By far the best depiction of the atomic blast I’ve ever seen in a Godzilla movie. An actual nuclear detonation is awesome. The scene as the mushroom cloud is going up w him roaring is perfect!
Godzilla Minus One
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Spoiler alert!
My sister - a Godzilla fanatic - has talked me into going to see the movie. Tomorrow afternoon is all set.
Hope you like it. The best they’ve done since the original imo . It may be even better than the original. That’s coming from a guy who’s followed it all my life.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,736
- 206,686
- 113
My sister is really fired up for this one. Is that Mothra creature in it?
No. This is basically a reboot of the original story.
They nailed the design. That’s how Godzilla should look!
I don’t factor in budget when determining “best movie,” and already stated I enjoyed this movie. A couple of lower budget films that are worth a watch are “Past Lives” and “Anatomy of a Fall.” A couple more would be in the convo for “best” this year (for me). I thought “Across the Spider-verse” was absolutely fantastic, but wouldn’t say it’s the “best of the year.” Certain movies just tick different boxes (again, for me)…that’s all.
I haven't seen past lives, but Anatomy of a Fall is excellent. Definitely one of my top movies of the year.
Spiderverse is very good. Points docked for being half a story though.
Saw Saltburn this weekend, that was...a movie. Don't know if its one of the best things I've seen this year, or the very worst. One of the rare films that I have a really hard time figuring out how I feel about it.
I thought that too. It somehow "looked like Godzilla", but also wasn't such a recreation of the rubber suit that it took you out of the film. The Godzilla design was as important as anything in making it work.
I didn't read about the budget until after I saw the movie, and was pretty shocked. At no point did I feel like it looked like a shoestring production. So impressive.
Honestly the biggest budget overruns are delays, set building, reshoots, and script issues. Script issues usually cause all of the above.
The only movie I’ve seen in theaters in the last 4 years was top gun, which was awesome. Looks like I have another one to see…
Honestly, I would say yeah. It is very Top Gun Maverick, in the sense that it's way, way better than what it should be. While at the same time, not trying to be more than it is...it leans into just classic hollywood storytelling.
I thought multiple times while watching it that Maverick was the closest comparison to the experience. Which is not to say they are similar, or if you like one you will like the other...it's just unusual to see a movie this good that is just pure classic movie-making and storytelling, without twelve layers of meta-analysis, sub-textures and sub-sub-textures, allegories of class guilt, moral ambiguity, etc.
I mean, there are a lot of big issues and thoughts in Godzilla Minus 1, but they are on the surface for the viewer like a classic melodrama.
Well stated. I loved Top Gun, but at no point was I thinking I was watching something as "good" as Glory, Platoon, or Saving Private Ryan. It was just an all-american fun story, well told. Similarly, I don't suppose it gets more blue blood in science fiction than Godzilla, and it sounds like they leaned into it perfectly.
Last edited:
Well, we went and saw the movie this afternoon and we all gave it a “two thumbs up”.
Some interesting dialogue that I think portrayed how the modern Japanese must view WWII. Special effects were great.
Some interesting dialogue that I think portrayed how the modern Japanese must view WWII. Special effects were great.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,736
- 206,686
- 113
The following account (below) contains a fairly significant spoiler alert, so scroll past if you wish to not see it.
My good friend that I went with cracked me up because literally the SECOND he saw Shikishima's parachute open, he said - quite loudly - PUSSY! in the very crowded theater 🤣
My buddy is pro-kamikaze I guess. I told him I don't think he got the moral of the story, lol.
My good friend that I went with cracked me up because literally the SECOND he saw Shikishima's parachute open, he said - quite loudly - PUSSY! in the very crowded theater 🤣
My buddy is pro-kamikaze I guess. I told him I don't think he got the moral of the story, lol.
LOL there were a total of five people in the theater and I have to admit the three of us did a good bit of inappropriate laughing at times.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,736
- 206,686
- 113
So no kidding - there were a couple of Japanese Augustana College students sitting in our row, so our group really had to bite our tongues and not expose our mild, casual racism, lol.
Not really the same thing, but when I went to see Saltburn, I had a weird experience around that. For reference, it is an extremely effed up, very dark, comedy. Not a joke-a-minute comedy, and not JUST a comedy, but without question a comedy, with some legitimately funny bits. Don't take that as a recommendation, I don't think I could ever recommend it to anyone.
But nonetheless, it was like me and two other people laughing at the funny parts. Because the movie doesn't have the cadence of a comedy, it's like most of the audience (mostly younger) just couldn't process it as funny. The cadence/tone is more like that of a gothic horror/thriller, and its like the audience couldn't process it for what it was.
Now, to be fair, the British accents were a bit challenging, and the movie as a whole is very disconcerting, so I'm giving a little slack. And I will say, by the end, there were maybe 10 people that had begun to interpret that what they were watching was a comedy, albeit a dark one.
But it was a weird experience to be in a theater with like 60 people, and be one of three laughing. And not because I had special information that only an old person would "get it", just because it didn't process for people.
Speaking of the "specialized info", the hardest I laughed at a gag in a movie theater in probably 25 years, I was the only one laughing. In Deadpool, there's a scene where he slices someone's arm off or something, and blood spurts all over him, and he says "Are you there God, it's me Margaret." It was like a joke bomb...it sounded like a non-sequiter and took me about 5 seconds to process, before I blurt laughed about as hard as you can. In a full theater, I was the only one.
You'd have to be a certain age (my age - 50) to remember when that book was VERY controversial in some circles, and why. And then take the mental time to try to decode the joke, instead of just going past to the next joke per second. But well worth it. But anybody that didn't know the book wouldn't have gotten it, and anybody that did know the book, but from the past three decades, it was so past being controversial in subject matter that I'm sure you wouldn't even register the connection. In a movie without about 1000 jokes, I really appreciated that one, even if it felt like it was just for me.
Read the book as assigned reading in a Current Novels class I took. Thought it was awful.
But I went to see the movie last year, because....Rachel McAdams. Yum.
But I went to see the movie last year, because....Rachel McAdams. Yum.
Saw this over the weekend w my son. Nothing to add except we both loved it. Probably my 2nd favorite of the year after Killers of the Flower Moon, with the qualifier I haven't seen a lot this year
Also, OT but have any QC peeps been to the newly opened theatre, The Last Picture House? The venue sounds cool as hell. I see they had an early screening of The Iron Claw over the weekend.
It is going to slowly roll out into more theaters as word of mouth and strong showings at the box office continue to come in.
Also, the competition in theaters for a buzzing movie with the franchise of Godzilla attached to it is pretty light for the next month at least.
It deserves to make big money.
it's one of the best monster film I have ever seen. A treat in today's age of movies. I can't say enough about it. I put it up there with Alien, Aliens or the first Predator movie.
Going to see it today. I haven't seen 60 people in a theater in ages, not even the last Indiana Jones movie did that.
Of course, taking advantage of senior pricing/matinees prolly tends to discourage big attendance.
Of course, taking advantage of senior pricing/matinees prolly tends to discourage big attendance.
fwiw
Apparently parachutes were optional for non kamikaze units...pretty crazy considering their shortage of trained pilots. Not in line with the bushido code I guess.
We note various comments about Japanese parachutes during World War II. Some authors claim that the Japanese pilots did not have parachutes. This is not the case. The photographic record clearly shows some air crews wearing parachutes. It is, however, true that many Japanese aviators did not have parachute and not just the Kamikaze pilots. Although the Japanese did form parachute infantry units. The limited use of parachutes among aviators was the case despite the fact that the Japanese had extensive access to silk. Japan was a major producer of silk and before the War, exported large quantities. Thousands of households in rural areas ere involved in silk reeling, and three-quarters of the output was exported. 【Chase] And silk was the major fabric used for parachutes, silk exports ended with the advent of the Pacific War (December 1941). By this time because of German operations (1940-41), the United States was preparing to form parachute units and needed silk. Like American, British, and German aviation operations, pilots were a very valuable commodity. It was the shortage of experienced pilots, not aircraft, that almost caused the British to lose the all-important battle of Britain. This was especially true of the Japanese because they had so few and their training program was not geared up to produce very many new skilled pilots. After all, a trained and experienced pilot was a valuable asset. Many of the pilots, however, decided not to use them. This was an individual choice. Many complained that they restricted movement in the cockpit. Also the pilots often operating over enemy territory did not want to be captured. Most commanders allowed the pilots to decide. Some base commanders insisted that parachutes be used. In this case, the pilots often put them on. but just used them as sseat cushion. There is some indication that usage increased as air combat shifted to the Home Islands in the final months of the War.
Usage: Air Crews
While parachutes were issued, many pilot did not wear them. In some cases commanders allowed the pilots to make this decision themselves. This varies in large measure on the type of plane. The cres wof sea planes wore them. Bomber crews like the 'Betty" did not, largely because it was difficult to exit Japanese bombers. With fighter pilots it was optional, but many pilots chose not to wear them. The main reason was that it restricted movement in the cockpit and and added weight. There was also the Japanese assessment that pilots and crews bailing out over the open ocean or island jungle canopy were unlikely to survive. 【Claringbould】 Some base commanders insisted, but the pilots if ordered to wear them may have often just used them as seat cushion. Various reasons are given for the decision of many pilots and air crews not to use parachutes. We notice a Japanese aviator not using a parachute in air combat around Truk Lagoon (1944). He may have been an Army pilot. Many fighter pilots who often had the option of using parachutes pilots chose not to use them, complaining that they restricted their movement and thus performance as a pilot. And when operating over enemy territory, which was often the case during the first year of the War, Japanese pilots could not risk the dishonor of capture. Very few Japanese pilots were captured during the war and those who were found incapacitated in plane wrecks rather than men who had bailed out. We note actual war film footage of American sailors trying to rescue a downed Japanese pilot in the water, Rather than submit to rescue he committed suicide with a grenade. A reader writes, "From what I have read the earliest issuing of parachutes did not start until around 1937 so perhaps those early and experienced pilots were not used to having to wear them and these pilots are the ones who lived long enough through first 18 months of the Pacific War to write about their life and combat stories before they were killed. The next generation could have been just following the opinions of their instructors and by 1944 Jap pilots had a very short life expectancy in combat (think Kamikaze) so for them there was no need. But I am sure that many Jap pilots, but not all, did start to wear them when they started to have combat over Japan. Knowing how few experienced pilots were left they were forced to try and save themselves to fight another day. And this is in sharp contrast to the situation in Europe where both the Allied pilots and the Germans had no hesitations to use parachutes even over enemy land. So this issue in Japan could be a part of their Bushido teachings as warriors to fight to the death at all times and anywhere."Sakai Saburo
Japanese air ace, Sakai Saburo, who participated in the Pearl Harbor attack provides a short overview of parachute usage n the Imperial Navy. The same may have been true of Army pilots, although there were significant differences between the two services. We are less sure about bombers, especially the larger four engine bombers. "In 1942, none of our fighter planes carried pilot armor, nor did the Zeros have self-sealing fuel tanks, as did the American planes. As the enemy pilots soon discovered, a burst of their 50-caliber bullets into the fuel tanks of a Zero caused it to explode violently in flames. Despite this, in those days not one of our pilots flew with parachutes. This has been misinterpreted in the West as proof that our leaders were disdainful of our lives, that all Japanese pilots were expendable and regarded as pawns rather than human beings. This was far from the truth. Every man was assigned a parachute; the decision to fly without them was our own and not the result of orders from higher headquarters. Actually, we were urged, although not ordered, to wear the parachutes in combat. At some fields the base commander insisted that chutes be worn, and those men had no choice but to place the bulky packs in their planes. Often, however, they never fastened the straps, and used the chutes only as seat cushions. We had little use for these parachutes, for the only purpose they served for us was to hamstring our cockpit movements in a battle. It was difficult to move our arms and legs when encumbered by chute straps. There was another, and equally compelling, reason for not carrying the chutes into combat. The majority of our battles were fought with enemy fighters over their own fields. It was out of the question to bail out over enemy territory, for such a move meant a willingness to be captured, and nowhere in the Japanese military code or in the traditional Bushido (Samurai code) could one find the distasteful term 'Prisoner of War'. There were no prisoners. A man who did not return from combat was dead. No fighter pilot of any courage would ever permit himself to be captured by the enemy. It was completely unthinkable ..." 【Saburo, pp. 162-63.】Final Months
In the final month of the War the fighting shifted to the Home Island. Here the pilots no longer had to worry about capture. We are unsure just how many pilots at this phase of the War wore their chutes as there still was the problem of restricting movement. A reader writes, "I have read numerous accounts of American pilots seeing Jap pilots bailing out in some of the few dog fights that happened over Japan. Through all the war until then I don't think I ever read of Japanese pilots bailing out in previous combats.World War II air war Japan parachutes
It also had the unfortunate luck to be opening the same day as the Beyonce movie had every large format/dolby format theater in the country locked down. Just by chance, I checked the Wednesday before it opened, and there were like three theaters that had it as a "special event" the day before it opened in a Dolby or Imax theater, so I saw it in a Dolby theater. If they can hold on and get it on Imax at the back end of it's run, that would give it some legs.
Not a big Godzilla fan but I heard that this movie was really good so I decided to see it. I took my son and we really enjoyed it, there is a lot of character development and a lot more emotion in this film then i was excepting. I feel like this is in my top 5 this year.
this movie was made for 15 million dollars. That makes it even more amazing. It's the bitch slap Hollywood needs.
Yeah I could. I'm pretty lazy though. Plus, it's hunting season. Not to mention the city is stupid with shoppers right now.
True saw it last night in the Burbs to try and avoid the crowds. Stepped one foot into the Mennommne Falls Target and barely got out alive.
My daughter and I were remarking that he did have a resemblance to the Kraken in the original COTT (with Harry Hamlin)
Especially when he was chasing after the plane. It felt very stop motion esq at times. But as others pointed out it did lots off good with him as well. The first monster scenes and the Atomic blast were amazing.
My uncle (only 8 yrs older) went to the drive in with his girlfriend to watch that. For some reason he took my 10 yr old self along.
Anyway, it was a double feature with the Bo Derek Tarzan movie. Bo Derek getting washed naked by the tribe is burned into my memory (in a good way). Probably my first chubby.
