Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Review #2192: Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Cast: 

Rebecca Hall (Dr. Ilene Andrews), Brian Tyree Henry (Bernie Hayes), Dan Stevens (Trapper), Kaylee Hottle (Jia), Alex Ferns (Mikael), Fala Chen (Iwi Queen), Rachel House (Hampton), Ron Smyck (Harris), Chantelle Jamiesson (Jayne), and Greg Hatton (Lewis) Directed by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong and #1753 - Blair Witch)

Review: 

It is hard to believe that May will be the tenth anniversary of the first real American Godzilla film with Gareth Edwards' 2014 film. Eventually, through the course of time, one has seen films such as Kong: Skull Island (2017), Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), Godzilla vs. Kong (2021), and now this one, the first of the series with a returning director in Adam Wingard (there was an attempt at doing the "MonsterVerse" for television, but if I didn't like the idea of using Apple TV for watching baseball, why the hell would I go for it here?). The screenplay was done by Terry Rossio, Simon Barrett and Jeremy Slater while Wingard wrote the story with Rossio and Barrett (this is the first of these features without Max Borenstein as a writer). Well, I don't really have anything to build up here, this movie is about on par with the other ones, what did you expect? Each of these films have their own idea of what to do when it comes to handling the time besides their big creature, whether that involves killing off Bryan Cranston early, Kong in the Vietnam War era, a goofy fun one involving eco-terrorists, or a monster clash and hollow earths. It is particularly interesting to see a few returning castmates from the last one in Hall, Henry, and Hottle. It has been a few months since the last time Godzilla was featured in a film after Toho's Godzilla Minus One, but are we really so ridiculous to compare two different Godzillas? What, does every one of these have to be moving period pieces? (what, no complaint that the film title doesn't know how "&" is better than a silent "x"?)

To be honest, I don't really re-watch modern movies all too much (last year saw a mix of 200 movies watched for the first time, old and new, and that doesn't include ones seen as tradition), so going back to these films doesn't include a clear winner (King of the Monsters or Skull Island were pretty neat though). But these two Wingard features are relatively carry the torch well for loony entertainment, even if this one generally is more of a Kong film than one for Godzilla (I believe someone counted the amount of time for the creature around eight minutes in a 115-minute film); basically, you get more scenes of, say, Kong playing nice with a smaller version of himself (evidently named Suko,) than Godzilla doing those little things beyond charging up that involve, well, resting in the Coliseum. It likes to deliver exposition and roll with effects at roughly the same quick pace that results in a clutter of a movie that goes a bit further into the Hollow Earth with a different kind of bent on a familiar titan (hey, the last one had a mechanical one dealing with severed monster heads); it seems amusing to basically have a basement within the basement of the Earth for secret tribes and telepathy, really. The adventures of Kong and Suko (nice to have Son of Godzilla on the mind), which is more than I can say for a film that likes to have a bit of light human interaction without having many stakes apply to them. It likes to cut around what seems interesting just in case one needs a bit of info to follow along with, which can be hit or miss. The Skar King basically being a bully that likes using pain to rule is kind of interesting, but the closing is probably more interesting than the fact that the attempts at building up a threat from down-down below is only moderately interesting. Among the humans, probably Stevens does best in having that sense of just rolling with the material in amusement without buffoonery. Henry is probably more tolerable than he was in the previous film, if only because he doesnt have to act against teen actors or as much of a "conspiracy" bent this time around. Not to say Hall and Hottle can't handle family drama (sign language) of course, but it comes and goes in terms of actually caring beyond a passing glance. Of course, I do enjoy the event buildup to, well, reuniting Mothra into a tussle of creatures. The climax gives the mishmash you would expect in throwing monsters, playing with ice, and eventually dealing with the whole "monkey see, monkey go for the axe" thing. It takes a significant amount of lost patience to lose me on a film like this, but this one went relatively fine in zipping along without trying to brazenly insult one in its execution. On the level, it is around the other films when it comes to general spectacle if not managing to really do anything profoundly interesting on a wholly consistent level. It is neatly average fun, which in the grand scope of general Godzilla or Kong films is totally normal for those who know what they are getting into.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Batman.

Review #1814: The Batman.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Zoë Kravitz (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Paul Dano (Edward Nashton / Riddler), Jeffrey Wright (Lieutenant James Gordon), John Turturro (Carmine Falcone), Peter Sarsgaard (Gil Colson), Andy Serkis (Alfred Pennyworth), Colin Farrell (Oswald "Oz" Cobblepot / Penguin), Jayme Lawson (Bella Reál), Gil Perez-Abraham (Officer Martinez), Peter McDonald (Officer William Kenzie), Alex Ferns (Commissioner Pete Savage), Con O'Neill (Chief Mackenzie Bock), Rupert Penry-Jones (Mayor Don Mitchell Jr) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield)

Review: 

“I’ve always felt that the Batman story was a very special story. He’s not really a superhero. He’s someone who’s driven by the pain of his past. He’s trying to find some way to make sense of his life. It’s a very psychological story. This is the character I relate to most.”

I understand there were folks who doubted that Robert Pattinson could be the character of Batman because of some old movies from the mid 2000s or something. Well, one wonders just how ridiculous that sounds when compared to the minority of folks who decried at the casting of Michael Keaton for the title role in 1989 because of some old movies from the mid 1980s. But we have moved on from films that were influenced by comic books like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns to films that are influenced by comic books such as Batman: Year One (1987), The Long Halloween (1996-97), and "Ego" (I read two of those stories quite a few years ago, incidentally). But you likely know of those comic books if you are interested in seeing another Batman film. After all, there have now been nine actors to have portrayed the character in film (live action and animated) since 1966. They all have had distinct perspectives when it comes to depicting the character often called the "Caped Crusader", and one can certainly find something to appreciate from each and every director that was behind it, whether that was Leslie H. Martinson, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan. You may remember that it has been a couple of years since the last Batman film in live-action - ten years, in fact. I'm sure you know that Ben Affleck appeared as the character in three films (one cameo), and he intended to direct and write a standalone film which apparently was described as "almost James Bond-ian" slate for filming in 2017. However, by that year, Affleck would step away from the director's chair and later would step away from starring in the film (of course, five years ago the DC Extended Universe was vastly different from now); incidentally, there are plans of a Batgirl film in 2022 that has its own cast in mind for the key roles. Reeves would be tapped to direct in 2017 with his own script, with an initial target for June of 2021 for release (we all know how that worked out). Reeves and Peter Craig received credit for the script, which had some un-credited work from Mattson Tomlin. Reeves is best known for directing both Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) and War for the Planet of the Apes (2017).

Honestly, comparing what is the best Batman is a curious thing, because I'm sure most folks haven't seen every Batman-related piece of media (comics, TV, film), but I will maintain that my favorite generally falls between either the Animated Series or the 1966 television series (the Nolan films with their grounded take narrowly edge out the gothic Burton films). Regardless of one's favorite, I'm sure you can find something to like here within the great myth of Batman. One can add Reeves to the list of capable directors behind a Batman movie. In fact, this film might actually rank in the top section of Batman films, one that creates plenty of atmosphere within its comic book trappings and noir ambitions that makes a distinct narrative that turns upon vengeance and hope to deliver a relatable piece of entertainment with bleak and ambitious aim that works quite well for the current age without becoming too absorbed. Pattinson does a splendid job as Batman, one still fairly green in terms of being the "World's Greatest Detective" that is basked in desperation. He makes a great imperfect interpretation of the role because of the fact that he just isn't who he thinks he is. Instead of a Batman movie with the usual trimmings and a considerably more memorable villain, it is more balanced this time around. In other words: he has the layers required to drive the film. Kravitz and her graceful charm work well when paired with Pattinson and their palpable chemistry that drive the film at times with great interest. Dano does just fine for a role that I wish I could agree with more, playful in terror. No, I don't mean I yearn for a villain that is agreeable. But it is a strange quality to wonder why one would think "Riddler" and "Zodiac Killer" in the same sentence, because the Riddler just seems more of a compulsive puzzler man rather than a serial killer (Reeves had the serial killer aspect early in the script). I just don't find the character to be anything other than just "fine" (him and his terrifying 500 followers, I kid, I kid), and it is probably not the easiest thing to say that the most memorable Riddler portrayed in film is still Frank Gorshin after half a century. At least one could be curious to see if Dano would ever appear in further features, but I just hope that any further films find something useful to cover within reflecting the title hero, such as maybe Mr. Freeze or the Mad Hatter (i.e. not just the Joker, because that character is overplayed). Wright and Serkis both prove well in their moments spent playing against Pattinson in the familiar roles that engage well without running into comparisons of the past. Farrell does quite fine with a role half-covered in the shadows that shows the seeds of ruthlessness that could be apparent in further times without becoming desperate. Turturro creeps through the film with the right touch of oozy decadence. The last thing I want to mention is the music by Michael Giacchino, who weaves a capable film score with a title theme that has managed to stick in my head a few days later (of course Reeves could also get credit for his use of "Something in the Way", because who doesn't want a fitting song from Nirvana in a Batman film?).

Honestly, I figured the run-time would not be too much of a problem. 176 minutes is just about right for the kind of sprawling curiosity that Reeves has for depicting the duality of seeking justice without becoming a bloated mess (besides, going "it could have been edited down" is not exactly a valid response). The film does have noir aspirations, but it also finds time for dazzling action sequences alongside tinges of horror that generally do well without becoming off-kilter. It manages to capture most of what has proved interesting to say about the character of Batman within a story of seeing both sides of the coin in exacting justice with certain force. It leaves one curious for what can occur further within this type of storytelling in film without begging deeply for it. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be when it comes to the task of showing the character of Batman in a way that seems fresh and relevant, which it does quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: As noted before, it is Wings (1966), the Soviet classic.