Reviews

Normally, I prefer movies that take their time and allow the viewer to digest everything that is seen, heard and happening. However, there needs to be something to take one's time with. Here we get long pauses, people staring into space with blank expressions and dialogue that has "I'm sorry" in almost every conversation, sometimes more than once. As often as not, the dialogue ends with someone walking out/away leaving the conversation hanging.

This continues for 2 hours. There is a plot/story but it could have been handled in 30 minutes. Yes, that can be stretched out with some close-ups and some symbolic scenes and mood setting and certainly some character development but even that should amount to something.

The movie ends with us not knowing much more about the protagonists than we did at the beginning. We have two young Japanese lesbians with various problems and insecurities. One of them meets a female Iranian student and some complications and misunderstandings ensue. The pattern and results are predictable although not actually resolved.

I was curious about the concept behind the story but it really was a waste of time. Mercilessly stretching out a very thin script and very little content of any kind does not equal art or entertainment.

If you are a fan of badly damaged and maladjusted characters, dark moods, sexual stereotypes and cliches from both women in prison films and East Asian ghost images and don't care about logic or cohesiveness this could be your kind of thing but I don't know why you would remember this example a day later. You might get some entertainment by trying to guess which off-the-shelf/cut-and-paste element will be trotted out next.

This is very derivative. There might be a few people left who will think this mishmash is subversive or pushes boundaries. That would be a naive impression. Every element in this mishmash (I apologize but that description bears repeating) was seen decades ago and better in any of a hundred Japanese films and in other places too but that is the obvious root. We've seen it all before and one would have to be addicted to this kind of content to get anything out of it. It went stale LONG ago. And just to be clear, this is actually a toned down, restrained version. Perhaps that is because it is a Taiwanese rather than a Japanese production.

I have to hand it to the actors and actresses because they had to gyrate, pose and emote in various compromising ways and that had to be a challenge but again, we have seen more and better before. I hope they were fairly paid or at least recognized for their efforts.

Wartime propaganda films are frequently problematic. They tend to have very forced, artificial dialogue and characters and their content and perspective often age badly in light of information that came out later. They do not easily lend themselves to either entertainment or art. In this case, the pretensions make the problems even worse.

The basic premise here is that not all Germans were Nazis and a number of them actively opposed the regime. This can be seen as an important thing to point out in 1943 but here this is done very awkwardly. The protagonist played by Paul Lukacs and his family are completely artificial with an unbelievable personal history. There are too many holes in all of it to be believable. Furthermore, his plan of action is also ill-conceived to the point of being bizarre. His attempts at political/moralizing speeches are likewise forced, strangely worded and fall flat. The difficulty Lukacs must of had in dealing with it all comes across. To some extent it feeds into the character who if real must have been in a state of stress bordering on hysteria. I don't think that was the intention but it is there and the contrasting over-controlled nature of the children is another strange twist that warrants psychoanalysis. One would think, that creating an anti-Nazi plot and logical dialogue to go with it would be an straightforward thing but here it is nowhere to be found.

Other characters are likewise weak or lacking in credibility. Lukacs' prime counterpoint is a Romanian named "Teck" (Romania was allied to Germany in WW2) and he is something of a mess as well but such self centred, unscrupulous characters do exist and are a mainstay of many movies. What Teck and his wife are doing together is completely un-explainable. Their relationship makes no sense and it stretches every bound of imagination to consider how it could even exist at all. My sympathies to the actress (Geraldine Fitzgerald) who had to deal with that role. It really gets ridiculous at times.

Betty Davis, although top billed, is not in one of her dominant roles. Her presence was apparently to lend credibility to the film and gain viewers. Her character is another strange part of the whole convoluted mess. The other supporting players are likewise neither interesting or entertaining. Don't blame yourself if your brain backs away and you fall asleep watching this. I stayed awake because the convolutions edged into being unintentionally funny but how could this subject matter ever be funny?

Blame must be placed on the writers Hammett and Hellman. The actors try to do their jobs but they are fighting the characters, plot and dialogue all the way.

This suspenseful, moody film fits in well with 50s film noir despite its British origins (albeit with a number of American actors). The black and white camera angles and shadows give a real sense of foreboding in the best of the tradition. The director keeps things moving from one crisis to the next which gather and culminate in the nail-biting finish.

The actors are all good or better. Gloria Grahame delivers the selfish, glamorous wife with her usual dash of edge and cold spite that she could probably do in her sleep but despite her short camera time, she reminds us that no one could do it quite like she could. A frustrated John Ireland broods as her understandably jealous husband. Richard Baseheart is nuanced, thoughtful and troubled as he can effectively be even if he was not the most charismatic fellow in Hollywood. A young Joan Collins is simple but effective as his wife. Stanley Baker is also effective as another hard luck case. This brings us to Laurence Harvey. This character is extremely cold wrought, too much so. His manipulative, self centred ways seem too transparent. How did his intelligent, cultured wife not see through him years ago? How could his new friends trust such a person. If he was directed to be so, then it could have been tempered because Harvey plays it to the hilt but I think it takes away from the theme of desperate men driven to desperate action.

And so we are led to the other flaws that leave the movie short of the true greatness it could have achieved. The gathering of the frustrated men looking for a way out rushes into action too quickly. I won't give away more but it is less than believable when everything up to that point had been both believable and well paced. The other thing is the tacked on narration and morale preaching. It is one part of the movie that you want to spit out immediately for it having dared to taint the stew.

This review is of a 99 minute version of the movie.

The ending will surprise some people. That is a point in its favour. At its time, it was possibly considered to be adventurous film-making. It is dated now although there is some shock value and strangeness at certain moments which will appeal to some people. It is not suspenseful, it is not scary. I would hesitate to call it a horror movie as many have.

It is not erotic despite the nudity involving attractive women. All the nudity and attempts at being erotic are either gratuitous/surplus even non-sequitur or attempt to contribute to the strangeness/shock value without really succeeding. Leaving most of it out would have improved the movie.

The plot is thin and simple. There is an anti-Christian aspect to it which was and is so common that it comes across as stock formula.

The acting is nothing memorable although a few people succeed at coming across as suspicious. But when that is almost everyone, it doesn't mean much. Edward Woodward is good but his work is wasted. If the rest of the movie had been better constructed. his performance would have been elevated. Given the surrounding material, his work withers. Christopher Lee has a couple of short interesting moments and I understand that he likes his role in this movie but frankly, it doesn't add up to too much. Diane Cilento is effective but doesn't actually do much in total. Britt Ekland was there as a sexual object. Ingrid Pitt is a throw-in.

I know it will appeal to some people which is why I elevated it to a 4 from the 2 or 3 that it probably more justly deserves.

This is a cut and paste mishmash of caricatures and stereotypes (as most Coen movies are). The shame is that the caricatures are awkward and insult one's intelligence as well as the targets of the caricatures. They even manage to insult and degrade 1930s musicals. All that might be partially forgivable if it was funny but it never gets past the cringe stage. As for the story. There really isn't one. There is just an excuse to wander from one absurd, meaningless, barely coherent scene to the next. In one sense, it is truly post modern, i.e. there is no meaning, no theme other than impossible, dysfunctional characters thrown together to no purpose and you cannot feel good about any of it or take away anything useful from watching them.

Critics and people in the industry seem to give not just the benefit of the doubt to the Coen brothers. Any paint they throw at a wall is hyped and sold as some kind of high art. But there might be method to that madness. If this kind of thing can be elevated to high art, it allows anything slapped together with a splash to be likewise elevated. In the mean time, movies as an art form and a cultural expression are down graded again while presumably the profits continue to flow. If that is what is going on, then this movie starts to make sense.

The only redeeming things I can see about this movie is that John Goodman tried to do something with the wretched material he was given and Sam Elliot just manages to maintain his dignity as the writing and directing attempts to drag him down into ridiculousness. But if I think about it too long, I might conclude that they became caricatures of themselves. Again, that might be forgivable if it was funny, but it isn't.

As for Jeff Bridges, he seems to be deliberately trying to act badly, i.e. blatantly artificial. To what end, I am not sure. Did the directors want that? Possibly, the Coen brothers have certainly used unnatural characters before.

Did Juliane Moore enjoy her incomprehensible role? It didn't make sense even in the vacuous context of the movie.

Please don't fall for the hype. See garbage for what it is. This is not classic or significant in any positive sense.

I was thinking to go into great detail about the specifics of the deceptive and shameless propaganda aspects of this mess. However, other reviewers have done that effectively. Suffice it to say that you can pretty much flip every assertion this film makes over on its head except perhaps one. It is that bad and that cynical and that insulting to one's intelligence. Has the world really come to this?

The production values are good as is the location (that is why I gave it 2 instead of 1) but they are wasted on video game-like battle scenes and endless Hollywood clichés. We even get our Private Ryan moment, an unlikely bit of romance and a viciously evil sniper. Andy Garcia? Val Kilmer? Beyond cringe-worthy.

In general, this was better than expected. It starts out awkwardly but eventually gets rolling and just when you think it will fall back into clichés and predictable tripe, it does something a bit surprising. Likewise, when you think you will get overdone heroics, adrenaline rushes and impossible escapes, things are played remarkably straight. That was refreshing as was the lack of politically correct ideology and preaching. Furthermore, setting it in Moscow was another refreshing plus.

The acting and dialogue are nothing special and the plot is simple. That prevents this from being something epic or "great" but in a recent sea of badly conceived and painfully executed science fiction movies, this stands out pleasantly.

I was surprised to see that this had a budget as high as 30 million. There is a very small cast, no elaborate sets and the CGI, while essential is less than one usually gets these days.

I appreciate when a film-maker tries to do something different. In this case, we have someone thinking or pretending they are doing something different. We get a non-linear story line that jumps back-and-forth in time. We get some moody, underplayed music instead of loud, militaristic music. That was a bit refreshing at first. We get an emphasis on the lower ranks struggling to do their tasks and survive. We get little insight into the larger picture or how the situation arose in the first place. In the end, it still boils down to a low key propaganda film. The Germans are entirely faceless and amount to some kind of vague encroaching evil force. The British are very human, vulnerable, forgiving and guiltless and yet heroic. Just so perfect. In the end, this is another WW2 propaganda film wrapped up in a different package and tied off with the obligatory Churchill speech. I say different as it is different than more bombastic propaganda such as Saving Private Ryan but it is not original. Frankly, it reminded me of the remade Battlestar Gallactica. Stylistically, it is a close relative.

Let me start with what is good. The large budget can be seen in dazzling. colourful, costumes and sets. The slow pacing, in principle, allows the story to proceed unhurried and in detail. The acting is good, the actors seem committed to their characters. With this good foundation, you could be hopeful for a good presentation of the life of Wu Zeitan/ Wu Mei Niang. Unfortunately, it doesn't turn out that way.

The problem starts with the main character. Her life was interesting, dramatic, scandalous and unique as it was. There is little need to expand and fictionalize it. But that is what we get. Events are altered or simply invented which have her literally all over the place and in an overly sympathetic light. The life of characters around her are also twisted around to the point that history and pure fiction are ruthlessly mixed to an absurd point. Given the reliance on fiction, it is small wonder that the story becomes disjointed, almost incoherent at times.

They could have stayed closer to history, placing more time and emphasis on her later life and produced a far more satisfying and true story. As I said earlier. her real life is a great story. There is no need to mess around with it to get a marketable and dramatic story.

Credulity is further strained in the inevitable combat scenes. These are poorly done in terms of realism and contain the inevitable skilled-warrior-as-super-hero scenes that plague so many Chinese productions. Things get quite RIDICULOUS in this area and one is thankful when the combat scenes end and the intrigue starts up again. Insult is added to injury here when, despite the huge budget, the military costumes used cheap plastic. In comparison to the other, excellent costumes, the contrast is glaring. One would have hoped that with the large budget some credible looking armour, helmets, etc could have been used for the close-ups.

If you are going to do a remake of a classic film, one would hope that those doing so would try to rise close to the level of the original. Otherwise, why bother? In this, case, the why bother seems to be a mendacious political statement. Why is it a bad remake? Let's start with the acting. With the exception of James Woods, this entire cast can't/doesn't come close to that of the 1971 version. The depth and subtlety is just not there. This cannot be under emphasized. James Woods is not given great material to work with but he plunges in honestly as he usually does. Directing? Sam Peckinpah is a tough act to follow but Rod Lurie rushes through, briefly hitting enough moments to remind you that this is "Straw Dogs" and then wedges in his agenda (or the producers' agenda). The build up of tension and conflict is a pale, cheap echo of the original. Now let us get to the political agenda. What we have here is a full on trashing of a caricature of the rural/small town culture of the "bayou" region of the deep south. This comes complete with a cheap dose of gratuitous racial conflict. How low can you go Hollywood? The one moment of subtlety in this comes from this David Sumner being a script writer for a movie about WW2 Stalingrad. This is referenced in relation to atheism, communism and "resistance". But this is a nefarious, mendacious subtlety, It is not a pretty picture, Why give it as much as 3? The basic production values are good in terms of art direction, locations, basic camera work, etc.

There is not much to see here besides the angst and self absorption of the protagonist. The plot of what happens when you fall for a best friend could have gone somewhere interesting but instead we just keep going back to the protagonist and her internal problems. Those problems are obvious and they could be solved or at least confronted rather easily. Instead we just circle back to the angst. One gets to a wake-me-when-it's-over state fairly early. They could have covered what they did in half an hour. Don't look for any good side plots or interesting characters. There are none. This movie needs; much better acting and to be thoroughly rewritten.

Let me start with the length. I like long movies, properly done, they give you an extended, hopefully rewarding experience. But first, that experience has to be generated. I am not sure what experience this sequel is working toward. It is very vague and amorphous and extremely patchy. The patches do not work toward a cohesive whole. It is as if they will need another movie of equal length to make it coherent and to finally find some meaning (I am sure that idea was/is being kicked around). A slapped together, disjointed, virtually incoherent mix of settings, characters, images, dialogue, etc. sums up the essence of this movie. This is amplified by how these elements are obviously borrowed from other films. Considering the visuals, we get some interesting tricks that are amusing for a moment but they serve as distractions from the thin, hazy plot. In the original, the viewer is allowed to immerse them-self into the dystopic Los Angeles and get a feel for it. That dystopia was absurd and beyond unlikely in many ways but the richness and consistency with which it was presented made it easy to accept it temporarily. Not here, instead we get absurdity for sure but internal logic is not even attempted. We get a very strange place that is never explained and never makes sense. Are we so dumbed down as viewers that we just accept any mishmash of extreme images wrapped in fog as a coherent and believable vision-of-the-future? Dialogue? Being vague and pseudo-cryptic with some cynical clichés does not equal being profound or meaningful. There are very few characters of any kind here and by the end, I did not care about any of them, even Ryan Gosling's "protagonist". There is leftover sympathy for Harrison Ford's Deckard but they don't help it along much and there is not much for him to do. By the time he shows up, one is momentarily hopeful that something interesting will finally happen. But instead he just passively folds into the slowly swirling mess. The dog that hangs out with Deckard for a while might have been the most sympathetic creature. At least he/she might have been a creature. Keeping track of who/what might be human, replicant, or hologram is not easy. Again, this is a huge contrast to the original that had a large number of substantial characters. Another symptom of the patchwork is the number of wasted clichés and theatrical name dropping. For example, Dave Batista had a small part that he does well but which was incidental at most. Edward James Olmos was back from the original just so they could say he was there. These bits attempt, but fail to paper over the fact that very little actually happens. We don't even get any good fight scenes. (one tries to find a silver lining and fails) If you missed this movie, please don't worry, there are better ways to use the time. In fact, you will be better off as your memory of the original will not have the shadow of this cast over it.

This movie is more interesting for the story around the movie than the movie itself. With a story set in later tsarist Russia, it was filmed in 3 versions, English, French and German with Anna May Wong starring as Hai Tang in each and handling the different languages along with a different surrounding cast. Did anyone else ever pull that off? It was also Anna May Wong's first talkie although her acting contains large elements of a silent film style as it often did. That being said, the plot is simple and tragic and is interrupted only by various songs and dances which, with a couple of exceptions, are not very interesting. The digital copy that I saw was of very high quality which certainly helps. The close-ups of Anna May Wong show her always remarkable photogenic complexion very well. Visually, she jumps off the screen. The other characters including a nasty woman who intrigues against her are fairly predictable. While this is a must-see for Anna May Wong fans, it is less interesting for those who are not.

This movie starts off with a workable plot, maybe even a good one. Certainly it had possibilities. Thereafter, it retreats to a predictable mash of violent, adrenaline rushes with cliché dialogue (one liners, come backs, etc) that any movie watcher over the last 30 years must have had their fill of. Once the plot is set, you knew generally how it would pan out. It was just a question of which country the gangsters were from, exactly who their accomplices and enablers were, and how many brutal fight, car chase and shooting scenes there would be. And also, what kind of gadgets would be used. It is all worn-out formula. Liam Neeson does okay with the material such as it is, I guess, but you almost expected him to morph into Bronson, Van Damme or even Arnold. Yes, Neeson suggests a more complex, interesting character but it is only a suggestion. Everyone else is barely there. It is entirely a Neeson vehicle. And forget about seeing any interesting directing, camera work or art direction. If this type of thing is your cup of tea, enjoy but don't look for ANYTHING special.

This is far from being a high budget blockbuster with sweeping cinematography, high level production values and innovative writing. It has to rely on the actors working on sets that could have and probably were used in television westerns. Fortunately, the actors, most being solid character types, deliver the goods very professionally and carry the story and the viewer's interest. That acting even manages to overcome some dull and predictable directing.

Dana Andrews shows the effects of years of alcohol by this point and although that actually plays to the lead character, one suspects the movie would have been elevated with someone like Glenn Ford in that role but no doubt he would have needed a higher pay cheque as well. Terry Moore could have been given more to do as they downplayed romance in favour of the building confrontation. But she definitely looks good handles what she is given well.

Pat O'Brien, Lon Chaney Jr., Bruce Cabot, Lyle Bettger, Richard Arlen, Barton MacLane, Richard Jaeckel all show up like old friends who have done these roles a dozen times each but what could have been stale characterizations are instead well dished out from practised professionals still trying to earn their pay and their next job.

Don't have any doubts, this is an amateur(ish) soft porn film that is vainly trying to sell itself as something meaningful. Unfortunately, it doesn't even succeed well as soft core porn as it amounts to one tired cliché after another and is not even sexy. The clichés are in every scene setup, every character and every line of dialogue. You know the ultimate role and fate of every character within seconds of their introduction. There is not even the smallest surprise or suspense in anything. And certainly you have seen everything here before and done much better.

The production team took the straightest and easiest road at each turn. If it was sold as a demo film designed to show that the production team could actually carry the thing through to the end, then maybe they succeeded but they are selling this as some kind of significant film. In that, they simply insult the audience and engage in fraud.

And don't look for a rescue in the WOODEN acting, the camera work, the lighting or the directing. You will search in vain. You might find entertainment value is seeing just how predictable it is or how many clichés they march out.

Where to start on this? Given its shortcomings, one wonders why it is getting attention. That is easy to explain. There are several generations of people who have been brought up on one version of Star Trek or another. There is definite interest in another TV series based on it. This is exacerbated by the huge shortcomings of the recent Star Trek movies which tore the established time line, characters and precepts apart and have lowered, yes lowered, the franchise to the level of the usual overwrought, adrenalin rush, commercially obsessed material that has pushed plot and idea oriented movies far to the periphery. As a result, there are a lot of people who want Star trek: Renegades to work.

The production obviously suffers from a low budget especially in comparison to the fully funded large studio Star Trek productions. The sound, in particular, is really quite bad. But it is not just a lack of budget. The production crew seems to be learning on the job with camera, costumes, lighting, CG, writing, the whole thing. There is a brew of clichés and lack of skill/time going on. That could improve with further efforts but there is a long way to go.

In terms of basic themes and ideas, again, there is potential but problems as well. We have a diverse crew of misfits being used as a covert operations force. Furthermore, there are people who are out to get them. This provides a huge stream future story ideas. It is a unfortunate that the pilot used an specific idea that is very tired and old in the nature of the threat, the inability of the establishment to deal with it and the techno-babble/quasi-magic solution. Nonetheless, it used that idea to effectively introduce a large number of characters which is a prime purpose of a pilot.

That brings us to the acting and the characters. This is very uneven. One hopes it could be sorted out. There is room for both hope and pessimism.

Here is a rundown of some of them.

Chekov - a useful link to the past.

Chekov's great grand-daughter - a weak character that could evolve into an interesting sub-plot but needs to be handled extremely carefully. A wimpy cadet who has a foot in the door to the highest levels of Star Fleet Intelligence could be a disaster. This could be another Wesley Crusher but worse. When in doubt, leave her out.

Tuvok - another useful link. He didn't have much material but he did fine with it.

Lexxa Singh - This is a major character and as things stand now, a train wreck and thus a serious liability for the whole concept. There was not a single thing about this character that was believably delivered. I don't want to dwell on it too much or blame the actress as the concept is flawed from the start. She came across as a semi-emaciated addict who somehow is supposed to be a fierce renegade with strength, leadership, etc, etc. Not buying it for a second. I'd start with changing the costume and make-up and seriously reworking her lines and delivery. Perhaps it can be salvaged but it is not just a matter of minor changes.

Alvarez - This character is very useful as a good guy who is not in the loop and can both bump heads with the main bunch and alternatively work with them. Furthermore, Corin Nemec did well with the material he had. Why they gave him a name like Alvarez is beyond me as he doesn't look like an Alvarez at all.

Lucien - Sean Young looked very uncertain of herself in this role. I am not sure why she wanted to do it. Over time and with better material, she should grow into it. The character is potentially fine. They just need to keep her technical stuff more realistic.

Zimmerman - Robert Picardo can effectively deliver this character in his sleep but there is not much for him to do and I am not sure why he is there.

Ragnar - Not great material to work with but Gary Graham had good presence and one can have confidence in him.

Icheb - another return from a previous series. This is an interesting character although with too many Borg related abilities. Acted well enough given the material.

Ronara - this one needs development but by no means a lost cause. The head shaking with the mental abilities could be portrayed better. Otherwise, she seemed to be the eye candy (no problems there!) and a few fill-in lines.

Fixer - another one that needs development but could work out fine.

The Breen - Interesting but did not do much. There is a LOT of potential there but they have to stay out of the trap of making him a continuous running joke.

The rest of the potentially returning cast had not much to do, were not paid much if at all and it seemed to show.

Because of some of the people involved, the way it is being funded and the effort made on a low budget, the next "episode" of ST:Renegades will be viewed with a good bit of sympathy and again be given the benefit of the doubt by a lot of people. On the other hand, the chances of a major studio picking this up are slight. If one did, the egos involved would rework it and replace many of the people involved and the result would be hardly recognizable. In many ways that would be good but I am sure the studios already have their own ST ideas and if they were thinking of going with a new series, they would follow up on those.

The budget for this movie was never going to allow it to get beyond the B level, barely at that. The cast and crew seems to have decided that despite the limitations, they were going to make an honest effort in a bad situation. They succeed in creating a movie that manages to be worth watching as a curiosity. Notable successes are some decent scientific references, the authentic Russian language, proper weapons for the Russians and Chinese and acting that is better than expected. There were some good people at work here. Inevitably, some contemporary clichés slip in (e.g. seemingly canned feminine screams, California scenery you have seen many times before) that date the film in a way that pulls it back into its B level pedigree. If you are a genuine movie buff, you'll probably like this but it is limited.

It was a bit surprising to see young Japanese women of the early 1950s in a conservative school asserting themselves so forcefully. Likewise, the open discussion of political thinking and social movements was surprising open especially in comparison to other movies of that time such as "Twenty Four Eyes" wherein it was present but understated and often pushed to the background.

I found the story and the subplots to be nuanced, very compelling and emotionally fully engaging.

Hideko Takamine and Yoshiko Kuga both put in strong performances. Takamine is believable as someone emotionally torn who finds the various pressures overwhelming. Kuga's character is more complicated but she handles the various levels effectively.

The movie might seem long but I think it usefully could have been longer. Alternatively, some attention could have been shifted away from Takamine's character and into others. There are a large number of characters and although we get good development in some cases, we don't get a chance to be fully introduced to each of them. If we had, it would have made the motivations of all of them more clear. One example is the school's counselor who seems to be torn between sympathy for the students, his opinions of his colleagues and his role in the school. We don't get much insight into his personal perspective, we just get the results and have to speculate.

There are a number of sub plots going on and I can see how one could get some of the secondary characters confused at times. We are also left a bit unclear about the precise chain of command in the school's hierarchy. Who ultimately calls the shots there and who would be expected to take responsibility of various events is not clear. Perhaps some improvements in the script and/or the editing could have handled that better.

We also get some parochial sentimentality that is very standard Japanese fare but I don't think it is overdone at all.

This could have been a serious disaster/war production but with the very low budget on the scale of a minor Republic serial, it falls to grade C propaganda and paranoia. It is not that the effort is bad, per se, there was just not much to work with at any level.

Forget about any kind of realistic war scenario here but then again, it is no more nonsensical than Red Dawn was and Red Dawn DID have a substantial budget. In fact, given the realities and psyche of the time, this is at least insightful into that, whereas Red Dawn was a nonsensical fantasy that no one could take seriously even at the time it came out.

We do get stock footage from WW2 and Korea with glimpses of almost everything that flew from 1944 through 52 along with ships and heavy AA.

Look for Dan O'Herlihy and his first class voice in a smallish but significant role.

I found this film to be very successful. It takes an historical situation, carefully reconstructs it in an accurate and believable fashion, then applies an extra-real/fantasy overcoat as a platform to drive home a number of philosophical ideas. These are not simple ideas either, they are powerful and controversial and force one to think unless of course one was looking only for a nuts-and-bolts war movie. In that case, you will likely be disappointed but it worked perfectly for me. There were a number of slower scenes that would seem out-of-place without the wider philosophical/sociological themes playing out. I suggest that viewers not look to be entertained in the straightforward sense but instead allow themselves to be provoked.

Don't worry about the acting, directing, sets, camera work, etc. They all good and work well. There is a clear Tarkovsky influence in many of the scenes although not as surreal what you get in Stalker and Solaris.

I've been a Godzilla fan for decades and have always been forgiving of the shortcomings of some of the films. On this occasion, the shortcomings are too intrusive to and in-your-face to look past. Unfortunately, the problems are there from the start and they don't ever go away long enough to forget.

A prime example is Keith Emmerson's musical contributions. The tinny, cheezie keyboard music belongs in a cheap early 80s video game. Unfortunately, it is dumped on you at the start and at the end. As a result, it is part of what you take away from the film. I am not sure what is more unbelievable, Emerson having the nerve to actually submit such garbage or the fact that it was accepted. The non Emerson music is not much better. This is really long way from the original foreboding Godzilla score.

Matching with the music is the use of low quality computer graphics which again could easily have come out of an early 80s video game. Surely, Godzilla's send off deserves better. It really is cheap and third rate as are almost all of the characters, acting and the human action scenes. Since plenty of time is spent on those instead of Gojira and the other Kaiju, that low grade stuff is most of what you see.

Some have said that the movie does not take itself seriously and that should be taken into consideration. That can perhaps forgive some of the dialogue but we are talking about some really atrocious production here that would likely be rejected for a Saturday morning cartoon.

The good moments are provided by what you actually came to see, i.e. Godzilla in full rage and a full slate of other monsters who, whatever their role here, seem like old friends and rivals. The screen time for most of them is limited in this format. All but one is a welcome guest and one wonders why the human action filler was not cut back in favour of the monsters. The production for the monster scenes is at a much higher level except again in some of the CG based flying scenes and for one of the monsters that was presented in a very bad way, worse in fact than in that particular creature's original appearance long ago. That part was was difficult to comprehend. Two possible explanations are 1) no budget or time left for that section, 2) taking the audience for granted.

This movie could have been a lot better and it deserved to be.

I would like to add my voice to those pointing out the contrast between the original long Japanese version and the shortened American version. It is not just a question of length. They are two different movies.

The Japanese version is balanced, thoughtful (believe it or not) and even has some subtle moments. It also leaves room for hope. There is something working in this that is very much lacking in the gargantuan excesses, overcharged adrenalin and endless CGraphics of recent Hollywood disaster indulgences.

The American version teeters between silliness and extreme depression. The dated effects and miniatures might turn you away but if you accept those and watch it through, it hammers away with hopeless imagery. As stark and as semi-cartoonish as the images might be, they are clearly recognizable as being rooted in aspects of the real world or its possibilities. If one is looking for a film to motivate a suicide pact to finally be put into action, this is it.