In King of the Monsters in particular, it was the human element that failed the film and tried to sell us a jumbled, overexposed, and downright silly plot about ecoterrorism. Although the new work is directly related to the events of the previous film, I am much more likely to see this nonsense in the film today. Godzilla vs. Kong also has bad dialogue and a terribly boring exposition, but it takes director Adam Wingard much less time to realize that Kong and Godzilla are supposed to beat each other up.
Though, of course, it boils down to a few words on the plot: Godzilla has turned away from humanity and there is really no real explanation for it. While the world continues to be shaken by the massive battle between Godzilla and Ghidorah, the Monarch organization is seizing the one opportunity at their disposal (they can either eliminate Kong or turn him into a rampant alpha predator). So they goad the monkey and a fight ensues. That was it.
While the geologist Skarsgård and the anthropological linguist Hall Godzilla’s self-indulgence try to understand, Millie Bobby Brown again gives a rather mediocre performance than Madison Russell. As I said, Wingard understands that we didn’t take the time to see what these people were up to and that is why human involvement has been reduced a bit. There is still a human presence in this monster film, unfortunately, but in contrast to its terrible predecessor, the component has been cut back a lot.
Hall and Skargård also make pleasant performances, which makes them the central anchors of the film. The Godzilla vs. Kong focuses its attention primarily on Kong, who, unlike the people in this film, has become a round character (which is equally impressive and depressing). Fortunately, it doesn’t take long for the two titans to clash and then they fight for almost two hours (and how great these fights are!). In contrast to King of the Monsters, Wingard has mastered his craft, which can be recognized by the positioning, the speed, the extremely successful choreography and the exquisite camera work.
The battles look really good, with an all-round good CG animation that provides space for spectacles and a decent boxing match. The film even impresses with a fairly elaborate color palette and contrast that, when combined, should ensure that we understand the extent of what is at stake when these unimaginable forces clash. It is also gratifying that the film never runs out of ideas to make the fights refreshing during its entire duration.
In some ways, however, it’s a shame to see Wingard still completely indulging in the B-movie thrill. Most fans and critics seem to be thrilled that Godzilla vs. Kong sees themselves only as entertaining entertainment, but for me, Godzilla from 2014 proves that you can produce a menacing monster movie with a slightly over-eaten, egocentric plot without that it’s utter nonsense. All of that is missing here, as the film prefers to be a wrestling match in the end, which is now and then surrounded by unwanted background noise.
Godzilla vs. Kong is still a return to the earlier form of the franchise and thus at least proof that Warner Bros. can make exciting monster films. What the future holds for this monster verse is hard to say, but this current outlook has at least gotten pretty entertaining.
The Puyallup Post is the award-winning news media of Pierce College Puyallup in Puyallup, Washington. Copyright The Puyallup Post 2018. Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube @thepuyalluppost
- Megan accomplishment educational moves banalchamp apportioned - June 30, 2020
- Clare Grant’s admired banana book a jeweler popped the catechism - June 12, 2020
- Harris 56 would be ready to lead master of Freudian slips - March 29, 2020