Godzilla King of the Monsters (Sequel)

El Duda

John C Reilly's character in Skull island clearly says that Kong isn't fully grown yet.

razorblunt

peteeeed wrote: »

OUCH
1 out 5
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/godzilla-king-monsters/review/

EMPIRE must not have been invited on set with exclusive access enough for their liking.

Drumpot

razorblunt wrote: »

EMPIRE must not have been invited on set with exclusive access enough for their liking.

If anybody needed any evidence that most reviewers can’t help bringing their own bias into the equation. Hard to take anybody serious who gives 1-5 reviews in these sort of scenarios, it was nowhere near that bad for what it was.

Tony EH

Haven't seen the film, but that review is perfectly fine and the author lays out in detail why, to him, the film is just worthy of a single star.

He could have given it 0.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

Haven't seen the film, but that review is perfectly fine and the author lays out in detail why, to him, the film is just worthy of a single star.

He could have given it 0.

All reviews are subjective but generally you can gauge reasonable reviews within a couple of stars. Being able to rationalize why you think something is that bad doesn’t equate to objectivity it just means you can articulate why you felt the way you did. If you haven’t seen the movie you can hardly defend any review , no matter how much it explains it’s reasoning for said review.

johnny_ultimate

Reviews aren’t objective - an objective review is perilously close to being an oxymoron. They’re a personal response to any given piece of work.

If a reviewer wants to give the most beloved film in the world a one-star review, that’s completely within their rights - and should be absolutely respected if they can articulate their opinion clearly and coherently. As I’ve said elsewhere before, some of the most insightful reviews I’ve read are ones I completely disagree with.

A scathing review for a film I like isn’t a personal insult or a failure of criticism (unless it’s badly written or just plain ol’ trolling). It’s a symptom of a healthy, interesting discourse.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

All reviews are subjective but generally you can gauge reasonable reviews within a couple of stars. Being able to rationalize why you think something is that bad doesn’t equate to objectivity it just means you can articulate why you felt the way you did.

That's only your gauge. That doesn't apply across the board.

However, Ben Travis's review actually details his issues with the film very clearly. Of course his points are subjective. Every opinion is subjective on some level. This is especially the case with reviews. "Objectivity" doesn't really exist in this realm. But just because you don't like the review, it doesn't make it a bad one, or "unreasonable" either.

Drumpot wrote: »

If you haven’t seen the movie you can hardly defend any review , no matter how much it explains it’s reasoning for said review.

I'm defending it as a review. An opinion piece on an item of entertainment. If and when I see the film, I can decide if I agree or not with the sentiments expressed within.

Travis's review is a negative one, but it's also a relatively well written one too. He explains the problems he has with the script, the characters and the "monster mash-ups", leading to his conclusion that the film just isn't good or satisfying.

There's nothing wrong with it.

Drumpot

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Reviews aren’t objective - an objective review is perilously close to being an oxymoron. They’re a personal response to any given piece of work.

If a reviewer wants to give the most beloved film in the world a one-star review, that’s completely within their rights - and should be absolutely respected if they can articulate their opinion clearly and coherently. As I’ve said elsewhere before, some of the most insightful reviews I’ve read are ones I completely disagree with.

A scathing review for a film I like isn’t a personal insult or a failure of criticism (unless it’s badly written or just plain ol’ trolling). It’s a symptom of a healthy, interesting discourse.

Everybody is within their rights to review and comment on a movie. And equally their unclear motives or sentiments towards a movie can be challanged. I don’t understand this “they are within their right” defence because nobody is saying they aren’t. I’m saying a review that’s overly negative or positive should be challenged and be dubiously considered, no matter how well written. A movie review this out of kilter with what I would feel is the mean (between maybe 5-8) makes it come across more like somebody trying to stick out TBH.

Unless you know the motive (if any) behind a reviewer or indeed understand their own unique perspective (that can be prejudice based) or preferences you can’t really trust or respect a review just because it’s written well. It’s one of the reasons why people are so easy to manipulate and once they find a review that mirrors their views they endorse it completely. Being able to articulate , no matter how well , how you felt about a movie , doesn’t make your review more “right” or accurate.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

That's only your gauge. That doesn't apply across the board.

However, Ben Travis's review actually details his issues with the film very clearly. Of course his points are subjective. Every opinion is subjective on some level. This is especially the case with reviews. "Objectivity" doesn't really exist in this realm. But just because you don't like the review, it doesn't make it a bad one, or "unreasonable" either.

I'm defending it as a review. An opinion piece on an item of entertainment. If and when I see the film, I can decide if I agree or not with the sentiments expressed within.

Travis's review is a negative one, but it's also a relatively well written one too. He explains the problems he has with the script, the characters and the "monster mash-ups", leading to his conclusion that the film just isn't good or satisfying.

There's nothing wrong with it.

As I said, a well written review only implies that said reviewer can articulate well how they subjectively feel about something. You respect their ability to articulate how they feel but since you haven’t seen it yourself you actually don’t know if the content of their review is fair or accurate.

I’m not angry at somebody reviewing this movie as bad. Its thid whole “everybody is entitled to an opinion” argument that comes up regularly on these forums. And this usually gets thrown out when another opinion is being challanged. I think this dramatically extreme (0-2 out of 10) review is just short of snobbish trolling for coverage IMO. Since it’s my opinion I trust it’s equally valid.

I read the review and it’s not particularly insightful to be fair. Just a copy and paste of a review of any popcorn flick somebody didn’t enjoy.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

As I said, a well written review only implies that said reviewer can articulate well how they subjectively feel about something. You respect their ability to articulate how they feel but since you haven’t seen it yourself you actually don’t know if the content of their review is fair or accurate.

This is neither here nor there.

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m not angry at somebody reviewing this movie as bad. Its thid whole “everybody is entitled to an opinion” argument that comes up regularly on these forums. And this usually gets thrown out when another opinion is being challanged. I think this dramatically extreme (0-2 out of 10) review is just short of snobbish trolling for coverage IMO. Since it’s my opinion I trust it’s equally valid.

I read the review and it’s not particularly insightful to be fair. Just a copy and paste of a review of any popcorn flick somebody didn’t enjoy.

But you haven't given a coherent challenge to Travis's review.

You've simply countered his 600 word article with:

Drumpot wrote:

If anybody needed any evidence that most reviewers can’t help bringing their own bias into the equation. Hard to take anybody serious who gives 1-5 reviews in these sort of scenarios, it was nowhere near that bad for what it was.

expectationlost

39% critic score on rotten tomatoes 86% audience score https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godzilla_king_of_the_monsters_2019

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

This is neither here nor there.



But you haven't given a coherent challenge to Travis's review.

You've simply countered his 600 word article with:

His entire review is actually in my initial mock post :

Drumpot wrote: »

Cheesy dialogue, wooden characters, , predictable wafer thin plot, basic script prob written in 10 Minutes and the story could prob be written by a 10 Year old. If you went to this movie looking to find the opposite of above , take out a glove and slap yourself on the face.

I said that because I knew some lazy reviewers would revert to it and I never even saw that review before posting that. There is nothing to challange in his review , he didn’t like it and told us why, which as I said was as generic a “I didn’t like this popcorn flick” review as you can get.

Tazzimus

I seen whinging about a lack of plot for the humans in that review. You don't go to a Godzilla movie for the plot, or the humans..
They're just there to kill some time between the giant monster fight's.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

His entire review is actually in my initial mock post :



I said that because I knew some lazy reviewers would revert to it and I never even saw that review before posting that. There is nothing to challange in his review , he didn’t like it and told us why, which as I said was as generic a “I didn’t like this popcorn flick” review as you can get.

So you agree with Travis's review. Just not in so many words.

...and here's the rub, just because something is a "popcorn flick", it doesn't let it off of any scrutiny or criticism.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

So you agree with Travis's review. Just not in so many words.

No. This ....

Tazzimus wrote: »

I seen whinging about a lack of plot for the humans in that review. You don't go to a Godzilla movie for the plot, or the humans..
They're just there to kill some time between the giant monster fight's.

If you don’t know how to adjust your expectations for s popcorn flick you shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously when you review it as you would an Oscar nominated film.

Tony EH

Je repete...

Just because something is a "popcorn flick", it doesn't let it off of any scrutiny or criticism.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

Je repete...

Just because something is a "popcorn flick", it doesn't let it off of any scrutiny or criticism.

Would you review a rom com the same way would review a serious documentary or a children’s movie?

It’s not about being exempt from criticism it’s about reviewing it from a level platform where you understand and accept what the movie was trying to do, even if it’s not for you. I went to this and knew seeing massive monsters fight on screen was my primary desire. I got that and refute the waffley review that failed to grasp its primary goal.

Anybody saying that the plot and characters of a movie were poor can mean different things for different movies. If a movie is classified

- drama (bad plot and characters makes it hard to make it any good)
- blockbuster (bad plot and characters doesn’t nevessarily matter to entertainment)

If you don’t or won’t understand this then there’s not much point in talking much more about it. You are defending a review of a movie you haven’t even watched so I’m not sure where to go other then agree to disagree.

TerrorFirmer

In fairness I love a good 'popcorn' film, and for such a film I expect very little other than to be reasonably entertained. It doesn't mean that I'll happily accept any old tat though just because it has explosions/destruction, there has to be a some degree of quality to support the spectacle and add weight to it.

It is entirely correct to say that you can't apply the same standards to every genre of movie, but rather by how well it accomplishes what it set to do, and also by how well it satisfies reasonable expectations.

Kong: Skull Island, which ties into this franchise, is a good example of a movie I thought was an incredibly dumb, but perfectly entertaining popcorn flick with undeniable charm.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters does not have any of that, on any level. It is a terrible, bloated, horribly made movie no matter what yardstick you measure it by. The CGI is pretty good admittedly, but that's about it. The script and dialogue, are all outrageously poor. A lot of the action is pure empty and unsatisfying spectacle because of it.

With regards to this whole "Sure, who goes see Godzilla for the script?"; no-one expects world class dialogue from such a movie or even close to it but it's also not asking too much that a major Hollywood production exceeds the quality of something like 'Sharknado' or 'Lava Spiders'.

I honestly think the Empire review is bang on, I could probably be inclined to give it 2/5 rather than 1/5 for some of the reasonable visuals but it is a really poor movie and I couldn't wait for it to be over.

At the time, I don't remember being amazed by the 2014 Godzilla but I do know compared to this it is a masterpiece.

This is definitely the blockbuster turd of the year for me so far.

MisterAnarchy

El Duda wrote: »

John C Reilly's character in Skull island clearly says that Kong isn't fully grown yet.

Yes ,he is an adolescent in Skull Island but cant see him quadrupling in height .
Himself and Godzilla will unite to fight the common foe in the next film Id imagine.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

Would you review a rom com the same way would review a serious documentary or a children’s movie?

A documentary isn't a piece of entertainment, even if they can be entertaining. It's primary concern is as a vehicle for imparting information. So, the most useful judgement is reserved for how well it does that, which is very different from how a fictional (and they are all fictional) film is going to be reviewed. If a good looking, well produced, Battle of Britain documentary shows a Ju87D flying, while the narrator talks about Focke Wulfs over London. Then it hasn't done its job well on numerous levels.

But, we're not talking about documentaries here. We're talking about fictional movies, and yes they will all be judged on certain milestones in reviews. That is script, acting, direction, production and entertainment value. These five basic areas of a review will apply to all movies, whether it's a romantic comedy or a horror, with production covering a large area (such as sound design or lighting) and entertainment value being the hinge point, as it were.

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s not about being exempt from criticism it’s about reviewing it from a level platform

Exactly. But, when you want a certain film to be judged differently, because it's a "popcorn movie" (or whatever type), then you are removing that platform. So called "popcorn movies" should be judged no differently from anything else really. It's popcorn status doesn't offer it any protection from critical analysis regarding its script, acting, direction, production or entertainment value.

Ultimately, whether someone finds a given film entertaining or is based on what they feel when watching it and whether you believe that popcorn movies or B movies or horror movies should be reviewed differently matters not.

Drumpot wrote: »

If you don’t or won’t understand this then there’s not much point in talking much more about it. You are defending a review of a movie you haven’t even watched so I’m not sure where to go other then agree to disagree.

I'll repeat, once more for you, I am only saying that Travis's review is a fairly well written piece that clearly outlines his opinion on the film.

It DOESN'T MATTER whether I have seen the film or not.

And no, I don't and won't agree with YOUR set of personal criteria for reviewing a film. You don't like the Travis's review of a film you personally like.

That's all this really comes down to.

silverharp

they messed up big in the first movie "subverting expectations" by killing off Bryan Cranston and replacing his character with ones I cant even remember. I think Ill give this a miss

johnny_ultimate

It's fitting that after we got the best modern (Shin) Godzilla film, that we get the worst.

Thought this was pretty awful even taken on its own very modest terms. The script truly is a stinker, and not in the sort of playful, self-aware way that could fit such a film. Whether that's the immediately irritating comic relief (I like Bradley Whitford, but yeesh), tedious family drama, confused motivations or exposition h-bombs, no amount of better acting than is on display here could have saved this. Speaking of h-bombs, I was left pretty baffled by what this film was trying to say about the environment, nuclear power etc... despite several characters taking the time to articulate their feelings on such matters. I don't expect subtlety or nuance from Godzilla's original allegorical musings, but I do expect some sort of basic coherence. This deviates so wildly it's hard to know what the hell anyone or anything stands for here. If they were purposefully going for something more ambiguous, they shat the bed.

I don't believe a Godzilla movie merely needs to be a dumb rock 'em sock 'em monsters movie, but even on that criteria the film fumbles. Credit where credit is due: some of the more artfully framed silhouettes offer fleeting moments where you recognise the awesome, destructive majesty of these classic beasts. I mean, the silhouette of a three-headed dragon proudly roosting on a volcano is naturally fairly cool. But when they're actually fighting things quickly get lost in a mess of dim light, shaky camera, heavy rain and oddly one-note monster designs (I can only imagine it would have been worse if they didn't colour-code the monsters so explicitly). Just compare any of this film's over-busy, messy fight scenes with the devastating clarity of Shin Godzilla's atomic breath scene: there's simply no comparison, even though the Japanese film had a tiny fraction of this one's budget.

I wasn't a fan of Godzilla 2014 by any stretch, but it did have some sense of grandeur and tension in sequences such as the HALO drop one. There's little of that here: it's a noisy, cacophonous film comfortable to just plough on through without doing anything special or noteworthy.

As an aside: I can only hope

Sally Hawkins actually wanted out of this franchise to explain the bizarre treatment of her character here

.

El Duda

Saw this last night. I was the only one in the cinema. I can completely understand why someone would give this 1 star. The first 45 minutes were good but then the humans come into play more and more. It feels like the dialogue gets progressively worse with every line. Their actions, motivations and the geography of where they are/how they travel around makes no sense.

I remembered Chernobyl was on so I decided to leave early, I had about 20 minutes to go. It did not need to be over 2 hours as it started to get exhausting.

jones

El Duda wrote: »

Saw this last night. I was the only one in the cinema. I can completely understand why someone would give this 1 star. The first 45 minutes were good but then the humans come into play more and more. It feels like the dialogue gets progressively worse with every line. Their actions, motivations and the geography of where they are/how they travel around makes no sense.

I remembered Chernobyl was on so I decided to leave early, I had about 20 minutes to go. It did not need to be over 2 hours as it started to get exhausting.

It must of been bad if you left 20 minutes early in the cinema i've never done that ha

p to the e

I was a fan of of the 2014 film which this version is inevitably going to be compared to. The tense slow build ups, well used silences and fantastic HALO drop scene brought the hairs on my neck to a stand still. Apparently this isn't what the "fans" wanted.

I'm sure online Godzilla forums (shudders) were awash with complaints of not getting to see their eponymous hero until half way through the film and the fact that no dinosaur knockoff was pushed through buildings enough. That's the only reasoning I can think of that they'd take such a different directing stance with this version. Warner Bros. seemed to be following the Marvel stance of bringing in directors with little experience to helm €200 million epics who will basically just do as they are told.

Probably my biggest issue with this was something that is always going to be a problem for movies with creatures of that size and scope; that is the speed of them relative to their size. For me they were moving way too fast which really underplayed their size and power. Also at times their size even seemed inconsistent. Sometimes they were as big as mountains and skyscrapers and at others they didn't.

Also as someone mentioned regards Sally Hawkins character.

What the hell happened there?!

El Duda

jones wrote: »

It must of been bad if you left 20 minutes early in the cinema i've never done that ha

Tbh it really wasn't that bad.


In recent years I've sat through Suicide Squad and The Predator which were far far worse. I look forward to seeing the end of Godzilla 2 when it comes out on DVD.



Chernobyl on the other hand, is sensational.


Edit:

Yeah, the treatment of Sally Hawkins is odd.

I forgot she was in it. Her stock has risen since 2014, perhaps she sees this franchise as being below her now? So they gave all of her lines to other characters?

jones

p to the e wrote: »

I was a fan of of the 2014 film which this version is inevitably going to be compared to. The tense slow build ups, well used silences and fantastic HALO drop scene brought the hairs on my neck to a stand still. Apparently this isn't what the "fans" wanted.

This is my thoughts exactly i loved the 2014 film great suspense and glimpses of the sheer size of Godzilla. Remember the airport scene where you just see the foot drop. It was insanely good as was the halo drop. The funny thing is i don't recall many complaints when it was released to lead to this massive change. Hands up i haven't seen the new one yet but i will

ThePott

Thought this movie was a real disappointment, had some moments but not great. Did a full review below, if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUgKX_P1v5E

Slydice

El Duda wrote: »

I decided to leave early, I had about 20 minutes

Hold on... did you sit through all that just to miss

extra powered-up glowing Godzilla repeatedly blowing up Ghidorah to death

?!! :eek:

El Duda

I think the

"My God"

"...Zilla"

Dialogue ended me.

expectationlost

El Duda wrote: »

I think the

"My God"

"...Zilla"

Dialogue ended me.

and people here saying the dialogue wasn't purposefully bad.

expectationlost

the scene in the trailer with her on the radio wasn't in the film right? that comic con trailer spoiled

vermigas turn in the film...

looking at the trailer again, so much shown!

will somebody please rein in the marketing teams

so much destruction in this film I hope the godzilla vs kong deals with that as endgame did a bit

Outlaw Pete

I liked the Godzilla movie from '98, the one with the Puff Daddy / Jimmy Page soundtrack. Seen it in Savoy One, crazy it's been that long.

This though, was dreadful.

pixelburp

I had been gearing up to see this, even as a guilty pleasure because I just can't resist Creature Features, but when the condemnation is this universal - with Kermode referring to it as "Wet Transformers" - I think I might keep my cinema shillings in my pocket

Slydice

pixelburp wrote: »

I had been gearing up to see this, even as a guilty pleasure because I just can't resist Creature Features, but when the condemnation is this universal - with Kermode referring to it as "Wet Transformers" - I think I might keep my cinema shillings in my pocket

it's not one of those worth it on streaming tho.. the SPOSIONS! Think of the Splosions! and big sound RAAARRRGHssss!

Mad_maxx

Is it better than the 1998 godzila? , that is surely one of the worst movies ever made

Cantona's Collars

Ignore the human element and enjoy the giant fights,they got the scale better in this one as the first was generally smoke and dust during those scenes.
Who doesn't like giant monsters fighting and smashing things?

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

I had been gearing up to see this, even as a guilty pleasure because I just can't resist Creature Features, but when the condemnation is this universal - with Kermode referring to it as "Wet Transformers" - I think I might keep my cinema shillings in my pocket

Just booked it for tonight. Then I thought to check this thread. Oh dear.

Church on Tuesday

It's loud and dumb and at over 2 hours long you WILL be exhausted after it, but it passes the time nicely.

Strictly for hardcore Godzilla fans this; the plot is paper thin and the acting fairly poor but it's semi decent popcorn flick entertainment.

ancapailldorcha

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

It's loud and dumb and at over 2 hours long you WILL be exhausted after it, but it passes the time nicely.

Strictly for hardcore Godzilla fans this; the plot is paper thin and the acting fairly poor but it's semi decent popcorn flick entertainment.

I wanted to see it in 4DX or IMAX but settled for my local cinema. If it's not all that then it's no loss.

silverharp

I saw one commentary that the third movie will be delayed even though its “in the can” , either that they will strip down the post production costs or do reshoots to beef up the characters. Depends on their attitude I guess whether they just want to cut their losses or not?

Chris_Heilong

The film was not good, The human characters are Transformers level of personality, the Bad guys plot is laughable and the Monsters are surrounded by flares, motion blur and rain so you can really make out what is going on. It was just a mess and I have been a Godzilla fan since the 80s, Kong Skull island was a better monster movie.

This film did not bomb as some American industry magazines have claimed and it will break even or make a profit soon enough based on worldwide projections.
In regards to the delay in the next film it is just for post effects they are working on as the film is already shot.

rob316

Big monsters fighting aside that was absolutely dreadful. Felt like watching one of those bad made for tv movies on the sci-fi channel. Casting was abysmal too, Kyle Chandler as the lead actor is terrible, he's so poor.

JJayoo

I really don't want to see Kong and Godzilla fight, I want them to be friends

I would like to see one of these titans back in the 1940s, a monster Vs WWII army capabilities.

Homelander

Terrible film, even by brainless popcorn standards. Nailed it above, plays out like a SyFy original movie.

Slydice

Big Screen really made a difference in the fights. Especially that last one.

Didn't enjoy it at all, not enough monster time, and too much human screen time, all Kyle Chandler did was do slow turn arounds ffs.

I know its a dumb leave your brain at home flick, but its a " MONSTER MOVIE" with "MONSTERS"!!!!!!!!!, more monsters fighting please.

MisterAnarchy

I only got around to seeing the film now .
I watched it at home on the big tv and surround sound system and I thorougly enjoyed it .
The plot was full of holes,the special effects were ropey but the action scenes were good and the score by McCreary was excellent.

Tony EH

Half way through this and it is fucking terrible.

The dialogue is incredibly fatuous and the characters have to be the most annoying cunts I've seen in a film in a long time.

Every time that black military skinhead wan appears, she says something inane and I just want to launch the remote control at the screen.

There's also a horrible habit of zooming the camera into the face of of one of these arseholes, so they can say some crappy expo line or look in "awe" at some CGI bollocks. It happens so many times too.

Just awful shit altogether, even for a dumb monster movie. So angry at myself for wasting time on it. I opted for this over 'Good Will Hunting'. I need my bloody head examined.

biggebruv

Tony EH wrote: »

Half way through this and it is fucking terrible.

The dialogue is incredibly fatuous and the characters have to be the most annoying cunts I've seen in a film in a long time.

Every time that black military skinhead wan appears, she says something inane and I just want to launch the remote control at the screen.

There's also a horrible habit of zooming the camera into the face of of one of these arseholes, so they can say some crappy expo line or look in "awe" at some CGI bollocks. It happens so many times too.

Just awful shit altogether, even for a dumb monster movie. So angry at myself for wasting time on it. I opted for this over 'Good Will Hunting'. I need my bloody head examined.

The part where the Chinese wan looks at the big money moth in awe was pure cheese on toast I thought that **** stopped in the 90s what where they thinking with that one