Godzilla: King of the Monsters

Spoiler-free!

In this sequel to the 2014 Godzilla, the King is back -- here to protect the Earth yet again by fighting off even more Titans (giant monsters sleeping under the Earth). The human side is filled with the returning cast of Sally Hawkins and Ken Watanabe's scientists, and new faces in Bradley Whitford, Charles Dance, and Ziyi Zhang, and a new starring central family in Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, and Millie Bobby Brown.

That roar = fingernails on a chalkboard x 1000. My ears are still ringing.

I would like to say that it doesn't matter what the humans are up to because we have epic monster battles to get to, but that isn't true. And I'd like to say that the apocalyptic rampaging is insignificant compared to the heart of the matter which is the human characters and their personal struggles -- but I can't say that either. This movie is a mixture, and both sides suffer for it. There's more of the monsters this time than in 2014, and that takes away from replicating the calculated character journeys, but they couldn't do away with the humans altogether, so their side is focused on often, though in a more going-through-the-motions, shorthanded style to allow for more destruction.

I always want to care more for the human characters in movies, and I did care for the central family here. They had a complex dynamic on page but the longer the film went on, the more plot holes opened up and began leaking soul everywhere. In the end they hang on but only just; and I liked the characters less in the end than in the beginning. I really wanted to like Kyle Chandler, doing his usual Distant Dad Who Cares bit, but so much of the significant actions are given to everyone else surrounding him. It makes sense when they're technically more capable, but if there was a human lead, he was it, and he got to be heroic in only one instance.

He was also in King Kong (2005) and this movie is in the same universe as Kong: Skull Island. Idk why I think that's cool.

Vera Farmiga got most of the character arcing, but her arc was too complicated for the movie to pull off in the time allotted, and it felt cheapened in the end. Millie's character wasn't much to speak of -- a normal brand of good -- but she brings so much natural energy to her every moment of screen time. She's a star. Or she would be, if they existed these days. She's the kind of person who doesn't need a unique character to disappear into -- she can carry a movie like a classic leading lady. Charles Dance is Charles Dance; excellent. Bradley Whitford is a scene-stealer, but when is her not? And Sally and Ken are given respectable focus but take too much away from others (like Kyle) and the film would've been improved without them.

Okay, the people are out of the way -- now for more monstrous things. High carnage has its thrilling moments but overall the result seems less than was promised. Four unique beasts is "better" than the last movie's three, but scaling back was necessary to prevent an incoherent mess. I saw this movie because I figured if I wanted to ever see it, a big screen would be ideal. But the epic visuals promised in the trailer were a let-down. Events take place disproportionately in the dark and rain, so the "epic" cinematography is monochromatic and distant, then the "in-the-battle" shots are hectic and grainy. And that gorgeous shot of Mothra under the waterfall? That's the extent of her looking beautiful. Elsewhere she glows so brightly it "over-exposes" the camera, or she doesn't glow at all and looks dull.

Shots of her glowing as she flies around are treated like the Second Coming, complete with hilarious angel choruses. Elsewhere in blatant yet confusing symbolism, we have this shot. 

The 2014 made everything dark and rainy too, but that movie was about ambiance, mystery, following the people as they follow the wake of the monsters, rarely having direct contact with them. I was bored by that film at times, but in retrospect I appreciate what it was trying to do. This movie attempts to course-correct -- they heard the 2014 was too slow-paced, so they speed things up, but they over-correct and fall into ridiculous territory too many times. Godzilla isn't some force of nature in creature form anymore, he's some kind of sentient being who does his noble duty of protecting the Earth because he's good and wise or something. He'll make expressions in this movie that make him almost humanoid. It weird and too much for me.

The coolest thing about the 2014 was the return to gritty realism. This movie keeps that in its physical aspects like the visuals and the dialogue and serious tone, but it's so over-the-top and silly in what happens, it all seems disingenuous. I have nothing against silly and over-blown monster madness (I loved Kong: Skull Island after all!) but this film doesn't embrace the silliness, it pretends that it's not. It's not the seriousness or the silliness that's a problem, but the dissonant combination that indicates this movie had no clear or determined vision for what it wanted to be.

Try to please everyone and you'll wind up being middling all-around. 

Another victim of catering to the common denominator of fans. If that's all it wanted, I certainly can't say anything against the plan. It's appealing enough to please those who want to be, and has enough moments of interest to keep those on the fence from frustration. The only problem is it may not make much of a profit at this rate, so perhaps cheap gratification on a big budget wasn't the best plan after all. Oh well, the Earth goes on turning. Fictionally, that may be all due to Godzilla, but in the real world, the King of the Monsters is just another passing blip -- to be enjoyed and forgotten.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

Last month I saw Shazam! Unicorn Store! The Perfect Date! The Man Who Killed Don Quixote! And, Avengers: Endgame!

Unicorn Store (review) and The Perfect Date (review) were Netflix watches and also the worst of the bunch, but still enjoyable in their own ways. I loved the heart and soul of Shazam! (review) but there were a bothersome flaws from time to time too. Avengers: Endgame (review) was a mostly pleasant experience since I was ready to be pandered and fan-served to, but that doesn't mean I didn't take issue with anything either.

But the best of the bunch hands down was The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (review) which I rented and rewatched multiple times, and it only seemed to get better and more brilliant each time, going from overwhelming fever dream to intricately choreographed dance between reality and fantasy. It's still a film that won't appeal to all, but the only way to know for sure is to watch it.

I'm not super hyped for any movies this month, but there is a next season of a great Netflix show I liked, and a few flicks that I might get out to see too. What looks good to you this month?


The Intruder
In theaters May 3rd; PG-13
I wouldn't normally include a movie like this because they don't usually catch my attention, but the special circumstance here is that I keep hearing hype (or maybe call it anti-hype) that it's quite bad, but kind of in a good way -- or maybe really quite good but everyone will say it's bad. Something like that, haha. Anyway, seems like something I might enjoy watching with my brothers for so-bad-it's-good kicks. No theater trip though. Dennis Quaid does seem quite hammy!




Clara
Streaming May 3rd; no rating
Well this one caught my attention by being a scifi movie (I'm so easy) and then I was amused by recognizing the actors from oldish TV shows -- the guy was the lead in Suits and the girl was McGee's sister on NCIS -- and it gave me flashbacks to my cable days. Oh and the two are real-life married which is always cute. The movie looks more like a drama and then low-key scifi but that makes sense, and the trailer implies some kind of scifi development near the end too, so yeah, I'll keep an eye out.




Pokémon Detective Pikachu
In theaters May 10th; PG
I thought this was just called "Detective Pikachu." Huh. Anyway, boo to me because I never watched, or played, or did whatever it is people do with Pokémons. I think I get the premise though. It's the trailer that won me over really, with how odd yet funny Ryan Reynolds's voice sounds coming out of cute realistic Pikachu, and how they played Holding Out for a Hero without an ounce of apology -- it give me the impression of being a Deadpool movie but rated PG. (They even both have the initials DP!) And if that's what it ends up being like, I definitely want to see -- history with Pokémons or not!




The Rain - Season 2
On Netflix May 17th; MA
This is a Danish-language scifi series where the rain was infected with a deadly virus. The last season ended in a way that made me wonder how it could continue in an interesting way, and based on this trailer they figured it out. They closed off elements in season 1's storyline, and are now adding new connected elements -- like apparently Rasmus is super-powered or something. And going in new directions. I loved the tone and the characters, and the story was neat presenting familiar apocalypse tropes in a freshly compelling way. I will 100% be watching this!




John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum
In theaters May 17th; R
I like John Wick because of the simple straightforward plot that doesn't need much exposition or conversation to drive it, so that the emotionally-driven stylish action can constantly be front and center. Chapter 2 muddied that formula too much for my taste, so I'm hoping Chapter 3 will be a return to full form. The plot is simple. But the trailer also shows a lot of dialogue scenes, so I guess we'll see.




We Have Always Lived in the Castle
Limited release May 17th; not rated
I heard of this book but never read it. It's a mystery thriller, set in the 50's or 60's I suppose, and it being based on a book gives me more confidence that the story might be good than the trailer does. It's got an appealing cast too, with Taissa Farmiga, Alexandra Daddario, Sebastian Stan, and even Crispin Glover! Seems like the sort of flick that won't need to be particularly good in order to entertain me.




Aladdin
In theaters May 24th; PG
I was vaguely interested in this before, and I guess I'm not totally apposed to watching it ever, but since I was more interested in Dumbo and never got around to going to that I'm not even going to bother trying with this in the theater. I relatively liked the idea of a live action Aladdin but the tone and everything is so much an uninspired copy that I doubt it'll be what I wanted. My brother is a fan of the animated too, and thinks seeing this will taint it which is probably true, so we may not even see it for laughs. I expect it'll be good for a laugh, though, personally!




Brightburn
In theaters May 24th: R
The idea of a horror movie with a Superman-powered character is admittedly interesting, but I just can't see it being something I'd truly enjoy unless it had a great, meaningful twist in there somewhere. So I'll pay attention to what others think but it's a no thanks at the moment. I expect it'll be objectively good though.




Godzilla: King of the Monsters
In theaters May 31st; PG-13
Despite the aggravatingly slow pace of the 2014 Godzilla, I found the good parts of it good enough to have natural interest in this sequel. But then, based on the trailer it looks like an actual improvement over the first. Maybe the filmmakers heard the bored complaints. It looks like it better embraces the inherent cheese of its subject, and puts even more effort into appealing visually -- while not completely abandoning the subdued tone of the first. Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins are back, but no more Aaron Taylor-Johnson or Elizabeth Olsen. Added are Vera Farmiga, Millie Bobby Brown, Kyle Chandler, and the great Bradley Whitford. I bet I'll be in the theater for this one since I'm sure it'll be at it's best on a big screen!

Unicorn Store

Spoilers.

Kit loves sparkles and pastel colors and unicorns. And art! She goes to college and takes a class from a prestigious professor, known for his photo-realistic paintings of cardboard boxes with sticks propped inside them. Wow. One day a class does self-portraits, everyone standing by their work to show its accuracy. Kit covers herself in glitter and paint... then the canvas... and then the wall around the canvass. Then, as one of the judges shakes his head and gives her low marks, her childish smile turns to hurt confusion.

The solution here is obvious: don't take that art class, woman! Find one that fits you!

The whole movie takes this over the top naive stance on self-expression. If you can get past, accept, or suspend your belief for an hour and thirty-one minutes as scenario by scenario goes by in this fashion, you may get a thing or two out of this movie. One is enjoyment, plain and simple. This is the easiest. The other is a message. The movie is certainly trying to convey one, but your mileage may vary. For me, I occasionally suspended belief and got a decent amount of enjoyment out of Brie Larson's rather vain foray into the directing world.

There really is a decent amount of charm here and it had me laughing out loud on occasion -- you know, those singular "HA"'s that burst out from time to time -- because of the cynical and frustrated yet naive worldview the movie and Kit have. There are quite a few good lines and ridiculous scenarios to mine, so even when they're not rich they give out plenty. Larson has good delivery, and surrounds herself with genuinely funny people like the comic genius Bradley Whitford, Joan Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, even Karan Soni, and Mamoudou Athie, the resident newbie, fits in with the humor level. There are also a few noticeable moments of creative directing, and nothing comes across as particularly awkward, once you get past the premise.

When has Joan Cusack or Bradley Whitford ever not made something better by their presence? 

At the core of this movie is supposed to be a girl -- a woman who's still a child, who still wants childish things and clings to her girlish dreams, but knows that something is wrong and needs to change. I can get behind that. She's self-centered and ignores the good things she has in pursuit of what she thinks she needs -- the unicorn. (Oh yeah, Samuel Jackson is trying to sell her one, but she had to prove herself worthy first. That's the plot.) But she doesn't need a unicorn per se, she just needs love, and for some reason doesn't notice that's something she already has and is merely pushing away.

The journey to her discovering this should be easy enough, but it gets muddled up in its own tangle of sequins and rainbow-colored streamers. Distracted by how cutesy it is, and how magical its premise is. And by bemoaning how art degrees are useless and boring jobs are boring and full of awful people. If I cared about all those things, it might've had an excuse in my eyes. But I didn't. We know she won't end up with a unicorn, yet the movie is so intent on the magical idea of it that it waits for the last possible second for her to realize and decide so; robbing her of a much more heroic moment of self-denial that would have completed her arc in an honestly fulfilling way.

Also, why the aversion to romance? I liked her and Not Pictured Boyfriend Material. But they barely held hands! 

In the end, I wasn't sure if she learned her lesson or not. We assume so, because it's the end, a cute song is playing and she's happy -- but while I spent the whole movie knowing exactly what the theme was aiming to say, the credits started scrolling by and I realized it never actually said it. Not outright, and not in passing. I derived it from the set-up, but in the end only saw the empty space where it was meant to go. I'm not sure what happened or where it got lost, but the mildly funny and charming journey was all there was. Cute enough in a pinch, but lacking true magic.

The Cabin in the Woods

Major spoilers in the second half of this review. 
&
I saw this film cut for TV.

I don't watch a lot of horror movies -- in fact, you could almost say I never watch horror movies. As a rule, I am not a fan. Even so, I was interested in this one even way back in 2012 when it came out -- drawn in by Joss Whedon's involvement and it's impressively high Rotten Tomatoes score -- but it's R-rated content was more than I wanted to handle... so I waited three years for it to make its television debut.

A long and suspenseful wait. But worth it.

The film was co-written, and directed by Drew Goddard who recently left an impression on me by being the man responsible for the excellent adapted screenplay for The Martian. Goddard and Whedon's styles pair really well with similar senses of humor, and great attention to detail. The characters are very Whedonesque, and credit for the movie's smooth pacing and wonderfully matter-of-fact storytelling go to Goddard.

The cast is full of familiar faces -- with a few Whedon regulars. The young adults who go to the Cabin are Kristen Connolly as Dana, Chris Hemsworth as Curt, Anna Hutchison as Jules, Fran Kranz as Marty, and Jesse Williams as Holden. Then in the office setting, Bradley Whitford, Richard Jenkins and Amy Acker are responsible for raining terror down on the unsuspecting college students.

Switching back from the horror plot to the everyday life of office workers was neat and effective risk.

Even without watching horror movies I am fully aware of their pitfalls and their cliches. This film willingly hops right into all those "required" moments and then immediately and cleverly turns them around, poking fun at them with a sharp humor that points out the all the holes of the genre. For the first two acts, satire is the name of the game, and Goddard and Whedon win every hand as they use the cliches to their advantage. The plot moves along traditionally as obviously stereotyped characters bite the dust one by one in gruesome, terrifying, and brilliantly tongue-in-cheek ways.

The film's one real problem is a bit of a catch 22. It chastises typical horror flicks by doing the exact same things those films do, and while that makes it funnier in a way, and a great satire, it also means that it still has the essence of the films it is criticizing -- so it can't help but drag itself down a little along the way.

I suppose it had to be worth it though. For the most part.

Major Spoilers from here to the end!
Then the third act twists away from the typical (if satirized) mantra. At this point all the kids are dead except the main girl, Dana, (whose death we all know is optional) and the office is celebrating a successful event. But -- surprise! -- Marty, the dumb stoner dude who's been high the whole movie isn't actually dead! He's actually alive (and actually not that dumb) and his excessive smoking has actually kept him from being affected by the chemicals meant to create the cliches the lead to easier deaths. He and Dana escape to underneath the cabin where the control offices are, and that's where things get really interesting.

The film is pretty great up to this point -- it's scary, thrilling, mysterious, hilarious and very well-made -- but the final twist are what clinches the movies status as a mind-blowing and unique horror film. I expected that some twist of the type would come, but was still taken off guard by pretty much the whole rest of the film.

Got to be the movie's hero, but first had to be the movie's resident dummy.

First of all, Marty surviving was absolutely fantastic. Of the three guys, he has the least hero potential for the first two acts; he was the second person to "die" and probably the most boring character-wise (though he was the sensible voice of reason). He was the goofy comic relief. Then suddenly he becomes the hero (though Dana's heroine is still the main character) as the whole story turns round on its head. Dana stays the same in our perceptions but also becomes more endearing (and she's definitely a Whedon-writ female). The two don't get to add enough depth of character fast enough to be satisfying before the film ends, but what is left wanting is part of the charm and the cool brilliance.

I love the final scene. I can't even remember all of what the two unexpected heroes talk about after the climactic battle, but loved it out of some sort of principle because it "wasn't supposed to happen." So they sit on a staircase and share a joint, covered in blood from head to toe, and then the Earth is obliterated.

Because that's what happens when a horror movie doesn't follow the rules.

Worth it!

Saving Mr. Banks

The author of Mary Poppins, P. L. Travers has quite the experience dealing with Walt Disney and Co. as he courts her for rights to her beloved novel. She entertains them because she needs the money a movie deal will give her, but she really doesn't want to sell, especially if they're going to make as many changes to the story and characters as she's afraid they will. She's very particular that everything stays exactly how she imagined, and we slowly learn why though flashbacks of her childhood in early 1900's Australia, and then watch her protest and drag her heels in 1960's Los Angeles while bubbly assistants, scriptwriters songwriters and Disney himself obtusely parade her "Disneyfied" story in front of her.

"No, no, no!" is her favorite expression.

So the movie slowly sifts though poor Mrs. Travers' mixed and jumbled emotions as she clings hesitantly to the movie rights while Disney gently tugs on them. And it does it in a more interesting way than I originally thought it would. Half the movie is very much a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Mary Poppins, and being a fan of the movie for as long as I can remember, I found that interesting and fun.

But I also know that a considerable amount of it didn't actually happen. Like in a scene where the writers have had a breakthrough, and present her with something she actually not only approves of, but likes so much that she temporarily comes out of her shell and starts dancing around the room with the screenwriter. It was sweet; it made me smile, but I was simultaneously thinking "no way this actually happened."

I certainly hope that some of the amusing parts weren't made up though!

Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks' performances were highly praised, so I expected quite a bit out of them, and wasn't disappointed. They both gave quality, detailed and devoted performances. However, as the movie went along, I became more interested in a few supporting characters. Like Paul Giamatti, who obviously was fantastic, (when is he ever not) had a great character to delve into as Mrs. Travers' driver. By the end of the movie he is undoubtedly the most endearing character, and rubbed off on the grumpy Travers a little too.

I also enjoyed B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the brothers Robert and Richard Sherman who wrote the music for the film. Their endeavors to please both Disney and Travers (mostly without even knowing what is was Travers actually wanted) were very amusing. I applaud their efforts, even if in reality they had half as much trouble as the movie depicted, because the results, as we know, are now iconic.

Behold: the creators of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

Of course we all know what happens -- we've all seen the result. And very few can deny it's a wonderful result. Mary Poppins is popular today because of Disney and the magic his team worked. We feel for Mrs. Travers argues to keep the film as she wants it, but at the same time we are not nearly as attached to her book as she is; all we want is for her to give in so those poor people can just make that wonderful childhood movie. Methinks the lady doth protest too much -- her desperate arguments and revealing flashbacks are certainly dramatic, but there was too much of it, and I was having so much fun enjoying the lighthearted "behind the scenes" moments that whenever it turned serious, I just wished it would go back to being fun and stay that way.

Saving Mr. Banks has plenty of sweet, sentimental insights into the mind and past of the creator of Mary Poppins -- all sprinkled with a little pixie dust -- but there's just not enough magic here to make anyone reach for this film instead of the one it celebrates. And I suppose that's how it should be.