Another chapter in the trend of dark, gloomy and shallow reboots and movies

Rating: 6/10 (17 May 2014)

Before jumping in "Godzilla 2014", I would like to go through what I believe the "curent trend of dark, gloomy and shallow reboots" is. It's a post 9/11 age, a time in which Americans seem to have lost their confidence and their optimistic perspective on life. 9/11 proved Americans could no longer be in control of their fate or even the World's.
During the 1990s era (which includes mid 1980s and early 2000s in my opinion) some of the best movies of all time were released (Back to the Future, Terminator, Home Alone, Shawshank Redemption, Jurassic Park, The Matrix, Gladiator, Titanic and many more). The 1990s style of movie-making is full of concepts revolving around: feel-good, happy end, good is good and bad is bad, clichés (today regarded as such), family fun, quite appropriate for all audiences, natural humor, Americans always saved the day and were always right, expressive acting which the audience relates to - establishing that golden connection between the characters of the movie and the viewers.
The post 9/11 movie-making era trend is dark, gloomy and shallow. Reboots like the Dark Knight series, Man of Steel and other movies like Noah best fit this current tendency. It's a trend which tries to lower the tone and atmosphere of the movie to a dark and gloomy reality. The Americans destroyed New York so many times in movies, but when this actually happened, it shattered their overly-optimistic view on life, sobering them up and opening their eyes to a world and a reality which does not have a happy ending, and it is not still there when they exit the theater. Shallow - due to the poor and many times distant style of acting today. The relationship between the viewer and the characters is ignored, being replaced with a self-centered, wooden and evocative theatrical performance. The emotions of the actors are unnatural, forced and many times altogether missing.
Comparing Godzilla 1998 with Godzilla 2014 we see just that. Before the release of this reboot, people generally considered the 1990s remake a bad movie or at least dated or poorly executed. I did not regard it as such, nor did I believe it was a great movie. After having seen Godzilla 2014 today, I can honestly say that I would rather see the 1990s version again rather than this "updated one". Firstly, Godzilla 2014 strengthens my previously mentioned idea that Man or more precisely America is just another part of the world and not it's leader or Saviour. Americans did nothing or better said were not able to do nothing to stop the MUTOs or Godzilla. What the Japanese doctor said was very relevant: just "Let them fight" (reffering to the MUTOs and Godzilla). The Americans did not save the day, Godzilla did. All the Americans did was to arm a nuclear bomb which the MUTOs feasted from and after which the same Americans failed to disarm. The Americans just watched and attended a battle of monsters. Their contribution was the destruction of the MUTO nest - and this only done last-minute, by one guy.
Second, the performances of the actors is just horrible, with one huge exception: Bryan Cranston. This actor is brilliant in any role he takes, from the iconic performances in Malcom in the Middle and recently in Breaking Bad (he can do more than comedy), Bryan takes up all the focus. Sadly, he was cut off halfway through the movie, killed inexplicably. Why start a movie with a professional lead performance and in the middle decide to switch the main character with a plank of wood? At the end of the movie, it actually seemed like I watched two films: one in which Bryan Cranston was the lead and the other where there was no main character.
Next, going in a reverse logic, the title of the movie is wrong. It should be called MUTO or The rise and fall of MUTO. Much like in the recent King Kong or even worse, Godzilla is a supporting character and at times an extra. Most of the monsters scenes were focused on the MUTOs. I went to the theater dying to see Godzilla (keeping in mind that we barely saw it in the trailer) and instead I only got an extended trailer. From an evolutionary point of view, Godzilla from 1998 is much closer to a dinosaur or reptile or at least has a somewhat logical anatomy whereas Godzilla 2014 (trying to evoke the 1950s and traditional Godzilla) struggles and, in my opinion, fails to convince you that such an anatomy makes any sense whatsoever. It does, if you want to dress up a guy in a dinosaur costume. Only then does it hold up, but wait a minute, isn't Godzilla 2014 a CGI monster?
The score was good, but unfortunately unoriginal and evocative. It reminded me of the 1950s style of scores for disaster movies.
I understand I am watching a reboot but why can't it be altogether new? Just take the concept and rewrite it. Why evoke some much of the past? Why not bring a new design for Godzilla, why not create an unique and memorable theme song (again, like many 1990s movies which have fantastic soundtracks, easily recognizable). This direction is similar to the one in the recent Star Trek movies. So much evocation. Why? Why bring the old 1960s theme song back in a remixed version, why bring a lead actor which physically evokes the older iconic one, but lacks charm or personality? Why not just create something new from scratch?
In conclusion, I really wish the movie industry would try to come up with an original contribution to old concepts and generally try to work harder and create something new to leave behind as a distinctive mark. Regarding Godzilla 2014, I wanted to see more of the fire-breathing dinosaur and Bryan Cranston. Winner: Godzilla 1998 or future reboots.