my job is done, I'm going home for a nice long sleep!" is something I'd seen a comment on before, but I love it.
And then while I stayed through the credits, I saw who did the creature designs for the movie - Weta Workshop. I had to outright squeal about that. You know I have to wonder if they had a hand in Maleficent too. One of the big plant-monsters fighting the old king's army looked rather like a cross between an Ent and a Balrog.
So to sum up, I liked both of these movies, and I really should avoid critical reviews on Fandom Secrets if I am planning to go see something. Usually they make me doubt whether I should, and I'm glad I ignored them (and paid attention to
lunabee34's review) and did go see these two movies.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
2014-06-03 11:36 (UTC)We can't afford movie tickets -- even for one -- so we're waiting for it to be cheaper. But this is The One Movie I am VERY impatient for.
no subject
2014-06-03 15:35 (UTC)