Curse Of An Internet Troll

There is of course the sort of spammer I mentioned in my last post: the mass email spamming waste of space passing off a sob story (badly) as a legitimate front for their scam. They're good for ridicule, but not much else. And then there's another kind of spammer. The sort who leaves inane, pointless comments in a post. More often then not it's just spamming their own website. Easily gotten rid of. Just banished to the netherworld limbo of spam comments where they belong.

But then there's a particularly vile sort of spammer, leaving comments that are on a level all their own. Since Covid started there's been someone (or someones) out there leaving the same copy and paste sort of comment, sometimes here or on my photoblog. One such comment was left in the last post and swiftly banished to spam comment limbo. The same person, always anonymous with no website to go back to, has left that very same comment from time to time on other blogs I follow. You've probably seen them before the blog author has a chance to delete them. Here's the comment from this internet troll, quoted verbatim, from before I sent it off to spam comment purgatory, left here in the last post. Apologies in advance, as I'll be using some coarse language in reply, but then again, he deserves it.

i can't wait for the vaccines to kill off the boomers. There have been a shitload of deaths, at least 200,000 so far, related to the vaccines. Obviously the media isn't gonna talk about this. You boomers wanted to destroy your own children's future, well guess what, YOU are the ones being destroyed now. Boomers are living in terror and horror now, and this is their karma for ruining their own children and grand children's lives and futures. And even if the vaccine doesn't get you, the doctors are openly calling everything "covid19" now and ramming tubes down boomer's throats and putting them on death machines known as "ventilators". Either way, you boomers are fucked. You are the most evil generation to ever exist. You get what you deserve, boomer scum!

Ah, yes. This is routine for this 'person'. I put person in quotations, because as far as a human being goes, this extremely enraged jackass is a pretty lousy excuse for one. They do say you shouldn't feed an internet troll.... but I can't resist. I see someone this stupid, and I just have to slap them upside the head. So where do I begin? 

First off, by saying I'm not a boomer. I'm part of Generation X. 

That's right, dumbass. When you mass copy and paste the exact same comment into countless blogs whose authors aren't interested in your anger... you might want to consider that not everyone you're spamming is in the age category you've got such a grudge against.

And it is quite a grudge. Look, I get it. You're frustrated, and you want to take it out on the Baby Boomers. Fine.  You could do so constructively on your own blog (which doesn't exist, because you're a coward too afraid to actually comment as anything but Anonymous). You could make an argument in a thoughtful way about boomers being self absorbed, how they've had everything handed to them, how it's so much harder now to get things done. It would be full of generalizations, half truths, and inaccuracies, but at the very least you'd be expressing your frustrations like a human being. 

As opposed to being the world's biggest crybaby.

No, that's what you are and what you do. You take this whole thing we're dealing with- Covid. And you vent and you rage and you howl at the moon. You blame boomers for everything, you get on the anti-vaccination crazy train by hoping vaccines kill off all the boomers (I seem to recall that when you started this rage-storm of bullshit commentary, you were hoping Covid would kill off all the boomers), and you spout inaccuracies and conspiracy theories. You scream about boomers ruining their children and grandchildren, how they're living in horror and terror, and blather on about how doctors are calling everything Covid-19 now, and how ventilators are death machines. And somewhere in that feeble brain of yours you're saying that the boomers are fucked, that they are the most evil generation that ever existed, and they get what they deserve.

Wow. I mean, really.

Somebody needs anger management therapy.

Or to just get the shit kicked out of them on principle.

You're mad, man (and let's face it, whoever this gutless anonymous coward is, this is definitely a man). You're angry at the world, screaming and no one's hearing you. You think the world owes you, and you resent like hell that people are carrying on their lives without your say so. And so you take out your rage on baby boomers. I'll assume your parents are boomers, and maybe that's all part of it. Whatever it is, you're mad at the universe in general, and at boomers in particular.

And then there's the other thing: you're a coward.

Yes, a coward. You comment anonymously. Because you're such a pathetic, ineffectual excuse for a human being that you can't abide the thought of someone coming into your personal space and calling you out for what you are. A gutless fucking coward. That's what you are. 

And I find it hilarious that a rage-storm impending shooting spree such as yourself has the gall to talk about karma. There's good karma and bad karma. And someone so filled with such anger and hostility at the world is going to get the latter. Maybe it's about more than being angry at boomers. Maybe it's you're pissed off at the universe for the fact that you were born. But you've got a whole lot of anger inside you, and you take it out by randomly commenting the exact same load of bile, venom, and bullshit on blogs of people who don't know you, and frankly don't care one bit about you.

And you talk about karma?

Be careful what you wish for. Karma may someday soon come and treat you as you deserve. Badly.

So you've got it in for boomers. No doubt you blame them for the state of your life. After all, you've got failure written all over you, pal. It's in every word you write. Failure. 

But guess what? Boomers aren't the reason for you being a failure. The person you should blame for the clusterfuck that is your life? It's you. You're the only person to blame for the utter misery that is every single day of your life. You're the reason everyone who knows you in real life hates you. You're the reason, o hater of boomers.... that you are such a useless, worthless, vile repugnance. You're the reason why when you are no longer alive, no one who ever knew you will miss you. They'll just shrug and say good riddance.

Again: you. Just you. Nobody else but you.

Now, you can come to grips with that. Grow the fuck up, calm the fuck down, get help for that serious temper you've got, lose the conspiracy theory bullshit mindset you've got.... and start taking responsibility for your failures as a human being. 

But let's face it, that would take a level of self realization and self awareness that a fucked up jackass like yourself just doesn't have. 

So in closing, I'll leave it to this guy to sum up my opinion where you're concerned.

The Lady, The Captain, And The Thief

Some links before getting started today. Norma had some recommendations. Parsnip had a Square Dog Friday. Krisztina had tips on terrariums. And Mark had some thoughts.

Today I have a movie review.

“I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know that you know what a weak willed person I am.” ~ Phillipe

 “And know this: if you fail, I will follow you the length of my days. And I will find you.” ~ Navarre

“Are you flesh, or are you spirit?” ~ Phillipe 

“I am sorrow.” Isabeau

 “Great storms announce themselves with a single breeze, and a single random spark can ignite the fires of rebellion.” ~ Bishop of Aquila

“I’ve met the Bishop, you blasphemous lot. And you look nothing like him." ~ Imperius

“It’s me they’re after.” ~ Isabeau 

“Don’t flatter yourself.” ~ Phillipe

“Each generation is called upon to follow its own quest.” ~ Navarre 

“And what is your quest?” ~ Phillipe 

“I must kill a man.”  ~ Navarre 

“Tell me, does this walking corpse have a name?” ~ Phillipe

In 1985, director Richard Donner (Superman, Lethal Weapon) brought a fantasy tale to the big screen, an adventure movie with a fairy tale romantic streak called Ladyhawke. The film stars Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeiffer as tragic lovers, and Matthew Broderick as the young thief who crosses their paths in a Europe of the 12^th century. Filmed in Italy, it has gained a loyal following in the years since, and happens to be a film I enjoy each time I see it.

We first meet Phillipe “The Mouse” Gaston (Broderick) as he’s breaking his way out of the dungeons of the fortified city of Aquila. The thief is escaping a death sentence, and is given to long conversations with God during and after his escape. The Bishop of Aquila (John Wood), a cruel, corrupt, and evil man, angry at the fact that someone has done the impossible and escaped his dungeons, sends his captain of the guard, Marquet (Ken Hutchison) in pursuit of the thief.

Phillipe has gotten away into the countryside, pursued by Marquet and his men, and a chance encounter leads to salvation by a mystery man with ties to Aquila, Etienne Navarre (Hauer). Upon learning that Phillipe has successfully escaped from Aquila, Navarre seeks his help- he has a grudge against the Bishop, and wants to settle scores. Phillipe is drawn into Navarre’s quest, which brings him into contact with a woman named Isabeau d’Anjou (Pfeiffer). Phillipe quickly learns that both of them share secrets, as well as a curse brought upon them.

The story was written by Edward Khmara, who shares credits for the screenplay with Tom Mankiewicz, Michael Thomas, and David Peoples. The screenplay moves things along briskly- though at times the dialogue feels too contemporary, lacking perhaps the formality one might expect of the era. Donner had been attached for years as director before the go ahead for filming was made, and at one point, Kurt Russell had been cast as Navarre, while the role of the thief had been offered to Sean Penn and Dustin Hoffmann (both final cast choices were much the better). 

Donner made good use of the Italian countryside for filming locations, including fortress ruins, castles, and a village that stood in nicely for the medieval town of the Bishop. The effect over all does feel like a story playing out in the past- albeit a fantasy story. Sets and costuming have that same sensibility to it- much of what we see as the film goes along looks appropriate to the era, from clothing to weapons. Special effects are minimal, and where they’re used, in terms of transformation, so to speak, the method is to glimpse and suggest, which works well. Donner, whose work as a director crosses many genres, handled all of these details well, presenting an appealing fantasy that really does have the feel of a fairy tale.

Alfred Molina, the character actor whose career really took off in later years, has a brief role as Cezar, a hunter employed by the Bishop, but like his brief turn some years earlier in Raiders of the Lost Ark as the treacherous Satipo, it’s a memorable one. The character comes across as brutal and thoroughly dangerous, really more savage than anything else, and not very talkative. 

It’s an interesting counterpart to Hutchison’s take as Marquet. The character is relentless and vicious by nature, at times like an angry dog chafing at the leash, at others more disciplined. There’s a pettiness and vindictiveness in the man- he’s aware that his men, who were once commanded by Navarre, hold their former captain with more respect than they do him. And he acts out on that, on occasion more like a child throwing a tantrum. If Marquet is more civilized than Cezar, the two characters are nonetheless both formidable antagonists.

John Wood is another character actor who had been in a multitude of roles on stage and screen throughout his career- including a sympathetic turn opposite Matthew Broderick in the sci-fi thriller War Games two years before Ladyhawke. My favourite role for the actor was as the chauffeur and father in the 1995 remake Sabrina, a kind and decent fellow who is the opposite of the man he plays here. The Bishop might present himself as a righteous man, but right beneath the surface is a hedonistic, cruel, evil monster. Wood plays to that, and the character’s sinister obsessiveness boils within his performance. The Bishop is a compelling villain, full of darkness, and Wood makes him that way.

The character actor Leo McKern plays the old priest Imperius. When we first meet him, the character’s a coarse drunk in a ruined old monastery, drinking himself to death and not even sure if it’s Lent. He’s connected to Navarre and Isabeau, having had been their confessor in the past, and he blames himself for the curse that has befallen them- an innocent mistake led to that point. So it’s understandable that the guilt would plague him and drive him to drink- and yet when he enters the story, it’s also the route to his salvation- he comes to understand a way to set things right. Imperius is a flawed man, but a good man, the opposite of the Bishop. McKern plays to all of these elements in his performance, and even while he’s a guilt ridden character, Imperius still gets a measure of humour, particularly in his bantering interaction with the young thief.

This was one of Matthew Broderick’s earlier roles, though he’d been on stage, television, and the big screen starting in the early eighties. The following year would see him play the lead in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, so it’s interesting seeing him at this point in his career, right before things took off. His role as Phillipe gives the audience its point of view character. Phillipe is a wisecracking thief, resourceful in his own way, irreverent and incorrigible, and much of the humour of the film comes from him. He’s given to talk to God regularly- albeit in that same irreverent manner, and is reluctantly drawn into coming to the aid of others, stepping beyond his usual being out for himself mindset. Broderick brings a brisk energy to the role, and we get to like Phillipe pretty quickly, even when he’s breaking the law.

This was an early role for Michelle Pfeiffer, who brings such a presence into the role. Isabeau is ethereal as a character, an enchanting and enigmatic woman when we first meet her. There’s sorrow too- the curse she’s been put under leaves her that way, regretting all that she’s lost, doubting it can ever be lifted. And yet she’s not all sorrow- her memories sustain her and give her a measure of happiness, and as the film moves along her resolve builds to bring things to an end. As ethereal as Isabeau is, there’s strength and conviction in her as well. Though she doesn’t share a lot of screentime with Hauer (at least not directly), we completely accept their relationship, that these characters have got a lot of history and love- it’s obvious in the way they speak of each other.

Rutger Hauer was an ideal choice as Navarre- I find myself wondering what it would have been like had Russell decided to stay with the project, and Hauer had initially in fact been meant to play Marquet. The character’s a dangerous man, capable of handling himself in a fight, even with numerous opponents, when he first appears in the story. He conveys strength and resolve throughout the film, as well as tightly contained anger at times. Much of that is directed where it should be- at the Bishop who brought down the curse upon himself and Isabeau- but some of that is for Imperius, and part of the character’s growth involves letting go of his anger towards the old priest. Navarre is a man who is quick to judgment at times, but able to apologize for mistakes. And Hauer brings the gravity to the role that it needs- we can see why, even after years in exile, the men he once commanded still respect him in a way they don’t respect his replacement. His performance as Navarre is done in just the right way; the character is compelling to watch.

Ladyhawke is a film that never gets old for me; I can watch it time and again and get caught up in the adventure and the romance of the story, while laughing at the irreverence of a young thief. Its three leading actors are well cast in their roles, and the story moves along at a brisk pace. If you haven’t seen it before, you really should.

Glory Hallelujah: Courage, Spirit, And Honor

Some links before getting started today, and I've been remiss in doing this. Norma had seven revelations and a where are they now post on one of her books. Parsnip had Easter Scotties and views from home.Cheryl had a crime blotter post. And Krisztina had carrot cake.

Now then, today, April 9th, marks the 150th anniversary of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox during the American Civil War, the end of major fighting in the Eastern Theatre of that conflict. I thought I would mark the occasion with two movie reviews of Civil War films that really appeal to me. This is the first of the two.

“Why do you treat the men this way, Robert?” ~ Cabot Forbes 

“How should I treat them?” Robert G. Shaw 

“....Like men?” ~ Cabot Forbes

“And what are you? So full of hate you want to go out and fight everybody! Because you’ve been whipped and chased by hounds. Well that might not be living, but it sure as hell ain’t dying. And dying’s what these white boys have been doing going on for three years now. Dying by the thousands. Dying for you, fool. I know, ‘cause I dug the graves. And all this time I keep asking, when, O Lord, is it gonna be our time? Gonna come a time when we have to ante up. Ante up and kick in like men. Like men!” ~ Rawlins

“See, the way I figure, I figure this war would be over a whole lot sooner if you boys just turned right on around and headed on back down that way, and you let us head on up there where the real fighting is.” ~ Trip

“There’s more to fighting than rest, sir. There’s character. There’s strength of heart. You should have seen us in action two days ago. We were a sight to see. We’ll be ready, sir. When do you want us?” ~ Robert G. Shaw

Glory has been called by some the best war movie ever made, and it is a fair comment. Director Edward Zwick (Legends Of The Fall, Courage Under Fire) brought the Civil War tale of African-American soldiers in the 54^th Massachusetts Regiment confronting racism, distrust, and the culture of the time as their commanders strove to give them the chance to get into the fight. It not only tells the story of the regiment, whose extraordinary bravery allowed for far more African-American men to enlist, but the experience of such men throughout that terrible war.

The film opens on the fields of Antietam, one of the bloodiest battles of the war, where we meet a young officer, Robert Gould Shaw (Matthew Broderick), wounded but having had survived the battle. He meets a gravedigger named Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) and returns home to recover in Massachusetts with his parents, prominent abolitionists. There he is offered command of a new regiment to be made up of freemen and escaped slaves. He accepts the command, asking his friend Cabot Forbes (Cary Elwes) to serve as his right hand man, and getting his first enlisted man, a born free well educated friend named Thomas Searles (Andre Braugher) signing up.

The regiment organizes for training. Most of the enlisted men are escaped slaves, with little education but much will to get into the fight. Rawlins is one of them. Another is a man named Trip (Denzel Washington), a bitterly angry man aching to take the fight to the people who held him and his family as slaves. As training gets underway and the men start to come together as a regiment, they find themselves dealing with life in the military, being treated unfairly or neglected because of officers elsewhere along the line, and their own expectations of what is to come. Shaw and his officers must handle their grievances, balancing the needs of the men and realistic expectations of how they’ll be used. As time goes on, the regiment finds themselves finally drawn into battle in the deep South, at a place where they will meet history.

The screenplay comes from Kevin Jarre, based on the letters by Shaw to his family and friends back home, as well as two books on the 54^th. It does make use of composite characters- Trip, Rawlins, Forbes, and Searles are all composites, as opposed to historical figures, but these are based in the sort of men who made up these regiments, both enlisted and officers. The story in the film relates to the overall experience of black soldiers in that war just as much as it tells the tale of the regiment- the obstacles they faced, the prejudices, the reasons these men went to war. Jarre wove that all into the screenplay; while the point of view character might be Shaw the historical figure, his story is interwoven so strongly with the men, and the enlisted men are rendered with depth and complexity throughout.

Zwick certainly has a gift for directing films with strong characterization and yet also managing the ferocity of the battlefield, and both elements of that are in play here. Much of the filming was done on location, with strong attention to detail in terms of period uniforms and clothing, equipment, and settings. Zwick hired on the writer and historian Shelby Foote as a consultant, a wise move, as his thorough knowledge of the war and the times comes through in the storytelling. Throughout the film we feel like we’ve stepped back in time and are walking unseen among these people in this time, silent witnesses to a pivotal period in history. That comes down to the sheer amount of attention to detail by Zwick and his crew.

The cinematography is amazing- it won Oscars for that and for sound, scoring nominations in other technical categories and a win for Best Supporting Oscar. The climactic charge at Fort Wagner, a tactical failure that nonetheless had a huge impact on history to follow, is rendered in an apocalyptic, brutal way that leaves one feeling as if you were there. As terrifying as it is- and we can imagine it must have been to the real soldiers- it also leaves one with a respect for the fact that not one of them let the fear control them. Lastly, the score by James Horner- accompanied by choir on frequent occasions- is his very best, a majestic and dignified score that perfectly fits into the movie.

The casting of the film is brilliant. Andre Braugher, who would go on to regular film and television appearances after, and would create one of the best roles in television history in the form of Frank Pembleton on Homicide Life On The Street, gets an outstanding role as Thomas Searles. Thomas is an outsider in the story; when we first meet him, this is a civilian, an articulate, well educated man who’s been friends with Shaw and Forbes for years. He’s been free his entire life, is involved in the abolitionist movement, and is thoughtful and principled. He jumps into military life without really thinking it through, and finds himself isolated. The rules of military structure mean that he can’t freely socialize with the officers he’s known as friends, but his well educated status also isolates him from the other men in the regiment, particularly Trip, who seems to despise him. Braugher has to bring these qualities to the role, and he does so splendidly, the character very gradually coming into his own. It’s a great performance from a great actor.

Cary Elwes gets one of his finest roles as the cynical officer Forbes. He’s not overly ambitious, seems to not take things seriously when we first meet him, including his own abilities as an officer. He’s wary of the notion of accepting the job, and seems to do it more because his friend is asking. And yet as the film goes on, and the stakes get higher, including a Southern proclamation that white officers commanding such a Union regiment will be treated just as harshly as the men, Forbes shows his loyalties to the men and a commitment to the cause, acting much more decisively and with dedication than when we first meet him.

Morgan Freeman had already been acting for many years, but this film, along with Driving Miss Daisy, really started getting him noticed as an actor, and he never looked back afterwards. There is a patient wisdom in his role as Rawlins, a man who yearns for freedom and justice. He has a background as an escaped slave, seeks a world where things can be set right. He’s better tempered than some of the men around him, particularly Trip, but beneath that is a man who sees the horrors of slavery and racism for what they are. Rawlins is one of those men in any army who becomes the backbone of a fighting force, the reliable senior enlisted man who can keep calm under pressure. It is a compelling performance, and a character that is one of the best, if not the best, roles for Freeman through his career.

Denzel Washington won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor as Trip, and it is well deserved. It is one of his finest roles, a man of fierce defiance and absolute rage at the injustice done to his people. Trip is deeply cynical, with a huge chip on his shoulder, no respect for anyone, and an eagerness to pick a fight. He lashes out, speaks his mind, tends to alienate others, and yet as the story goes along we see his headstrong courage, his dominant will, and determination to make a difference. His lack of respect for others translates to the officers, only gradually fading away as the story goes along and he understands they have as much at stake as he does, and particularly where Thomas is concerned; there comes a moment between the two later in the film where one is convinced the two very different men might well kill each other, a moment defused by Rawlins in a way that gets Trip to reconsider his own worldview. The performance by Washington is a marvel to behold.

Broderick was ideally cast as Shaw, commanding officer of the regiment. He had already been serving in the army for awhile, facing the worst of the fighting when the command came into his orbit, so Shaw was not fresh to war. He’s an idealist, though, a man of strong principles that have been infused into him by his parents and the abolitionist circles he’s travelled in. Shaw is a man who believes in justice, and takes on a difficult assignment, confronting all of the problems that entails. It requires him to do some give and take with the men- subjecting them to the verbal abuse of an Irish drill sergeant who rightfully has to drill them into shape on the one hand, while taking their side and refusing pay when his men are not being paid the same as white men on the other. Over time, Shaw gains their respect by showing his own respect, and Broderick conveys that in how he plays the character. It’s a mature performance, tightly controlled and dignified, and Broderick brings weight and seriousness to the role. We believe him as a capable commanding officer.

Glory is a film masterpiece, both as a powerful storytelling epic and as a strong character study. It weaves between the horrors and heroics of war while telling the story of the experience of that war through the eyes of some of the unlikeliest soldiers of that conflict. What the 54^th accomplished at Fort Wagner is a testament to willpower and courage, and while a tactical defeat, it allowed for thousands of more African-American men to join the fight. Lincoln credited these men with turning the tide of the war. Glory does them credit, serving as a magnificent film paying tribute to their extraordinary story.

Revenge Of A Giant Cranky Lizard Part One

Before I get into today's mayhem, links to see to first. Norma had this post about looking at reviews for her novel, The Unicorn's Daughter. Mark writes at his page about powdered alcohol. It was Friday yesterday, and so Parsnip had Square Dog Friday.

Today then, the first of two reviews. With the new film out in theatres this weekend (review expected for Monday), I thought I'd look back at the 1998 disaster as a counterpoint.

"He's not some monster trying to evade you. He's just an animal. If you find what he wants, he'll come to you." ~ Nick

"Okay, party's over, time to leave. Anyone care to join me?" ~ Philippe

In 1998, Roland Emmerich directed the big budget American Godzilla, an over the top action thriller with the big beast from Japanese films redesigned (in a way that annoyed traditionalists) and attacking New York.  The film was savaged by critics, and despite making a healthy box office at the time, no sequel was ever made, and the film's largely considered a failure. For good reason.

The original concept of Godzilla in the Japanese franchise was a response in the post-World War Two era to the trauma of nuclear bombs. The beast was tied to nuclear testing and was a reminder of the consequences of the cataclysmic power of the atom. It spawned sequels, with the gigantic lizard often pitted against other monsters. Most of those films featured men in rubber suits stomping on tiny model cities- special effects were, to say the least, minimal at best. Emmerich and his production partner Dean Devlin wrote the script after their success with Stargate and Independence Day. 

The film opens with unexplained incidents at sea involving a mysterious force moving through the Pacific, attacking fishing trawlers and heading east. It's attracting the attention of the American military, who enlist a scientist, Niko "Nick" Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick), who's been busy studying the effects of radiation on worms around Chernobyl. He meets Colonel Hicks (Kevin Dunn), the officer assigned to oversee the search, and Elsie Chapman (Vicki Lewis), the scientist in charge of the civilian side of things. And he quickly learns that there is something very large out there, something that for its own reasons has crossed Central America and seems to be swimming for the Eastern Seaboard (the reason being that New York City is a convenient place to get totally trashed by a gigantic monster). A French spy (Jean Reno) and his team are shadowing the search. And when the cranky giant lizard finally arrives in New York, the story brings in Nick's ex girlfriend Audrey (Maria Pitillo) and a local cameraman (Hank Azaria) nicknamed Animal. What ensues is mass destruction as the beast blasts his way through town and picks fights with the military. 

Where to begin with what's wrong? Emmerich and Devlin's story a good place to start with ye olde proverbial laundry list of disasters. Logic is thrown out the window. It's overblown and silly, dedicating itself entirely to action at the cost of characterization. It lifts things without shame from much better films, like Jurassic Park and The Lost World (the baby Zillas are pretty much an attempt to capitalize on the frightening raptors of those films). It asks us to accept- as other versions have asked- that an animal this big would be walking around causing destruction, when in reality the sheer weight of the animal would collapse and destroy its lungs, killing it quickly (one of those leaps of logic). The film is something that we should be shutting off our brains while watching, but it's impossible. The inaccurate science, the stupidity of the story, and the disregard of logic make it all implausible. Godzilla is all about being over the top but having little substance. Characters are sketchily developed, leaving it in the hands of actors to make what they can of the roles; some succeed, others do not. The dialogue often comes across as juvenile. 

The whole movie feels like it's drowning at times. For some reason the whole thing needed to be soaked in rain- to the point where the audience feels like they've been in a downpour. New York is rendered as a drenched hellhole (even before Big G starts going ballistic). When the critter (and his offspring) start running wild, this should be the point where the special effects kick in and start really shining (and distracting one from the weaknesses of the plot). That doesn't happen. Godzilla is inconsistent at times, mostly seen in flashes and in dim lighting (convenient to allow special effects to render him underwhelming). At times we're supposed to guess how big he is; that's the problem with the inconsistencies. He goes about totaling the city, picking fights with military forces, and being a really bad houseguest (this happens with giant monsters). While the destruction of the city is rendered well enough (with the destruction of Madison Square Garden in particular spectacular), the inconsistency of the special effects teams in regards to the beast and the hatchling monsters hurts the film as a whole. One element of the crew that's worth mentioning, however, is composer David Arnold. This is one of those movies that comes along where the music score is the only redeeming quality of the film (it happens more often than you might think). Arnold had worked with Emmerich and Devlin on Stargate and Independence Day before, and this was his last collaboration with them. As with the earlier work, his score was richly dark, thrilling, and magnificent- worlds better than the material of the film itself. At the time, Arnold was just starting out the beginning of a long run of James Bond scores, so he came out of this successfully.

The inconsistency extends to the cast, some of whom are better than the material deserves, some... well, who are not. Vicki Lewis is one of the former. She plays Elsie with a sardonic air, something of a smart aleck and cynic. She's underused, but even so, there's something of a spark between her and Nick- I find myself often wondering why they didn't go with that angle instead for a love interest. I've seen her in other work, and like what she's capable of. Kevin Dunn's an actor who deserves better than the material in question. He also turned up in Michael Bay's Transformers series, which would rate as another bad choice, but I've seen him in other films that give him better material- such as the sympathetic political operative in Dave. He's wasted here. Michael Lerner's another actor who should have known better, an interesting character actor who has to play the obnoxious local mayor (paired with one of his aides, the two characters are a direct lookalike insult to the late critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert). Harry Shearer, a comedian who's done a lot of respected work as a cast member of The Simpsons and as part of the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap is also wasted as a lecherous local television anchor. And Doug Savant- whose acting skills I can't really comment on one way or another, since I haven't seen him in anything else- spends much of the film looking confused as a military sergeant who's pretty much in charge of things on the ground as infantry runs around the city trying to track down the big cranky lizard. 

The leads are also inconsistent. I'll start with the weaker side of things. I have not seen Maria Pitillo in anything else, so I can't comment on her qualities as an actress. I suspect, however, that the problems with her character are more of a reflection on the profound weaknesses of the script. Her Audrey is a whiny kind of daydreamer stuck in a rut, and yet also something of an opportunist willing to do something underhanded to get ahead. It's not a sympathetic character, and yet we're supposed to like her because she had a thing years ago with the lead character and neither of them quite got over it. Her colleague Victor (aka Animal) is another problem in the cast. Hank Azaria might just be playing Hank Azaria (from the other stuff I've seen him in, aside from his voice work in The Simpsons, he doesn't strike me as having much range), and he plays Victor as a sarcastic wiseass, and he comes across as pretty obnoxious. Is it that hard for a gigantic monster to stomp someone like this into paste? The other two leads are better than the material deserves. Jean Reno is a well respected French actor who, at this point in his career, had started branching out into American films as well. He plays the spy as a decisive leader, trying to fix a problem his country has inadvertently created. He's resourceful, pragmatic, and courageous, and he comes across as someone not to be trifled with. Matthew Broderick is similarly wasted in this film; he's capable of much better. He plays the role as a knowledgeable, curious fellow who follows evidence and hard data, making leaps of logic at times. He's exasperated by the fact that people keep mispronouncing his name, and more than one time in this disaster do we see Broderick with an expression that makes us wonder if he was thinking he made a mistake when he signed onto this disaster.

Godzilla, as envisioned by Emmerich and Devlin, is an exercise in stupidity that leaves the audience needing to leave their brain at the door. It's all spectacle and little substance that glosses over the deeper issues that made the original franchise relevant (otherwise who could find a guy in a rubber dinosaur suit interesting?), and wastes the talent of some good actors who should have known better. Yes, it has its moments, but generally speaking, it's a muddled mess.