Asking why Binoche and Olsen were in the movie is just plain idiotic, it's fairly obvious why the wives of the two main human figures in the film are in it...and I don't think it was marketed around Cranston at all, it was marketed around its non-human title character.
Monster movies so often seem to disappoint me. I see the trailers, and get all excited about the massive scale and epic scope.... but then when I see the film itself, it too often just feels like empty spectacle. It happened with PACIFIC RIM last year,
Olsen's character is pointless IMO.
She wasn't pointless to the soldier that we're following throughout the movie, hence she's a fairly obvious part of the story.
Batman was on the screen longer than 13 minutes. If I had to guess how long he was in it I would say at least half an hour maybe 40 minutes, thats three times as long as Godzillas appearance time. Point being Nolan put enough Batman action in their to satisfy me personally but even then I remember people complaining about the lack of Batman.
Of course, it's a Godzilla movie. The characters are only going to be servicable at best, it's a spectacle movie and they're there between the build up to the epic monster rampage scenes that why people actually watch these movies.
That's why the criticisms of 'empty spectacle' are quite surprising...of course it was.
I think those that love the movie would be more than willing to tell you that, this movie was never going to be very deep.
That's true. She was there to be the stereotypical nurturing wife that every movie soldier needs to have.Olsen's character is pointless IMO.
She was pointless. The story would have ended up the same without her.She wasn't pointless to the soldier that we're following throughout the movie, hence she's a fairly obvious part of the story.
Where as Godzilla has 13 documented minutes in a 11% screen time.
I think at least when Batman appeared, he did something and we saw it play out. There wasn't a cut away as he ran away from the police on the batpod. Or when the gate closed to lock him inside the sewer with Bane. And on it goes.Batman was on the screen longer than 13 minutes. If I had to guess how long he was in it I would say at least half an hour maybe 40 minutes, thats three times as long as Godzillas appearance time. Point being Nolan put enough Batman action in their to satisfy me personally but even then I remember people complaining about the lack of Batman.
Of course, it's a Godzilla movie. The characters are only going to be servicable at best, it's a spectacle movie and they're there between the build up to the epic monster rampage scenes that why people actually watch these movies.
That's why the criticisms of 'empty spectacle' are quite surprising...of course it was.
I think those that love the movie would be more than willing to tell you that, this movie was never going to be very deep.
There's plenty of spectacle at the end of the movie, it's cutting away so you get to see everything n the end.
Agreed. 'Plenty' is being generous.Not really. The fight at the end doesn't make up for the constant cutting away in my opinion.
There's plenty of spectacle at the end of the movie, it's cutting away so you get to see everything n the end.
I personally hope that Edwards doesn't return for the sequel. The more I think about it, he's missed the entire point of a Godzilla movie.
Agreed. 'Plenty' is being generous.