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.

Godzilla vs. Kong.

Review #1672: Godzilla vs. Kong.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Dr. Nathan Lind), Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell), Rebecca Hall (Dr. Ilene Andrews), Brian Tyree Henry (Bernie Hayes), Shun Oguri (Ren Serizawa), Eiza González (Maia Simmons), Julian Dennison (Josh Valentine), Lance Reddick (Guillerman), Kyle Chandler (Dr. Mark Russell), Demián Bichir (Walter Simmons), and Kaylee Hottle (Jia) Directed by Adam Wingard.

Review: 

"It’s a massive monster brawl movie. There’s lots of monsters going crazy on each other, but at the end of the day I want there to be an emotional drive to it. I want you to be emotionally invested in them. I think that’s what’s going to make it really cool."

I want to go on record by saying one "fan" statement in that I figured Godzilla was going to win this time around. I mean, we are talking about a radioactive giant lizard that breathes atomic breath at provokers, while Kong (who I guess just isn't a king yet) is an ape that is really tall (this isn't judging the quality of the films, remember). However, I can also go on record for the fact that I did not in my wildest dreams envision a "MonsterVerse" when Godzilla (2014) came out in theaters. Honestly, I am still a bit skeptical at the idea of a shared universe of monsters, mostly because the thought that comes to my head when it comes to these movies is "entertainment", not "narrative cohesion". Seven years has resulted in four features, each with different directors and combinations of writers. This film has five writers with the story done by Terry Rossio, Michael Dougherty, Zach Shields while Eric Pearson and Max Borenstein did the screenplay (all except Rossio and Pearson had written Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), and Borenstein has written for each of the MonsterVerse films). They also have distinct casts, since only five actors have even appeared in more than one of these features. In a strange sort of way, it must make sense when it comes to monster movies, but they certainly have attempted to evolve in their balance of monster and human drama...or whatever you want to call it. The film, as you likely know, is the first film to feature both Godzilla and Kong since King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), although it isn't a remake. Aside from injecting satire in the form of the TV industry of Japan, the one defining trait of that feature is that the feature didn't exactly have a clear-cut winner - sure, King Kong comes out of the duel from the water, but one could think of it as ambiguous (particularly if one is thinking of box office dollars like Toho...). With this one...oh hey, do you really expect a clear winner? Do you really think it is going to go the way you think, pedantic-in-me be damned? While it certainly may pack a surprise or two when it comes to a certain idea and presence, it only seems to keep the door for further looks into the world of titans of nature open ever so slightly. Would it have been better if it was definitive? Probably, but it was evidently the intent all along by the writers to go in that direction. Wingard has stated that the series is at a "crossroads", where it relies on the audience being vocal about wanting more (currently, the movie is an audience hit with theaters and streaming; incidentally, the deal between Legendary Pictures and Toho for Godzilla ended with this film, in which Toho couldn't do a live-action Godzilla movie but instead did an anime trilogy...and apparently Toho wants to get in on the shared universe thing). This is the tenth feature film from Wingard, who directed his first film with Home Sick (2007; paradoxically, the fourth director of a series spanning seven years has is the more experienced director of the bunch), with the Tennessee native specializing in the horror and action genres.

As I recall, the first film of this series dealt with the slow burn of a great terror in Godzilla within the human element of folks that I honestly can't remember that much about (except for Bryan Cranston, but I'm sure you know that), complete with adversaries that were called "MUTOs"...and its sequel decided to roll with just using the term "Titans" instead, paced with a story that somewhat followed up that movie. In between those movies was the movie about Kong on Skull Island as the last of his species that has those elements of Moby Dick with creepy crawly creatures. Now, we have a movie that is the sequel to two movies with two plotlines that hinges more on Kong alongside its first main trick: a hollow Earth. I suppose if anything is possible, one could use an idea prevalent in folklore for centuries (alongside scientific theory for a time). I guess it really would be hard to hide monsters for very long, wouldn't it? The movie wants to move along with technobabble without choking too much before it gets back into setting the monster fights. In that sense, the movie continues the trend of action sequences that override the rest of the venture that work to the varying degree of folks who want one or both in an effects adventure. The effects do seem to look a bit clearer this time around, likely because there is at least a little bit more day-time shots when it comes to Godzilla, and the effect for Kong has evolved for the better - if you didn't think so, consider the fact that he gets to hold a big ax. At 113 minutes, it is the shortest of the four films, although there can be two lines of thought when it comes to it being a bit longer/trimmed down.

Consider the human element in other movies...if the 1954 film was most memorable for its terror shown on screen as a metaphor for nuclear weapons, Akihiko Hirata managed to shine through with his memorably troubled performance in the struggle for doing the right thing. The aforementioned King Kong vs. Godzilla didn't have great acting, but its idea of a satire of the TV industry within the monster mash is at least different. Invasion of Astro-Monster went to space and saw aliens trick us into loaning Godzilla to them. Ebirah, Horror of the Deep tried to do a pseudo James Bond film with a squid for a villain. While I have only seen the first few films in the original series, I know the storylines go to a variety of interesting places, revolving from smog monsters to the horrors of bureaucratic red tape while Godzilla attacks, so one can only imagine exactly what seems so different in enjoyment when it comes to this film. For a movie that has two storylines, they only really converge on exactly one point through the whole movie (and as far as I know, they don't even meet), which makes for a really strange structure for a film that wants to have two stories but only really works within the pursuit of a giant ape to home (who I suppose has evolved to the level of Koko the gorilla with the use of sign language). Tell me if this seems like a minor gripe: How does one have six total main characters and find time to not lend one iota of a chance for one of them to be sacrificed at the end? It seems like the movie really needs someone to take a chance on the dustbin for this to really need stakes to be raised, particularly since the main presence in each storyline have that instinct of "for the greater good" to begin with. Skarsgård actually does fine with this lead role, mainly because even a generic monster hero is better than one with too much snark or seriousness. It is a shaky confidence, but it isn't a real step down from what one has seen from MonsterVerse leads. Henry has the strangest role, in that it is either meant to be taken seriously as the voice of reason in a sea of doubt (and monsters)...or taken as seriously as Dale Gribble. It is a weak role that leads to a middling performance, because who really needed a conspiracy lead? Who goes into a film talking about monsters and Monarch and whatever and thinks, gee, I need a skeptic. Leave the skeptics to have to run away from the monster. At least Hall does fine with her role in matching up as the other adult in the room, level-headed without becoming overwhelmed by what is going on. If there truly is a market for designating screen time to younger adults, one could do better than having Brown and Dennison, because you could nearly trim one out completely and lose exactly nothing, and the former is only spared heated skepticism because at least we've seen her before. Actually, it might be a compliment to say that Hottle is the most interesting presence of the leads, one who has a link with Kong that actually could've been the real focus of the film entirely, since it is mostly devoid of yammering and babble (instead, it is told through the face and language). Bichir and Oguri are the adversaries for a movie that needs to be weirder without having villains beyond a hint of hubris (the latter character is the son of a character that reminds me that normal movies actually use continuity to make for more interesting villain turns).

I do enjoy the fights, particularly since there is a nice mix of having at least one fight take place within the day, since the last of these films could be thought of as a bit murky. The fight near the end within a neon-lighted city is pretty interesting, and I will admit that the build to the climatic ending is at least somewhat clever (at least more so when it comes to shoehorning something from the past, which was done a bit haphazardly in that last one). For basic enjoyment, I will give it credit. The ending is a bit more difficult to go with, however. You could call it "cheap", you could call it "resourceful", but I will just settle with ridiculous. You can't say a titan will fall and then say "unless..."; regardless of how much the film slants itself for one titan. I still can't believe that Wingard actually thinks one could cry at the end of this film (it may or may not be literal, but having it on record does matter). I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure that this next statement could apply to a bunch of you folks: I am not 12 years old, and even then it is doubtful that one would even cry for a monster mash at that age (on the other hand, if I had a premonition about one of my sports teams winning a championship before I die, I might actually shed a tear). A monster mash can be fun, but don't stiff out on a real ending, man. I'm not saying I want them to basically just fall into the deep earth and end abruptly, but your mileage will vary depending on tastes (namely in how much one takes this aspect of the film seriously from the others). The real demand that fans should be doing is not for more of these films in the MonsterVerse but instead to have a plot that actually works out to the monster fights with consistency (which start with cast continuity). It is perhaps fitting that the series managed to get to this point, one where its monster fights have shone over all other aspects that have made decent experiences that will either want folks curious for more or desire the original source material (as I would hope for), although one could understand the burnout. While the movie has visible faults that hinder what could have been a quite entertaining culmination to a modern monster mash series, I certainly found enough here to enjoy, so I suppose that makes it enough in the end.

411 days later, the Theater Saga returns for #103. This was the longest time between trips to the theater in my adult years, and we all know the reason for that. However, I felt it was finally time to make a trip and do so while staying safe (namely by wearing a mask the whole time) and support a local place - HBO Max may be the right thing for certain folks who like streaming, but as you might already know, I personally would rather eat lead than do that. At any rate, I am looking to plan a few more trips to the theater over the next few months while adhering to caution and such (getting the vaccine will be done when the right time comes). I hope you folks enjoyed this review, and I hope you stay safe.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Gift.

Review #1573: The Gift.

Cast:

Jason Bateman (Simon Callem), Rebecca Hall (Robyn Callem), Joel Edgerton (Gordon "Gordo" Mosley), Tim Griffin (Kevin "KK" Keelor), Allison Tolman (Lucy), Beau Knapp (Detective Walker), P.J. Byrne (Danny McDonald), David Denman (Greg Pierson), Busy Philipps (Duffy), and Wendell Pierce (Detective Mills) Written and Directed by Joel Edgerton.

Review:

"I wanted to take those triangle thrillers that we’re all so familiar with and hold the audience’s hand going down that road for the first third of the movie, and then just start messing with those conventions."

Like I said, the director can come from anywhere. Sometimes he can even serve as the star of the picture, and this proves doubly true with Joel Edgerton, making his debut as a director alongside serving as star, writer, and co-producer. The son of a solicitor, he developed a passion for home moviemaking, doing so first with 8mm while growing up in Sydney, Australia. After studying drama at the University of Western Sydney, Edgerton entered acting with the Sydney Theatre Company before adding appearances in television and film in his native country, most notably with The Secret Life of Us (2001-02). This was the fourth film he had wrote for, having done so with The Square (2008, which had his brother Nash as director), Felony (2013), and The Rover (2014, co-written with David Michôd).

This is a decent little movie, certainly befitting someone making the rounds in terms of acting and directing as a moderately entertaining experience, one that uses its small cast to create a few moments of worthy tension. It definitely seems a bit familiar for those who know what it is trying to pull with psychological thrills (with influences noted such as Caché and Fatal Attraction), but Edgerton does a fine job with weaving a tense atmosphere that leaves doubt in one's mind with the nature of its plot before eventually getting to its sleight of hand ending, which will either work for what is needed in terms of lasting impact, or it will seem a bit hollow for all that it built to that point. One starts with Bateman, mostly known for his work equally as a teen idol on television before moving into straight man roles in comedy (such as with Arrested Development (incidentally, he also had gotten himself into directing with Bad Words a few years prior to this). He does quite well here, balancing himself in reserved tension that keeps you on your toes each time you see him. Nothing is quite as it seems, and he does well in maintaining the illusion of charming stability without collapsing into condescending cliché, because he can move between logic and ruthless fairly well - such as whenever Edgerton steps out of sight and Bateman introduces the seeds of doubt about this man to his wife (whether that means name-calling or something else). Hall does pretty well as the key piece between the two of them, handling her doubts and fears with reason and useful conviction that we gravitate to because of her position that sees the lines of who and what we know blur a bit in a way we shudder to think about. Edgerton makes for quiet tension, doing so with an act that seems just a little off-key from when we first see him (essentially equal to a person you met long ago that didn't quite understand when it's time to go) that only grows from there, building the seeds of doubt without needing any overblown theatrics. Sure, a dog could be kidnapped or so, but we never take our eyes off the doubt that comes from the building tension that comes from more than just a supposed weirdo, and by the end it's possible to not really even have a clear definition of who fits the role as "monster". On the whole, it is the build in quiet tension for what we know/don't know about someone that ultimately makes the difference in how effective the film works itself out, one that doesn't lead to any big moments of blood or even an overamped jump scare for its 108 minute run-time. If the idea of someone you know from long ago coming back with a few gifts of their own seems like it could be an interesting little thriller, I would suggest this one (while saying the less one knows the better), as it is a useful effort accomplished by Edgerton in terms of moving one's expectations about the thriller with creeping execution and conviction.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Town.

Review #1554: The Town.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Douglas "Doug" MacRay), Rebecca Hall (Claire Keesey), Jon Hamm (FBI Special Agent Adam Frawley), Jeremy Renner (James "Jem" Coughlin), Blake Lively (Krista "Kris" Coughlin), Chris Cooper (Stephen MacRay), Pete Postlethwaite (Fergus "Fergie" Colm), Slaine (Albert "Gloansy" MacGloan), Owen Burke (Desmond "Dez" Elden), and Titus Welliver (Officer Dino Ciampa) Directed by Ben Affleck.

Review: 
"It was concealing a character-based drama centered around themes that I was interested in, particularly the theme of children paying for the sins of their parents...But wrapping that in the sort of candy shell of a heist movie."

There is always room for another actor to find additional calling in directing, particularly if they have the instinct to accomplish it well. Ben Affleck (born in Berkeley, California but raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts) had started in acting since he was a child with television such as The Voyage of the Mimi (1984) before eventually moving on to search for work after high school in film (initially with small roles before his first lead role in Glory Daze in 1995). His prominent moment came at the age of 25, where he co-wrote and co-starred with Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting (1997, which resulted in his first of two Academy Awards). The years that followed resulted in a varying quality of films, but he moved on to directing with Gone Baby Gone (2007, which he also co-wrote), which led to fair notice. It is adapted from the 2004 novel Prince of Thieves written by Chuck Hogan (born in Massachusetts that based his story upon the dubious reputation of the neighborhood of Charlestown), which was adapted to the screen by Affleck, Peter Craig, and Aaron Stockard. After a few years of shuffling in development struggle (including a failed attempt to have Adrian Lyne to direct and Hogan to write a script for), Affleck found himself attached to star and direct. He was attracted to its similar to Gone, Baby, Gone in how he could use its structure of the story alongside its characters and dialogue that could inspire him to add on to it for a film adaptation. This naturally led to research being done within the region alongside consultation with the FBI and actual bank robbers, with Affleck finding his note-taking of the latter particularly fascinating. It should be noted that there exists three versions of the film - the theatrical version, which runs at 124 minutes (as per request by the studio), and an extended cut that runs at 153 minutes, alongside with a 154 minute version that has an ending more faithful to the novel (which is more darker; I picked the original cut because that seemed like the right one to pick).

What we have is a film wrapped entirely in Boston that might as well be summed up by its opening quote involving pride in one's city despite it ruining their life - one could almost think of it as Affleck's attempt to make a city crime movie in the style of Mean Streets (1973), although Affleck has cited influences being films in the crime genre like Heat (1995) and The Departed (2006). It is a fine film building on delivering a heist and drama worth investing some time with, headlined by a usefully-crafted ensemble cast and some usefully crafted action sequences that make a worthwhile sophomore effort from Affleck. For a film that builds itself on part-heist/part-human interest, Affleck handles acting/directing just fine, displaying range in getting what he needs from his fellow actors while displaying wavering charm in directing himself that works most of its points of finding oneself apart from what was and instead trying to look somewhere else for satisfaction in life. Hall does fine in going along with Affleck in unassuming prevalence that does fine with the occasional task needed that makes decent chemistry with Affleck. Hamm has something of interest to do in terms of authority and pursuit, which he handles alright in terms of terse usefulness in that segmented time needed. Renner outshines the others in terms of hardened edge and menace that drives the film in various scenes that can be as simple as entering in a lunch conversation with Affleck and Hall. Lively does alright when quivering against Affleck, while Cooper and Postlethwaite (in his penultimate role before his death in 2011) each do well in momentary scenes involving wat it means to wrapped in a web of crime. On the whole, I liked the film in what it manages to accomplish in its heist aspects mixed in with its attempts at looking at life beyond the score that lend itself to some useful points of interest without being too wrapped up in cliché. It's a nice movie, honing itself with some realism and atmosphere for a useful film to start off another decade of heist drama cinema.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, the list for the final decade of focus this year. The decade will start and end with new directors to make their first spotlight moment, which includes a few notable films for the decade we just left along with some other ones to highlight that I hope you enjoy.

Movie Night: Iron Man 3.

Review #396: Iron Man 3.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes/Iron Patriot), Guy Pearce (Aldrich Killian), Rebecca Hall (Maya Hansen), Ben Kingsley (Trevor Slattery), Stephanie Szostak (Ellen Brandt), James Badge Dale (Eric Savin), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Ty Simpkins (Harley), Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.), William Sadler (President Ellis) and Miguel Ferrer (Rodriguez) Directed by Shane Black.

Review
In Review #372, I reviewed 42, but this was never the original purpose. I went to the movie theater (big shock, I actually got out of the house), and because Iron Man 3 was sold out, so I picked 42 on the spot. 42 was a fine film, but it always bugged me that I missed Iron Man 3 on that day. 37 days later, I went to the movie theater to go see Iron Man 3, to complete the cycle of the Iron Man films I've reviewed (#135 - Iron Man, #334 - Iron Man 2) and to see if Shane Black could do a good job directing as he does writing (He screenwrote #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout) for a film like this. So was it worth the wait? Yeah, pretty much. Robert Downey, Jr does a great job once again, evolving the character more, but still keeping just like we like Stark. Paltrow works well with Downey, given the amount of screen time, which is alright. Cheadle does well, consistant as always. Guy Pearce (Who I never had heard of until this film) does a fine job, not too bad a villain. As these films evolve, the villains get harder to beat, a bit more detailed after a while, which works well. I liked Ty Simpkins, not a bad child actor overall. Kingsley is allright, even if I think he's a bit underused for the film. The action works well, and the level of spectacle is at an all time high. The story flows allright, not doing too bad. This film is slightly better than Iron Man 2, not better than the first film, but still a good way to continue this film series. I do wonder if there will be a fourth one though. But at least now my..movie journey is complete. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.