...Dude, it's not a good idea to tell everyone which films you can't remember the names of the protagonists to. Doesn't make you look good.
....I don't see the huge deal in that. So people are going to question my intelligence for not remembering the names of the protagonists from the films? That's, that's just disappointing.
Also, if a film has one bad lead, then it's not a "masterpiece".
I think it's time I define "masterpiece" in this case.
Godzilla 2000 is a masterpiece in its terms because it succeeds in doing what the previous film failed to do: make a perfect modern jumping-on point G film.
Seriously, by referring to films like Godzilla 2000 and Godzilla: Final Wars as "masterpieces" really makes me think you don't know what a masterpiece is. Hate to break it to you, but there's only one Godzilla film that would have a chance at falling under the category of "masterpiece". There is a reason why I keep putting masterpiece in quotation marks, and it's not because I want to make what I say look fancy.
....I don't consider Final Wars to be a masterpiece. I *USED* to think it was the best G film, but not for awhile now. It's still my favorite, but I recognize it's not up there with the best G films.
If even one character is boring or uninteresting or entirely pointless, and this includes side characters, then the film is not a "masterpiece".
I think if a film has one really good characters(s), it could overrun the ones who are boring, if they aren't truly awful. But as I said above, I'm not defining "masterpiece" like that, I'm not comparing it with say The Dark Knight.
...Okay, if you don't like me calling him the villain, then I'll call him the antagonist. Either way, in the case of this story, he's the one trying to stop the protagonists from reaching their goals, which is exactly what a villain does.
I guess not 'evil' would be the better term in this case. Either way, I'm not saying he's the best human antagonist of all time, but stands above the norm.