Skip to main content

Godzilla and Friends


Godzilla: King of the Monsters is an unusual beast. Much like the title monster, it’s both misunderstood and chaotic. Generally, I try to disregard critical consensus when seeing a movie, but I couldn’t help it with this one, because it’s reception intrigued me. Some of my favourite reliable critics hated it, while others loved it. Not often are major films like this so divisive among professional film writers (movies like The Last Jedi and Captain Marvel rather are divisive among “fans” -an important distinction). King of the Monsters is certainly lousy in some respects, but legitimately great in others. The point of contention then is actually which of these really matter.
A follow-up to Gareth Edwards’ mediocre 2014 film, King of the Monsters charts the stories of a couple different parties tracking and studying behemoth monsters called Titans. Aligned with an eco-terrorist cell and in retribution for losing her son during Godzilla’s attack, Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) sets free a Hydra-like monster (King Ghidorah) as part of a plan to scorch the Earth and restart its ecological processes. Her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) and ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), the latter working for the Monarch research organization, attempt to stop the rampage of the leviathan through bringing Godzilla into the fray as other Titans get involved, unleashing wanton destruction in their wake.
This movies’ plot doesn’t make a lot of sense and the screenplay is more than a little badly written, dotted with some utterly terrible dialogue and lazy contrivances. There’s also some questionable ethics at play, both of the kind presented as morally wrong in context, and some the film doesn’t seem to realize are highly problematic. And most of the characters are paper thin, as despite plenty of talent in the cast, only a handful are in any way engaging. But how much do these things really matter in a Godzilla movie? Because, let’s be honest, Godzilla and the related kaiju franchises to come out of Toho starting in the 1950s, are no paragons of cinema. They exist to be pulpy monster spectacles, not much more.
And as a pulpy monster spectacle, King of the Monsters is pretty satisfying. Great even! Though director Michael Dougherty doesn’t quite have the sense of scale that Gareth Edwards brought, he more than makes up for it with an array of stunningly composed shots. There is some fantastic imagery in this film, Dougherty knowing just how to make these creatures look and feel intimidating and awesome to the degree ancient pagan gods should. All of the titans are rendered well and obviously have fun and creative designs. The film is also made fairly explicitly for the fans of the franchise, as in addition to Godzilla and Ghiodrah, Mothra and Rodan have big parts, and there are appearances from a number of other notable kaiju I’m sure the fans will recognize. Their clashes are epic, creative, and exciting, and they have personalities that come through and distinguish them from each other. These aren’t just big monsters. I’ve never seen a Mothra movie, yet I instantly liked her in this.
But for as much as one might argue humans aren’t important in a kaiju movie, they are still a part of it, a big part; and so the human characters should be better defined. Brown, along with Zhang Ziyi and Ken Watanabe get by on the strength of their performances (and Watanabe’s Serizawa being the only memorable character from the previous film), but nobody else has any opportunity to transcend their clichéd writing, from Farmiga and Chandler to Bradley Whitford, Aisha Hinds, and Thomas Middleditch, to a thoroughly wasted Sally Hawkins and Charles Dance. And while the Godzilla movies have never been starving for acclaimed, talented actors (the original 1954 film starred the legendary Takashi Shimura of all the best Kurosawa classics), it’s not much to expect they be given adequate material. David Strathairn is in all of two scenes as some military commander whose role is purely to exposit -surely, they didn’t need an Academy Award nominee for that?
There’s a nuclear component to this movie as well that’s at best ill-thought through. It’s worth noting that while the initial Godzilla movie was somewhat a response to The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, Ishirō Honda injected it with a lot of commentary on Cold War tensions, with much of the imagery in the destruction and aftermath being directly analogous to the American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With that in mind, the way nuclear technology plays into setting up the climax of this movie where ultimately it’s framed in a positive light doesn’t quite sit right. While the monsters in this film are more representative of climate change and natural disasters as they should be, nuclear anxiety remains the code to the kaiju movie tradition; so for this film to seemingly forget that (or overlook it, given it was made on this side of the Pacific) is more than a tad irresponsible.
Honestly I feel like the best Godzilla movie, and the one that would never happen, would be one that just eliminates people entirely. Sure, human civilization is needed for the giant lizard to stomp all over, but the focus on people is the main thing that brings Godzilla: King of the Monsters down -even if I can see what the studio was going for and like individual segments of it. I don’t think anyone who goes in for the monsters, seeing them in their full glory, and seeing them fight is going to be disappointed. But for people expecting to see more from a movie that really wants to give them more…well, just be happy there’s no Matthew Broderick in sight.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more