I did not grow up fascinated by movie monsters the way some people did. While I knew the names Dracula, Frankenstein, Godzilla and Kong, I related very little to films with these iconic characters in them besides being mesmerized by the senseless violence that they created. The only monster movie I grew up watching somewhat regularly as a kid was Peter Jackson’s 2005 King Kong, which more often than not scared me half to death to the point where I’d look away during many of the best (deadliest) scenes.
But then I saw Gareth Edwards’s film Godzilla when it was released in theaters back in 2014. As a senior in high school, I was mostly bored during much of the film…until the eponymous kaiju came on the screen. Ever since, my interest in monster movies has increased gradually to the point I have gained deep respect and admiration for some of the classic monster flicks like 1931’s Frankenstein and 1933’s King Kong as well as more modern films in this genre, such as 1986’s The Fly, 1993’s Jurassic Park, and 2018’s A Quiet Place. For many filmgoers, however, the films upholding the monster genre in the modern era are the films of Legendary Entertainment’s “MonsterVerse,” a shared cinematic universe of American reboots of the Godzilla and King Kong franchises. So, with today’s release of the fourth (and possibly final?) entry in this cinematic universe, Godzilla vs. Kong, I thought what better time than now to re-examine these four films to see if they work or ultimately fall flat. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Godzilla (2014) Having seen the 2014 Godzilla movie twice since my initial viewing in theaters, it has only become better in my mind. It is by no means a perfect film, but I think the sum of its parts make for a solidly entertaining monster movie with enough human heart and drama to ground the larger-than-life aspects in a story that people can relate to and be invested in from beginning to end. During my most recent re-watch, I appreciated Edwards’s approach to showing Godzilla very little more than ever before. While I do understand peoples’ frustration with this aspect of the film’s storytelling, I find it refreshing compared to most horror movies of the modern era that go out of their way to put the monster that the studio spent so much money on front and center from the get-go. “Look! Look at what we made! Looks good, doesn’t it?!?” It’s tiring and unoriginal. Instead, Edwards teases Godzilla throughout the first act (which ends with the first full face reveal and roar that we hear). In the second act, he shows a little of what Godzilla can do in a fight which makes the audience crave for more. And by the end, the payoff of Godzilla’s final fight with the male and female MUTO so worth the wait. Of course, the other major complaint about this movie from many people is the lack of interesting human characters. Again, I totally get it. Particularly for the second and third acts, Godzilla lacks any super interesting human characters despite some notable people (primarily Ken Watanabe as the main pro-Godzilla human character). Unfortunately, Aaron-Taylor Johnson is unable to take the writing that he was given in force and carry the film. But, I think that the human characters are not meant to be super-fleshed out or interesting. If the film relied too much on human drama for the more dramatic beats of the story, then it would more likely than not falter and utterly fail (I’ll get to this later with this film’s sequel). I think Edwards and the creative team behind Godzilla were smart enough to know that the humans are simply vessels for the audience to vicariously experience the terror of losing their place at the top of the food chain in real time. Ultimately, that serves this kind of blockbuster monster movie better than focusing too much on developing the human relationships to the point that they overshadow our investment in the fate of the monsters that serve as the heroes and villains of these stories. That being said, however, I do genuinely enjoy Bryan Cranston’s somewhat understated performance in the film. His raw emotion at certain points that reflect a broken, guilt-ridden man who only wants an answer to (and thus closure for) his wife’s death is really intriguing. And while his death in the first act is upsetting (and not handled very well by Taylor-Johnson from a performance standpoint) I think it is one of the few things that makes the film’s initial thirty minutes or so bearable. By no means is 2014’s Godzilla a perfect movie. It’s probably not even a great movie. But, for what it is, I find it to be engaging, entertaining, and by the end worth my time every time that I watch it. Kong: Skull Island (2017) If 2014’s Godzilla is a good monster movie, then 2017’s Kong: Skull Island is a really good monster movie. Having seen it twice now, I was equally entertained both times. Without a doubt, it is both an improvement upon its predecessor in the “MonsterVerse” and a thoroughly engaging monster movie in its own right. In many ways, Kong: Skull Island is good because it fixes the “mistakes” (if you want to call them that) of Godzilla. To begin with the monster action, I find Kong to be a far more entertaining monster because of his ingenuity. While Godzilla is powerful and breaths blue fire (which is cool), Kong is creative in how he fights the various deadly creatures on Skull Island. Arguably the best example of this is in the final fight with “The Big One,” or the mother of all Skullcrawlers. By utilizing both his environment and the remnants of man around him as weapons, Kong keeps the audience on our feet with how he will harm, and eventually kill, his many opponents. This points to the fact that Kong is also a more relatable monster than Godzilla. Whereas the latter is a sea creature who lives in the deepest depths of the ocean and lacks much personality, the former’s physical and emotional parallels to primates make him a more empathetic monster that I can root for beyond just wanting to see him destroy buildings and kill MUTOs. However, unlike the original 1933 King Kong, this film does not rely on the “damsel in distress” trope to humanize Kong. Instead, his minimal interactions with ex-British SAS soldier James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and photojournalist Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) show his softer side with a brief yet powerful gaze. Say what you will about which monster is more powerful; I will never be convinced that Godzilla is a more sympathetic creature than Kong. Onto the characters in Kong: Skull Island, who are also far more interesting than those in Godzilla. There are two standouts for me: Samuel L. Jackson as the Army colonel with a chip on his shoulder, Preston Packard; and John C. Reilly as the World War II pilot stranded on Skull Island, Hank Marlow. Both of their arcs are overall satisfying, if not some of the best in film history. Jackson plays Packard as a battle-hungry soldier whose disappointment in America’s humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam gives him a reason to prove to himself and his men that the Army can still do some good. He gives us a solid, if not revolutionary, human antagonist who satisfies the audience upon seeing his final moments facing down Kong. Reilly, on the other hand, is a lovable guy whose mind has nearly withered away but his tragic backstory (and powerful reunion with his family in the mid-credits scene) is enough to be on his side from the get-go. A character that I do think is sidelined in favor of Jackson and O’Reilly is John Goodman’s Bill Randa, the Monarch official overseeing the expediting to Skull Island who hides the truth from virtually everyone involved. In the first act of Kong: Skull Island, he is arguably the most interesting character. There are enough subtle hints dropped that he knows more than he is letting on, which culminates in one of the better scenes of the film when Packard confronts him at gunpoint to fess up about what he knows. Randa reveals his underlying motivation to fix his reputation by convincing the rest of the world that monsters are real, even by risking the lives of Packard, his soldiers, and everyone else who arrived on Skull Island with them. Unfortunately, this is the last time that Randa has any significant screen time. So, I almost forgot that he existed by the time of his out-of-nowhere death in the mass grave. Without a doubt, Goodman is the most underutilized actor in the film as his character is introduced, made to seem important, and then virtually ignored until his last one-liner. A pretty disappointing choice, if you ask me. The other actors are serviceable, although I do want to shout out Brie Larson as photojournalist Mason Weaver. While she does not play a central role in the film’s plot or emotional core, she has great chemistry with the cast (notably Hiddleston and Jackson) and has a cool moment in the fight in the mass grave when her smarts save the lives of those who remain by lighting the Skullcrawler on fire. Overall, Kong: Skull Island is by no means a masterpiece. However, as a blockbuster monster flick, it is up there with the best of the last few decades and is a great modernization of Kong’s mythos. Furthermore, it sets up the stakes of his impending fight with Godzilla very well, but is certainly worth a watch on its own if nothing more. Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) I saw the sequel to 2014’s Godzilla in theaters and thought it was pretty decent at the time. Compared to its predecessor, Godzilla: King of the Monsters had far more monster-on-monster action, and thus seemed at the time an improvement over the 2014 film. Upon re-watching the film earlier this month, I discovered that my initial impressions could not be further off. To be clear, I do not think that Godzilla: King of the Monsters is an utter pile of garbage like some people do. There are some redeemable things about it, namely the third act for reasons that I will get into later. But, overall, it is not a film that I can recommend. My primary trepidation with this film is its approach to the human drama. Even though 2014’s Godzilla lacked many interesting human characters, the father-son dynamic with Bryan Cranston and Aaron Taylor-Johnson made the first act bearable and the use of the humans as on-the-ground perspective rather than story was, in my humble opinion, smart on the filmmaker’s part. But in this movie, the family drama between the Russells (Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, and Millie Bobby Brown) lacks the emotional punch that it should have. While there are scenes that are interesting (mainly those involving Brown’s repudiation of her mother, played by Farmiga), my investment in their fates is next-to-nothing since one of the parents is a neglectful drunk while the other is a psychotic eco-terrorist. (No wonder she’d rather face down King Ghidorah!) The only human character that has a remotely interesting arc is Ken Watanabe as Dr. Ishirō Serizawa. While his use in the first Godzilla film was more plot-centric, Serizawa’s arc in Godzilla: King of the Monsters is more personal. By sacrificing himself to give Godzilla the necessary injection of radiation needed to rejoin the fight against Ghidorah, not only does he show his dedication to the film’s namesake but he also makes the best argument for the role that Godzilla serves in this world: to bring balance to the natural order. His death inspires the other humans (including Chandler’s character, who somehow rationalizes blaming a monster for the death of his son) to finally join Godzilla’s side in battle which is what they should have done in the first place. For the most part, the monster action in this film is better than in 2014’s Godzilla. Mainly because Ghidorah comes off as such an insurmountable creature right up to the third act, and because Mothra’s injection into the final fight against Rodan is fun to see. (I will unabashedly admit that I became emotional watching Godzilla fall from the sky, and when Mothra sacrifices herself to bide Godzilla some time). If anything, I was far more emotionally invested in the monsters than in the human characters, just showing how weak this film is compared to the two before it. So, is Godzilla: King of the Monsters awful? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s good, either. For me, it is the weakest of the “MonsterVerse” movies. Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) Despite the overall less-than-great results from the first three films in the “MonsterVerse,” I sat down in the movie theater genuinely excited to see Godzilla vs. Kong. Based on the minimal promotional materials I allowed myself to see and what the director Adam Wingard (You’re Next, The Guest) has been saying about the film, I started letting myself buy into the image that was being put out regarding what the movie would be. And, for the most part, my expectations were met. To begin with the positives. For those who saw Godzilla and Godzilla: King of the Monsters, did you dislike the convoluted plot threads, hallow human drama, and minimalist approach to the monster action? Well, Godzilla vs. Kong (mostly) does away with all of that. Once the story allows for Kong and Godzilla to converge and duke it out, Wingard and the cast and crew behind the film live up to the promise of its title. And, thankfully, the trailers did not completely reveal all of the best parts of all of the fights between the two king titans. On top of all of this, the fights are actually pretty well choreographed! While in the water, Kong is cornered by Godzilla’s turf advantage and must adapt and evade more than fight him directly. But on land, Godzilla must struggle to overcome Kong’s innovative use of the environment to his advantage. Furthermore, Godzilla vs. Kong does something that I think all three films in the “MonsterVerse” that preceded it either struggled or failed to do: it directly ties in the arcs of the human characters to the arcs of the monsters. For example, Madison Russell (Millie Bobby Brown) is our window into learning the truth behind why Godzilla is attacking humanity without seemingly being provoked. On the other hand, Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) and her crew who follow Kong help us become invested in the king of Skull Island’s journey to find a new home and refuge from Godzilla. Whereas some of the previous films in the “MonsterVerse” tried (and failed) too much to make the audience care about the arcs of the human characters, Godzilla vs. Kong (almost) completely throws those ambitions away in favor of giving us a Kong-centric story that allows both of the titular monsters to shine. As with any film, one of the biggest compliments that I can give to Godzilla vs. Kong is that it left me wanting more. Whereas a movie like Godzilla: King of the Monsters overstayed its welcome, this film does what it needs to be wraps up without completely boring or pissing off the audience. On top of avoiding messy plotlines in favor of intense and fun monster fights, any movie that does this is one worth praising. All that being said, however, there are some things that keep Godzilla vs. Kong from being a great film. While none of the following weaknesses kept me from enjoying what I was watching, they do detract somewhat. My primary comes from the first act, which drags a bit by introducing us to the human antagonists of the movie. While the payoffs are pretty good, they do not fully make up for the somewhat dull first third of the movie. Related to this, the Madison Russell-centric subplot about discovering what the human villains are building almost feels like a different movie than all the Kong stuff. The focus on Madison and Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry) as these fellow conspiracy theorists just felt like a roundabout method of telling this aspect of the story to set up the big battle in the third act. Regarding the writing of Godzilla vs. Kong, I expected nothing revolutionary or life-changing but just a straightforward story that was somewhat coherent and allowed organic ways for the two titans to brawl. And while the movie mostly delivered that, it felt at times that some of the storytelling was rushed to a fault. And while I think the movie improves from its immediate predecessor in terms of minimizing the focus on characterizing the humans, it tends to half-ass developing our new primary human characters to the point where the more I think about the writing the more I ask myself, “Why mention this aspect of their backstory if it’s not at all relevant to the main plot?” All in all, Godzilla vs. Kong was a fun romp with some poor writing but incredible effects and action sequences. In that sense, it fully delivers on the promise of being the culmination of the “MonsterVerse.” But, without a re-watch, I cannot yet commit to believing that it is the best of the franchise. But it’s damn near close. At the end of the day, how will I remember this franchise? I look back fondly on most of these movies. I appreciate the style and approach to suspense of 2014’s Godzilla, I thoroughly enjoy the blockbuster action and intensity of 2017’s Kong: Skull Island, I think back fondly on the third act of 2019’s Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and I revel in the absurdity of this year’s Godzilla vs. Kong. So, while the “MonsterVerse” may not be the most sophisticated, ambitious, or fulfilling cinematic universe of modern history, I think it is largely a successful one. With all that said, here is my official ranking of Legendary Entertainment’s “MonsterVerse”:
What is your favorite monster movie, old or new? Do you appreciate the “MonsterVerse” as much as I do? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|