Godzilla Minus One

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Scott_650

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
1,803
Location
Louisville OH
Typically I stick strictly to posts/discussions about hobby rocketry. This is a rare occasion but hopefully it’ll be of value to someone. If you can go and see Godzilla Minus One (G-1). Even if you don’t care for Japanese giant monster movies or subtitled movies go anyway. Easily, without hesitation, I can say this is one of the best movies, period, that I’ve seen.

I’m not going to do a plot or story breakdown other than to point out that the post-WW2 Japan setting is perfect for both the story itself and how that story is told. Quite frankly I’m on the same page as several movie critics who’ve said you could cut out all the monster stuff, substitute some other catastrophe - tsunami, earthquake, etc… - and still have an awesome film. But since it is a giant monster movie we get a giant monster. And he’s a good one - a terrifying, implacable, nigh unstoppable force of nature version of Godzilla who’s goal is, evidently, just stomping Tokyo flat. Admittedly there are a handful of shots where the CGI looks a bit odd and Godzilla looks sort of “off” but it’s only a few and the odd look only lasts seconds. They made a real effort to stay connected to the “man in suit” look while making Godzilla look realistic - he takes ponderous, heavy steps, having a visible effect on the environment. And the mix of model work and CGI is nearly seamless and it’s often stunning. The entire look of the film is stunning - well lighted, smooth camera work, great angles, compositions and view points. How Toho did this for a reported budget of under $16 million is amazing.

But what really makes this thing work are the human performances. I’m not a fan of Japanese cinema (outside of a smattering of classic Kurosawa films and, of course, classic giant monster flicks) so I don’t know any of the cast but wow, there’s some very real talent on the screen. Which can only shine as it does because of some smart, effective writing. Yes there are some huge coincidences - show me a disaster movie that doesn’t have those - but for the most part the script is tightly constructed. There are scenes that, at the least, will have you dealing with a lump in your throat if not outright tears (I had tears multiple times). This thing has a surprising number of layers - historical drama about immediate post-war Japan, meditation on what it means to be a man, or a survivor, a searing portrayal of PTSD, and a rousing endorsement of what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons” of society - in this case frustrated Japanese veterans stepping up when their government and the US fail to get the job done rather than enlightened aristocrats fighting for liberty.

I’ve wandered pretty far afield from just recommending a Japanese giant monster movie - don’t think you’re in for 125 minutes of philosophical navel gazing, this thing has plenty of monster action, explosions, folks getting stomped, one p.o’d giant lizard, a borderline goofy plan to fight said giant lizard (a definite callback to the original’s “oxygen destroyer”), a solid love story and just enough sardonic Japanese humor. Yes there’s several unlikely coincidences but nothing jarring. The ending is just this side of a little too cute but they make these monster flicks as family movies in Japan. It’s fairly bloodless, other than some Godzilla gore, so I wouldn’t hesitate to take a 9 year old or a mature 8 year old (the language is appropriate as well). It’s about 10 minutes too long but I have no idea what you’d cut out, what’s up there on the screen is that good.

In some markets it’s only getting a very short release and appears to be leaving theaters here in the US at the end of next week so if you’re thinking about seeing it go now, find the biggest screen you can - it’s worth the effort!
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is the timing. I had finally gone on a bucket list trip to Japan in October and while there watched Godzilla films, saw the Godzilla statue and even bought Godzilla t-shirts!

So I saw it Saturday and I never thought I'd tear up in a Godzilla movie. 🥲

My mind was blown. Even Godzilla's mind was blown. :)
 
If it's going out of theaters this week then I'll probably have to watch out for it on the small screen. (And I do really badly with subtitles on Japanese movies, Spanish movies, and most other languages.) But that's not what is worth replying for.

I found this interesting:
Quite frankly I’m on the same page as several movie critics who’ve said you could cut out all the monster stuff, substitute some other catastrophe - tsunami, earthquake, etc… - and still have an awesome film. But since it is a giant monster movie we get a giant monster. And he’s a good one - a terrifying, implacable, nigh unstoppable force of nature version of Godzilla who’s goal is, evidently, just stomping Tokyo flat.
The idea of a force of nature that has a goal is interesting. Real forces of nature, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc., don't have goals; if one of them "stomps" you favorite city flat, it's with no ill intent. I haven't seen this movie, so I'm only speaking generally, but it seems obvious that changing the source of destruction from a monster to a tsunami would have to change the character of this or any movie, by changing from a destroyer with volition to one without.

Is it some characteristic of psychology that we want to imbue disasters with intent? Because we want someone or something to blame for the bad things that happen? Even in many disaster movies, where the destroyer is a natural, undirected, non-volitional phenomenon, there's often someone to blame for making it worse that it might have been, such as the crooked builder to didn't follow building codes and made the giant sky scraper vulnerable to a disaster it would otherwise have survived.

OK, that's the end of my daily random thought, and my yearly musing on the intersection of phycology and art.
 
If it's going out of theaters this week then I'll probably have to watch out for it on the small screen. (And I do really badly with subtitles on Japanese movies, Spanish movies, and most other languages.) But that's not what is worth replying for.

I found this interesting:

The idea of a force of nature that has a goal is interesting. Real forces of nature, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc., don't have goals; if one of them "stomps" you favorite city flat, it's with no ill intent. I haven't seen this movie, so I'm only speaking generally, but it seems obvious that changing the source of destruction from a monster to a tsunami would have to change the character of this or any movie, by changing from a destroyer with volition to one without.

Is it some characteristic of psychology that we want to imbue disasters with intent? Because we want someone or something to blame for the bad things that happen? Even in many disaster movies, where the destroyer is a natural, undirected, non-volitional phenomenon, there's often someone to blame for making it worse that it might have been, such as the crooked builder to didn't follow building codes and made the giant sky scraper vulnerable to a disaster it would otherwise have survived.

OK, that's the end of my daily random thought, and my yearly musing on the intersection of phycology and art.
I actually thought Godzilla was almost like Moby Dick for the main character. He was haunted by Godzilla and his earlier poor decision and then became obsessed with destroying him.
 
Is it some characteristic of psychology that we want to imbue disasters with intent?
Yes, it is a very human trait, to find intent and meaning... Even where unwarranted.
 
Scott_650 said:
Quite frankly I’m on the same page as several movie critics who’ve said you could cut out all the monster stuff, substitute some other catastrophe - tsunami, earthquake, etc… - and still have an awesome film. But since it is a giant monster movie we get a giant monster. And he’s a good one - a terrifying, implacable, nigh unstoppable force of nature version of Godzilla who’s goal is, evidently, just stomping Tokyo flat.

I found this interesting:

The idea of a force of nature that has a goal is interesting. Real forces of nature, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc., don't have goals; if one of them "stomps" you favorite city flat, it's with no ill intent. I haven't seen this movie, so I'm only speaking generally, but it seems obvious that changing the source of destruction from a monster to a tsunami would have to change the character of this or any movie, by changing from a destroyer with volition to one without.

Is it some characteristic of psychology that we want to imbue disasters with intent? Because we want someone or something to blame for the bad things that happen? Even in many disaster movies, where the destroyer is a natural, undirected, non-volitional phenomenon, there's often someone to blame for making it worse that it might have been, such as the crooked builder to didn't follow building codes and made the giant sky scraper vulnerable to a disaster it would otherwise have survived.

OK, that's the end of my daily random thought, and my yearly musing on the intersection of phycology and art.

I’ll admit that I misspoke by using the word “goal” - there’s no explicit reason given for why Godzilla wreaks havoc on Japan, there’s not even really any thing in the movie implicit about why. Of course Godzilla has been used as a metaphor for atomic weapons, or US military might, or the Fukushima nuclear disaster…

What I was trying (and evidently not doing a very well) was to say is that the human part of the movie is so good that you could’ve clipped out the monster stuff and still had a great movie - for a lot of Godzilla fans the “people” parts of the movies are just sort of tolerated while waiting for the monster stuff.

FYI, the distributor for G-1 has pushed the release period another week and expanded the number of theaters - find the biggest screen and best sound system available (I didn’t get into the sound design or the the production design or the costuming - all of which are top-notch, especially the sound design!) and see this…
 
Last edited:
This guy is usually spot on.



Be aware, The Critical Drinker’s opinions are definitely strong ones, his viewpoint is distinctly that of someone who deems Western culture preferably to most alternatives, plus he doesn’t have much patience for postmodernism or sacrificing story, dialogue or dramatic tension just to transmit what he calls “The Message”. And his schtick of an inebriated Scotsman - which I find rather funny and clever - isn’t everyone’s plate of haggis. Oh, and his language tends to be a bit salty.

I rarely find myself contrary to his overall viewpoint - other than his affection for Verhoeven’s execrable perversion of Heinlein’s “ Starship Troopers” - he’s most certainly not what some would include in the current category of “progressive”.
 
there’s no explicit reason given for why Godzilla wreaks havoc on Japan, there’s not even really any thing in the movie implicit about why.

When he's first introduced, he's not automatically hostile. He seems a bit curious about the humans. That is, until they start shooting at him. Then he becomes enraged — not just trying to stop the attacks, but vindictively going after everyone on the base. Later, he gets caught in the blast of a nuclear test, which mutates him grotesquely and covers him in what look like radiation burns. At this point he's pissed and ready to go after any and all humans. I'm not sure why Tokyo... closest giant metropolis, perhaps? But along the way he took any opportunity that presented to destroy ships regardless of who or what.

So I think his motivation was pretty clear. 😁

(The point remains, though, that the non-Godzilla parts are a good movie in and of themselves. It wouldn't take a lot of rewriting to make it work with a different threat, even one that's nonsentient and has no motivation.)
 
Last edited:
(Warning: May have a small spoiler.)

So I had this realization the other day. Maybe Godzilla represented the U.S.?
  • In this movie, the main character was too afraid to attack a U.S. ship as well as Godzilla and is subsequently blamed for deaths resulting from both.
  • Japan is later surprised by an attack so immense and devastating that it was beyond their belief and understanding. Entire city areas are destroyed quickly and there was an atomic component.
  • The original movies later changes Godzilla (U.S.) from an enemy attacker to a protector. (For Minus One, this is mirroring the original movie where Godzilla was an enemy destroyer before later films made him a protector.)
  • Japan's WWII actions "awoke a sleeping giant"
Thoughts?
 
(Warning: May have a small spoiler.)

So I had this realization the other day. Maybe Godzilla represented the U.S.?
  • In this movie, the main character was too afraid to attack a U.S. ship as well as Godzilla and is subsequently blamed for deaths resulting from both.
  • Japan is later surprised by an attack so immense and devastating that it was beyond their belief and understanding. Entire city areas are destroyed quickly and there was an atomic component.
  • The original movies later changes Godzilla (U.S.) from an enemy attacker to a protector. (For Minus One, this is mirroring the original movie where Godzilla was an enemy destroyer before later films made him a protector.)
  • Japan's WWII actions "awoke a sleeping giant"
Thoughts?

Godzilla as a metaphor for Japan’s guilt/culpability over/for the catastrophe of WWII? Sounds as good as any other theory and fits the tone of the movie. G-1 is definitely anti-Japanese government - especially the immediate pre- and post-war governments.

But not to get too deep in the weeds, for me this movie is complete unto itself - no analysis of the subtext or deconstruction necessary to enjoy a cracking yarn about a really big atomic lizard! 😎
 
Yawn. Remakes are rarely as good as the original.
True, but this one was surprisingly good. I thought the original was fantastic and the others that followed, while entertaining, were pretty poor when it came to real drama and storyline.

This new movie fixes the mistake of all the ones since the original.

Embarrassingly it's the first Godzilla movie which made me cry. 🥲
 
True, but this one was surprisingly good. I thought the original was fantastic and the others that followed, while entertaining, were pretty poor when it came to real drama and storyline.

This new movie fixes the mistake of all the ones since the original.

Embarrassingly it's the first Godzilla movie which made me cry. 🥲
I might watch it once it is out on iTunes.
 
Chiming in with an enthusiastic thumbs-up for “Godzilla Minus One.” I thoroughly enjoyed the entire thing, especially the early set piece on the wooden boat that is clear homage to “Jaws,” as well as the Kyushu Shinden that is an obvious stand-in for an X-Wing Fighter.
 
Yawn. Remakes are rarely as good as the original.
I wouldn’t exactly call G-1 a remake, it’s closer to being one than Shin Godzilla is, I’d call both of those movies reimaginings more than remakes. And not every remake is inferior to the original - The Maltese Falcon being the one that comes to mind quickest, the Huston/Bogart version is much, much better than either the original or the first remake. I’d say the 1959 Ben Hur is overall better than the 1925 version, except maybe the chariot race scene. DeMille did like to remake his own movies - both The 10 Commandments and The Buccaneer were remade in the 50s from 1920s and 30s originals. Were they better or just more entertaining? Definitely longer with plenty of Technicolor spectacle.

There’s a fair number of remakes that are at least as good as the originals, with a decent percentage that are better: 1937 version of The Awful Truth, the remake of The Fly (though it’s a very different movie, so maybe not better - definitely ickier), The 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers is easily as good as the original though personally I prefer the original, the 1954 and 1976 musical versions of A Star is Born are both better than the 1937 version, both versions of The Thing are classics, though like the The Fly both very different from the other, the 1979 version of The Champ is an improvement over the Wallace Beery original, The Front Page has been remade several times with His Girl Friday being the best version, the 1953 House of Wax is better than The Mystery of the Wax Museum but Vincent Price generally made any movie he was in better. I’d say it’s a tie between High Sierra and Colorado Territory but I have a thing for Virginia Mayo, not that Ida Lupino wasn’t amazing too. And the very much underrated Joel McCrae is a big plus - tough to beat Bogie though.

But you’re right for the most part, remakes are typically pale imitations or watered down from the originals - but not always. Like Godzilla Minus One - it’s at least as good as the original and much better than the current Monsterverse versions (though I enjoyed those too and will watch Godzilla X Kong).
 
Minus 1 Was really, really good. The movie's pretty clearly taking to task Imperial Japan's propaganda; it's a direct refutation of that mindset. It maintains the themes of the utterly excellent Shin Godzilla, but where Shin Godzilla was "we can't be dependent on America to solve our problems" (makes sense, considering the Fukushima context), and moves to "in order to build ourselves up, we must work together." So there's an interesting thematic progression happening in these movies.

It's impressively shot and directed for a movie with a $15 million budget--meaning it was cheaper than a single episode of, say, The Continental (but hey, that show has more needle drops than an exploding needle factory), but it looks way, way better. Honestly, I think Minus One is the best Godzilla movie there's ever been. Huge props to the Kyushu J7W1 appearance, though it was really funny that the translators translated Kyushu instead of realizing that's the name of the company, which is named after the location.

It's not a remake though, and it's not a reboot (it's not establishing a new franchise direction), it's more like Mad Max--a mythic text that uses Godzilla the way that George Miller uses Mad Max. None of those stories actually make sense in a linear timeline. They're using the character of Godzilla to explore different concepts; Godzilla was Japan dealing with nuclear destruction, Shin Godzilla was about Fukushima, and Minus One looks to be exploring "how do we rebuild?"

Yamazaki's covered Kamikaze pilots before with The Eternal Zero, another film with similar politics. That drew criticism from just about everybody--some claimed it glorified Kamikaze pilots, others claimed it was fabricated history, others were angry it criticized the Imperial Japanese military. Yamazaki is clearly repeating those politics here: war is bad, war is awful, war transforms us into our worst selves. We are human and fragile and the only way we can thrive is by doing our best to work with each other. Godzilla Minus one relentlessly hammers home that idea--the entire community has to raise a child who isn't even theirs, for instance. I appreciated the thematic coherency of it.

We're watching a man who is desperate to prove he matters and he has to be disabused of the notion that he doesn't matter because he wouldn't commit explosive suicide for a failing imperial regime. Over the film, he is built up as he connects (or reconnects) with other human beings. There's a really nice, clean structure to it. It's not messy.

I don't think this movie would be nearly as good with any other kind of disaster--the guy needs a rival to go up against, right? "You! I watched you kill my friends! Now I'm gonna face you!" Can't get that with, say, a Tsunami. No other disaster is something you'd face down in a suicidal plane crash. But Godzilla? Oh yeah, I can definitely see how a man would want to fly a plane down his throat, especially to reclaim the sense of pride he felt he'd thrown away. Godzilla gives him another chance to die, and he rejects it. I really loved the character arc.

I really, really liked it. It hit me hard, and I can't stop thinking about it.

Also yeah @KenECoyote it got me in tears a few times too ;)

(I make stories for a living, I love talking about them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top