Movies – Page 35 – Colin McMahon

Godzilla's Worst Villain: Ebirah (Also Known as the Sea Monster)

Posted on May 8, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Anyone out there who knows me can tell you: I’m a Godzilla fan. There have already been a couple of posts on this site about the King of the Monsters and, with the upcoming release of the new movie (and to celebrate the 60th anniversary) there will be quite a few Godzilla-related posts in the coming weeks. I will do my best to not get totally consumed and post additional articles but… no promises. Anyhoo here we go with the first post, focusing on what might be the lamest of Godzilla’s foes.

Ladies and gentlemen: Ebirah. It looks goofy because it is.

Let the record show: I do not think there really is a bad Godzilla monster. Each is classic in its own way. Ebirah (pronounced Eb-E-ra, go ahead and scream it, you’ll sound so cool) may be a giant lobster but works in Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster. Overall, he (or she… who knows what Ebirah’s gender is – let’s go with he) is only lame in concept. This is a creation that never had any hope of beating Godzilla. A giant lobster, seriously? He can’t shoot fire, he can’t fly… he isn’t even that big when compared to Godzilla. None of that stopped Ebirah from being the main villain in Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster.

So how did this happen? Did Toho just get lazy with monster creation? Were two producers out to dinner and one was like “this lobster shell is really tough to crack” and the other responded with “you’re a genius!”? The answer is actually an interesting (and unbelievably geeky) piece of monster movie trivia. Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster did not start out as a Godzilla movie. That’s right, the King of the Monsters was actually one of the last pieces added to the script. The film’s original title was Operation Robinson Crusoe: King Kong vs. Ebirah. That’s right… take a moment to enjoy that title, that really is a wonderfully cheesy title.

Cause this would have been so less silly.

Japanese film company Toho began the project with western film studio Rankin-Bass. Needless to say, there was a (temporary) falling out between the two companies and Rankin-Bass withdrew the rights to King Kong. Toho then had to scramble to find a new leading monster. Lucky for them, they were Toho and had access to what is probably the largest lineup of famous giant monsters EVER, with the obvious highlight being Godzilla.

So Ebirah, who was initially just supposed to be beaten by a giant ape, had to instead battle a hundred-and-fifty foot, radioactive, fire-breathing monster. Ebirah remained simply… a very large lobster. The fight unfolds much the way that would be expected. Granted, Godzilla battles in a very King-King-like way initially (he picks up rocks and throws them at Ebirah, instead of simply just blasting him with fire). It’s comical in a way that matches the very light nature of the film (this is one of the funnest Godzilla movies in my opinion). The fight ultimately ends with Godzilla doing what he does:

But man, Ebirah splashed him… don’t know how Godzilla will survive that.

And Ebirah is defeated for the time being. The two fight again and this time Godzilla rips off both of Ebirah’s claws, thus defeating the giant lobster for good. BUT, Ebirah was not done as a Godzilla villain. He would return in (stock footage only) Godzilla’s Revenge (there will be a post on this movie… it is a thing) and again in Godzilla: Final Wars.

While not an actual shot from the movie... I feel this fits the tone. — While not an actual shot from the movie… I feel this fits the tone.

In Godzilla: Final Wars, Ebirah would gain the dubious honor of being one of the few (if not the only) monster to be soundly beaten by the military. Yeah, such a mighty monster he is… I hope that next they conquer him with a giant pot and some butter. Ebirah does survive the encounter, only to be killed by Godzilla later in the movie.

Ebirah received a shiny new look for Final Wars. — Ebirah received a shiny new look for *Final Wars*.

In terms of laziness, Ebirah isn’t the only “giant something” that Godzilla fought. There was Kumonga (giant spider), kamacuras (giant praying mantis), manda (giant snake), and most famously Mothra (three guesses what Mothra is). The two giant insects appeared in the same movie (Son of Godzilla) and represent a cool idea – insects are terrifying but tiny after all. Manda and Godzilla never directly fought, Manda is always kind of just there. Mothra… well Mothra has magical Moth-god powers… don’t ask. Ebirah got central billing… he was the main new attraction in Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster. A giant lobster… yeah.

Silly Things Written on the Internet or Frozen is NOT About Gay Marriage (Sorry)

Posted on May 7, 2014 by Colin McMahon

The internet really is a wonderful place. It is an actual fact that, with the internet, all the knowledge in the world is at your fingertips (what does that say about you being here?). People use the internet for a variety of reasons: knowledge, pleasure, and voice being among the top three. In this article, I will focus on the third: voice. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that is a fact. That said, not every opinion is valid, and no – acting on non-valid opinions is not okay (e.g. – let’s say a father decides his kids shouldn’t eat more than once a week, that is his opinion and he is a monster). There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas or talking things out, it is how the mind stays active.
All of that said: I think that this article is pretty silly, and not well-thought out at all. For the record, I do not think that Willie Muse is a stupid person or an idiot in any way… but there are a few flaws in his argument. For those out there too lazy to click on the link, first off: really? Second, Muse is arguing that last year’s Disney film, Frozen, is an allegory supporting gay marriage. His argument hinges on three parts: 1) Elsa Represents Gay People; 2)The Film Shows Flaws of Traditional Marriage; 3)Alternate Family Structures (are) Very Favorably Presented. Three points… let me rebuttal.

1) I will acknowledge that there are certain parallels between Elsa and a repressed gay adolescent. That said, note how I had to use the adjective ‘repressed’ to make the comparison work? If that gay adolescent grows up in an open and accepting household, then this whole comparison goes out the window. Generally, if one detail dislodges an argument: it’s not a great argument. Ignoring Elsa’s repression to say “that’s what being gay is like” can be insulting to all the other forms of repression that are out there. By the logic used, I can also say that Remy from Ratatouille represents gay people. I suppose he kinda does……. Maybe? That would ignore the much larger message though in favor of a smaller perspective. Remy, for instance, is dealing with issues of identity not connected to sexuality but rather with artistic freedom vs. social expectation. People are much more complicated than just their sexuality but to diminish Elsa’s real problem is too miss a good chunk of the movie: ELSA HAS ABUSIVE PARENTS. Seriously, she is living with people who (while not being evil) are incapable of accepting Elsa for who she is. Elsa could represent any child was is abused for being different (whether that difference is sexual, medical, religious, or countless others). Elsa could be a representation of someone with severe anxiety issues who is afraid to leave her home or be herself around anyone until one day she just LETS IT GO and realizes that living paralyzed with fear isn’t a way to live… wait. See, while saying that Elsa represents gay people isn’t the most ridiculous thing, it isn’t a great building block for a strong argument.

You don't have to be gay to suffer through repression and anxiety about who you are. — You don’t have to be gay to suffer through repression and anxiety about who you are.

2) NO. This is the one I take the most issue with. Prince Hans and Anna do not represent “traditional marriage” at all. They represent the fairy tale notion of one-look true-love destined to be together trope of a large portion of folklore (and early Disney animated features). The only “traditional” element of this relationship is that it involves a man and a woman. Also, while it is true that, in medieval times, marriage was often a political move, Hans does take it a couple steps past political takeover and into full-blown-I-Would-Run-Over-Your-Dog-Too-If-I-Could evil mode (I’ve already written about this in an earlier post). So the film really isn’t showing the flaws of traditional marriage, it is showcasing the obvious flaw of fairy tale marriages: namely don’t marry someone you just met (DUH). For the record, it would be much more like a “traditional marriage” if Hans and Anna were being forced into it (similar to the plot of Brave) but, just the fact that it is Anna’s choice… women didn’t make choices like that back then.

Man, the Lion King has some real bad things to say about "traditional" uncle-nephew relationships. — Man, *the Lion King* has some real bad things to say about “traditional” uncle-nephew relationships.

3) I don’t really feel that the trolls are an alternate family structure. They are not Kristoff’s real parents, sure, but that only makes them his ADOPTIVE parents. While I’m no expert on troll physiology (nor do I want to be), there appear to be male and female trolls present in the group. Grandparents, parents, kids: all age tiers are present. Looks like one giant, loving family all living together. Is it superior to Elsa’s and Anna’s parents: absolutely. Funny how having love and supportiveness in a family dynamic will do that. Yeah though, how are they really different from Aunt May and Uncle Ben in the Spider-Man universe? Just because parents adopt children doesn’t make it “an alternate family structure.” If anything (and I acknowledge this is a stretch), the argument could be made that Anna, Elsa, and Olaf represent the alternate family structure… and don’t show it favorably. Two women (sisters no less) bringing life to a snowman through some form of “unnatural” magic, and the resulting creation has no social awareness and just wishes (unconsciously) for quick death at the change of seasons. For the record, I don’t think this is a serious message to be taken from the movie, I’m just saying it to make a point.

Look at how confused he is! This is what happens when a snowman has two mommies!

Frozen has received a lot of attention, maybe more than it deserves. There can be no question, however, that it is a culturally significant film. A lot of analysis has been, and will be applied to this movie. Some of it will be really insightful and shed lead on why this film had the impact that it did. Some of it… will just be silly.

All joking aside, I may be crazy to say that Frozen is a movie about the power of family love and acceptance and the relationship of two sisters. I could be crazy for thinking this. — All joking aside, I may be crazy to say that *Frozen* is a movie about the power of love and acceptance, and the relationship of two sisters. I could be crazy for thinking this.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is Part Movie, Part "Sinister" Marketing Campaign

Posted on May 5, 2014 by Colin McMahon

When the Amazing Spider-Man came out in 2012, the Amazing Spider-Man 2 had already been announced. More than that, the film was already several months into development. This behind-the-scenes action translated into in-film foreshadowing. The Amazing Spider-Man featured several dangling plot threads, including the shadow-y operations of OsCorp Industries and the mysterious fate of Peter Parker’s parents. Well, when doing a sequel: everything must get bigger. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 returns to the story of Peter Parker (a.k.a. – spoiler alert – the Amazing Spider-Man) and, sadly, escalates the amount of unknown. Something big is coming for Peter Parker, as even the tagline stated: “his greatest battle begins.” Unfortunately, anyone hoping to see that “greatest battle” resolved will have to buy another ticket… or two… or three.

Look to be fair, never says that it's going to end. — Look to be fair, never says that it’s going to end.

Yes, there isn’t a whole lot of character resolution that takes place in the Amazing Spider-Man 2. The script is invaded by characters and scenes dedicated to setting up what Sony seems to think could be their own version of the Avengers: the Sinister Six. This is a bold move by the company, who feels that the Sinister Six is a billion-dollar blockbuster idea. Personally, I am not sure where this confidence is coming from. I do not believe that anyone, ANYONE out there is screaming for a Sinister Six movie. So it will be a tough sell, good thing the Amazing Spider-Man 2 made Harry Osborn into such a compelling character… wait.
The Avengers was able to succeed largely in thanks to its set up films. Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man 2 all set up the characters and the story for the epic crossover. The Sinister Six will not have this luxury. It has received the only set-up film it will receive: the Amazing Spider-Man 2. The problem is that the set-up was not done well. For those reading who have not seen the Amazing Spider-Man 2: the following will spoil the movie.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is (too) full of new characters. One of them is Harry Osborn. Anyone who has seen the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spider-Man movies already knows who this is: childhood friend of Peter Parker and future Green Goblin. Harry enters the movie only to learn that he is dying of the same disease that killed his father, Norman Osborn (not a Green Goblin in this universe). While Norman’s disease took sixty years to kill him, Harry’s is acting faster… I think. The movie never has time to tell us this, Harry simply starts acting like he only has days left to live. So either Harry is the most impatient man alive (removing all possibility of sympathy in his fall) or there is information that the audience does not know… or maybe the screenwriters forgot about.

While Norman's scene introduces the danger of the disease, it does nothing to create a sense or urgency. He's not super old, but he's not young either. Really they just wanted a scene with Chris Cooper. — While Norman’s scene introduces the danger of the disease, it does nothing to create a sense of urgency. He’s not super old, but he’s not young either. Really they just wanted a scene with Chris Cooper.

Anyway, Harry goes kind of insane trying to keep himself alive. He frees Electro (another insane villain, guess what his power is?) to help access the secret super spider VENOM (yes, there is another movie coming) to stop his disease and save his life. How does something called Venom help save lives… good question. Just go with it. Of course, Harry doesn’t know that the Venom is coded to Parker DNA (keep going with it), meaning that the wonderful things that happened to Spider-Man aren’t going to happen to him. Instead, the Venom heals Harry but turns him into a physical goblin… I’m not kidding.

His hair spikes out, his teeth become fangs, his ears get pointy, and his nose goes crooked. This is the most dramatic drug ever created apparently. Harry staggers into the remarkably close Goblin armor (OsCorp believes in keeping all of its most villainous creations within arm’s reach of one another – the better to foreshadow with), somehow knows how to work it, and flies off to battle Spider-Man. Problem: All of this transformation happens in the last forty minutes of the movie while Jamie Foxx’s Electro is terrorizing the city, Peter and Gwen are salvaging their relationship, Aunt May is trying to keep people alive at a hospital, and an airport is trying to stop two planes from colliding… there is TOO MUCH going on in this movie.
The result is that an iconic sequence from the Spider-Man universe, the death of Gwen Stacy, feels like a tacked on afterthought instead of the film’s climax. Everything is naturally building toward Spider-Man’s battle with Electro (which looks very cool in IMAX by the way – the film does succeed at being a spectacle). When the Green Goblin arrives (seconds) after Electro is defeated, it just feels dragged out. Poor Spidey can’t catch a break. Defeat one villain and the next just kills his girlfriend. There is NO emotional fallout from this, by the way.

The death of Gwen Stacy is one of the most emotional moments in superhero comics. Note: the comic's dialogue is better than the film's. — The death of Gwen Stacy is one of the most emotional moments in superhero comics. Note: the comic’s dialogue is better than the film’s.

Sure, Peter Parker cries but that’s it. No confrontation with Harry follows, no explanation for Harry’s motivations (beyond boring insanity) provided. Considering how the bulk of the film has centered on Peter’s relationships (Gwen and, to a lesser extent, Harry), this is a major letdown. I read that some of this lackluster ending is due to ratings concerns and that initially, Peter and Harry were going to have a very brutal confrontation after the murder of Gwen Stacy. It is unfortunate that box office demands (PG-13 is always more profitable than R) holds back the story.
So, what happens to Harry? As I already said, there is no resolution with Peter. I would imagine they’re probably not besties anymore so there’s that. Harry is locked up, only to be visited by someone looking to help him recruit others for, you guessed it, the Sinister Six. No, let’s not devote time to Peter grieving for Gwen: Emma Stone isn’t as valuable as blockbuster dollars. Seems kind of strange to build a team around a crazy person (especially one so generically insane) but that is Sony’s plan. They better hope that they have a cast with some big names because Dane DeHaan is not nearly as big a draw as say Robert Downey Jr.

Love him or hate him, Dane Dehaan is currently not an A-list actor.

Films can lead into other films. Movies like Thor and Iron Man do it well. They contain teasers but don’t sacrifice their own story for them. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 plays much more like Iron Man 2: both films had tie-ins punch their way into the script, with all the subtly that implies. Sony better hope that they read the market right. The Sinister Six better be worth it.

The screen chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was one of the highlights of the new movie. She will not be easy to replace. — The screen chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was one of the highlights of the new movies. She will not be easy to replace.