By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
'Godzilla' is still 'King of the Monsters'
Godzilla 2nd.KT
A scene from Warner Bros. Pictures' and Legendary Pictures' epic action adventure "Godzilla," a Warner Bros. Pictures release. - photo by Embassy Pictures

There's a new “Godzilla” in town, and he’s stomping high-rises and squashing city parks and kicking cars in traffic jams and munching on commuter trains at a theater near you. Or at least, that’s what he’s done in previous films.
Haven’t seen it yet? Neither have I. And yet, in a way, we have.
Really, how varied is the “Godzilla” formula from movie to movie? There have been 29 or 30 “Godzilla” flicks over the past 60 years, and unless you’re a dyed-in-the-wool, tried-and-true uberfan of the big guy, can you really name that sequel if you miss the opening credits? I can’t. And I’ve seen a lot of them.
Of course, one could ask the same question about “Transformers” sequels or “Frankenstein” remakes or documentaries about bears or anything with Adam Sandler. And lately, any of the interchangeable superhero flicks.
Watching “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” last week, a strange sense of déjà vu began to wash over me, and not just because I’d seen the “Spider-Man” trilogy of a decade ago. All of that angst about absent parents and rescuing girlfriends and hiding secret identities and battling supervillains that used to be friends … comic-book movies really are getting in a rut.
And so it is, at least to some degree, with our friendly neighborhood “King of the Monsters!” — which was the hyperbolic subtitle of the first film, if you recall, complete with an exclamation point!
Despite the “Hulk smash” blueprint each film follows, however, the character itself is often shaken up. Godzilla is unsympathetic, then he’s sympathetic; he’s a killer, then a savior. And the movies’ scientists are never quite sure what he is biologically: a reptile, a dinosaur, a sea creature, a fire-breathing dragon, mythical, Darwinian?
In 1954, the Japanese black-and-white special-effects extravaganza “Gojira” (the character’s Japanese name) used Godzilla as a metaphor for nuclear warfare, just a few years after the A-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and during H-bomb testing in the Marshall Islands.
Two years later, a shortened, edited American version was released, featuring new footage that included inserts of pre-“Perry Mason” Raymond Burr as a reporter (named Steve Martin!) narrating the story, and “Gojira” was retitled “Godzilla, King of the Monsters!”
In that initial entry, Godzilla is a hungry, destructive creature from the deep that doesn’t pay attention to where he’s stepping and threatens to wipe out the human race (or at least Tokyo).
The original “Gojira” wasn’t accessible to American audiences until just a decade ago, and it is far superior to the Americanized version. Although, the U.S. cut is still fun for baby boomers like me who saw it (again and again) when we were kids.
As “Gojira”/“Godzilla” became an enormous success at the worldwide box office, a sequel was inevitable. And one sequel led to another and then another and then another. And somewhere along the way, Godzilla occasionally morphed into a good guy, sometimes of his own volition and sometimes because he was coerced or tricked.
He became a colossus rescuing mankind from other monsters, both earthbound mutants and space-age aliens. He battled a three-headed dragon, oversized crabs, a giant moth, King Kong and many others — even a mechanized version of himself.
As with any movie this successful, it also led to many rip-offs, similar monster movies that followed the template but without Godzilla. (Is Barney a “Godzilla” spinoff?)
Some of the Japanese Godzilla sequels are enjoyable romps for a wider audience than just the series’ rabid fan base. A few are campy larks, and others are thoughtful formula shake-ups, such as “King Kong vs. Godzilla” (1962), “Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster” (1964) and “Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster” (1966).
But as they moved into the 1970s, the movies devolved into kiddie fare — for undiscriminating kiddies at that. And after the 1975 entry, “Terror of Mechagodzilla,” the series took a 10-year leave of absence.
The franchise returned in the late 1980s and continued until 2004, but most of those films were also rather juvenile. Although, there are exceptions: “Godzilla 2000” (1999) and “Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack” (2001) are pretty good, arriving rather late in the run.
Probably the worst Godzilla pictures are the two specific reboots that reference the 1950s original, the 1984 Japanese production “The Return of Godzilla” (U.S. title: “Godzilla 1985,” again a re-edit that even brings back Raymond Burr), and the U.S. production in 1998, titled simply “Godzilla,” which has our favorite monster stomping all over Manhattan instead of Tokyo.
As a result of those, you’ll be forgiven if you feel some trepidation about the new computer graphics-heavy 2014 reboot that opens today, another U.S. production titled simply “Godzilla.”
Not that I’m pessimistic. Hey, I’m always optimistic. After all, what could be more fun than a good old-fashioned rompin’, stompin’ creature feature in the summertime?
Fingers crossed.
Chris Hicks is the author of "Has Hollywood Lost Its Mind? A Parent’s Guide to Movie Ratings." Website: hicksflicks.com
Email: hicks@deseretnews.com

Its toxic: New study says blue light from tech devices can speed up blindness
93cbd7a5475cccd1cee701424125d3abaa9b4beaa58d3663208f656cbbbd7661
A new study from the University of Toledo found that blue light from digital devices can transform molecules in your eyes retina into cell killers. - photo by Herb Scribner
It turns out checking Twitter or Facebook before bed is bad for your health.

A new study from the University of Toledo found that blue light from digital devices can transform molecules in your eyes retina into cell killers.

That process can lead to age-related macular degeneration, which is a leading cause of blindness in the United States, according to the researchs extract.

Blue light is a common issue for many modern Americans. Blue light is emitted from screens, most notably at night, causing sleep loss, eye strain and a number of other issues.

Dr. Ajith Karunarathne, assistant professor in the UT Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, said our constant exposure to blue light cant be blocked by the lens or cornea.

"It's no secret that blue light harms our vision by damaging the eye's retina. Our experiments explain how this happens, and we hope this leads to therapies that slow macular degeneration, such as a new kind of eye drop, he said.

Macular degeneration is an incurable eye disease that often affects those in their 50s or 60s. It occurs after the death of photoreceptor cells in the retina. Those cells need retinal to sense light and help signal the brain.

The research team found blue light exposure created poisonous chemical molecules that killed photoreceptor cells

"It's toxic. If you shine blue light on retinal, the retinal kills photoreceptor cells as the signaling molecule on the membrane dissolves," said Kasun Ratnayake, a Ph.D. student researcher working in Karunarathne's cellular photo chemistry group. "Photoreceptor cells do not regenerate in the eye. When they're dead, they're dead for good."

However, the researchers found a molecule called alpha-tocopherol, which comes from Vitamin E, can help prevent cell death, according to Futurism.

The researchers plan to review how light from TVs, cellphones and tablet screens affect the eyes as well.

"If you look at the amount of light coming out of your cellphone, it's not great but it seems tolerable," said Dr. John Payton, visiting assistant professor in the UT Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. "Some cellphone companies are adding blue-light filters to the screens, and I think that is a good idea."

Indeed, Apple released a Night Shift mode two years ago to help quell blue lights strain on the eyes, according to The Verge. The screen will dim into a warmer, orange light that will cause less stress on the eyes.