Movie Reaction: Godzilla vs. Kong

Formula: (Godzilla + Godzilla: King of the Monsters) / 2 + Kong: Skull Island

 

(An eager and ambitious WB executive walks up to director Adam Wigard.)

 

WB Executive: Adam! I've got a great idea for you.

 

Adam Wigard: Sure. What is it?

 

WB: Kong VERSUS Godzilla!

 

AW: I don't know. I am a horror director mostly. Are you sure you want me for a big blockbuster like this?

 

WB: Sure. It's no crazier than hiring Collin Trevorrow for Jurassic World.

 

AW: Good point. But, are you sure you all want to get into another extended universe? It hasn't been working that well for you.

 

WB: I don't know what you mean?

 

AW: You had to give up on the DC Extended Universe -

 

WB: It's thriving now...just not as interconnec-

 

AW: Fantastic Beasts is diluting the Harry Potter universe at the same time that J.K. Rowling  is tweet-

 

WB: It's still the most successful franchise in histor-

 

AW: The Hobbit sure spent all the goodwill for Lord of the Rings and ended with a whimper.

 

WB: But people still watch Lord of the Rings around Christmas.

 

AW: And remember the failure of the Dark Unive-

 

WB: Look, do you want the job or not?

 

AW: I mean sure. That sounds fun. What did you all have in mind for the story?

 

WB: It's Godzilla versus Kong. What more do you need?

 

AW: But how do you get them in the same place? Why are they fighting?

 

WB: Literally make up any reason you want. No one watching the movie is going to care if it make no sense. For all I care, you can make the Earth hollow and have a giant dinosaur monster world at the planet core.

 

AW: Seriously? I might use that if you really don't care.

 

WB: If they do fight in a city though, China requests Hong Kong.

 

AW: You know, I always thought Pensacola would be a cool town for a figh-

 

WB: CHINA. REQUESTS. HONG. KONG.

 

AW: OK. Noted. How crazy are we talking though?

 

WB: Have them fight on a boat for all we care. Just have them fight.

 

AW: Aren't they a little big to fight on boats? Even on an aircraft carrier, the physics of it would make no sense.

 

WB: Adam, you are really overthinking this. No one is going to care. We are the studio of Man of Steel. Destroy anything you want.

 

AW: So, who's available?

 

WB: From the previous movies, we've got Brie Larson, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Elizabeth Olsen...

 

AW: Wasn't one of those movies set in the 70s?

 

WB: Good point. I guess we can't use them.

 

AW: Besides, these days, they're probably too busy with Marvel-

 

WB: NEVER! Say! That! Word!

 

AW: Apologies.

 

WB: It really doesn't matter who we get. Might as well bring back Millie Bobby Brown and Kyle Chandler. The Stranger Things and Friday Night Lights fans will bring all of their annoying enthusiasm.

 

AW: I've always liked Rebecca Hall, Brian Tyree Henry, Demian Bichir, and Eliza Gonzalez. Oh, and that kid from Hunt for the Wilderpeople.

 

WB: ...Sure. Again, it really doesn't matter. They'll be place setters and exposition devices anyway.

 

AW: Of course. I understand. The plot doesn't matter.

 

WB: And get Alexander Skarsgaard. People love him.

 

AW: Doesn't he almost exclusively play abusive husbands these days?

 

WB: Excuse me. He was also in Legend of Tarzan which people all loved and was a huge hit.

 

AW: ...

 

WB: ...

 

AW: ...Was it really-

 

WB: Trust us! It was a huge success that we don't regret making at all.

 

AW: ...

 

WB: ...Regardless, we're giving you a huge budget. We've got great visual effects people working on this, so it will be a big, loud, raucous good time. Do you think you're up for the job?

 

AW: Before I agree, I want to make sure I'm understanding this all. One could even call these my final thoughts on the film I'm about to make. I'm a really competent director, who is going to make a big movie about Godzilla fighting Kong. That's the only part that anyone will need to care about, and I'll assemble a team that can delivery that, even if it's occasionally overwhelming to watch that much chaos and damage on screen. I'll assemble a pretty good cast, but they'll mainly only be there to explain a really convoluted plot. I won't even need to make sure the humor is very good. I'm going to deliver Kong fighting Godzilla 2 or 3 times, and that's going to be plenty for audiences, because that's all they should expect going in anyway with a title like Godzilla vs. Kong?

 

WB: That sounds suspiciously like a third party review of the film after it's completed, but yeah. That sounds about right.

 

-End Scene-

 

And, for the record, I actually do love 2016's The Legend of Tarzan.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

 

Delayed Reaction: Malcolm & Marie

Premise: A director and his model girlfriend get into a long argument once they get home from the premiere of his new movie.

 

I almost don't know where to begin. My original thought of this movie when I finished watching it was that I wished it was in a language I didn't understand. That way, I could soak in the gorgeous black and white cinematography and be enthralled by Zendaya and John David Washington's performances, but I could ignore everything being said. Those two really are something in this. They go through a range of emotions. Everything that makes them stars in on display. It's the first truly grown-up role I've seen Zendaya in and I'm fully convinced she'll be just fine once she moves out of the high school and college roles (not that I was all that concerned before this). Similarly, it's nice to see that Washington in a movie stripped of all the plotting of his star making movies is just as electric. And those two steam up the screen throughout.

 

That said, fuck this movie. I can find more eloquent ways to say it, but that's really what it comes down to. Most of that ire goes to writer/director Sam Levinson, who made his stars into mouthpieces for a bunch of whining about people not understanding how brilliant he is. You see, Malcolm (Washington) and Marie (Zendaya) get home after the premiere of his movie. It's some film about a woman struggling with addiction that's not so subtlety about Marie, and it's a hit. Everyone in the theater loved it. He's finally being praised as a genius. He refuses to let himself be happy about it though. The same people praising him he calls phonies or fools who don't even understand his work. Meanwhile, Marie is pissed off with Malcolm for a variety of reasons that boil down to "he doesn't appreciate her" and he's really exhausting to be around. This is a pretty toxic relationship based on what we see in the film. At one point, Marie suggests that we're watching the worst argument they've even had, and I don't buy that for a second. We get glimpses of what they see in each other but not nearly enough to believe them ending up together is a good thing.

 

Honestly, the relationship discussion parts are fine. The parts that makes the movie insufferable are when they talk about movies, filmmaking, and "the industry". It pulls every cowardly and lazy trick in the book to shield itself from criticism. Malcolm goes on a rant about how critics couldn't possibly understand what a filmmaker is doing (That's not actually the point of criticism, by the way). Very smart. He "critic-proofs" the movie by attacking critics in the movie. That way, if anyone doesn't like your movie, it's because they're sour over being called out, not because the movie is actually bad. Levinson also employs the "Just kidding" tactic to say whatever he wants and not be held accountable for it. You know what I'm talking about. Someone says something really mean to you then adds "just kidding" at the end so no one can get mad at them. In Malcolm and Marie, it comes in the form of Malcolm going on long diatribes about how everyone in the world is inferior to him, then Marie laughs it off, calls him a jerk, or rolls her eyes. Levinson is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He gets to go on whatever whiny rant he wants then diffuse it by saying "No, it's meant to be funny". I do relate to Malcolm in one way though. People never tell me I'm right or wrong about things. They just tell me I think too much.

 

I'd also like to take a moment to ask Malcolm something. I'm obviously not asking Sam Levinson this, because Malcolm is just a character and not a direct mouthpiece for Levinson's most conceited impulses. Do you actually want people putting in that much time thinking about your work? That's his big complaint. Critics and fans of his talk about his movies like they get them and they don't. Just ask George Lucas how he feels about people investing years into examining his work. I'm sure Zemeckis isn't tired of answering Back to the Future questions either. The truth is, no filmmaker should want people to care as much about their movies as they do. That would suck if people dedicated as much time to examining the movie as the filmmaker did constructing and making it. Of course, Sam Levinson already knows this. I'm certain he's not using this movie as a petulant way to complain about how people don't get what he was doing in Assassination Nation and Euphoria.

 

Maybe Sam Levinson just needed to get this out of his system. I've routinely disliked his movies and shows so far, but I think that could change eventually. He has a talent for maximizing the performances from his casts. Euphoria and Malcolm & Marie are both visually distinctive and sometimes even beautiful, and I don't think that frequent cinematographer Macell Rev is responsible for all of it. I guess I remain unconvinced that Levinson is much of a writer.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

 

Delayed Reaction: Superman II

Premise: Krypton criminals come to rule Earth and only Superman can stop them.

 

File this movie in the category of "the production was more interesting than the movie". I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that had things gone differently with Superman II, that could've changed so much about how major films would be made for the next 40 years. For those unfamiliar, the first two Superman movies were meant to be shot back-to-back with Richard Donner directing both. Due to some personality clashed and logistical issues, production was halted most of the way through shooting Superman II. When production began again, it was with Richard Lester directing who ended up reshooting a significant amount of the movie. So, between that and some shortsighted agreements with Marlon Brando, the Superman movies ended up being much costlier to the studio, even in success, than Warner Brothers anticipated. Now, imagine if the plan had worked. Would even more franchise movies be shot back-to-back like that? Would super hero movies have dominated the box office even sooner with more Superman movies and Batman coming even sooner? We'll never know, but it's fun to think about.

 

I can't say I liked Superman II as much as the original. The origin story was way more fun than just another adventure. I haven't seen "the Donner" cut of Superman II, so maybe it's a difference in filmmaker preference. I do like the descriptions I hear of how Donner liked shooting the movie on an epic scale than Lester's funnier, lighthearted take. Superman II repeatedly retreats from any developments. Lois figures out that Clark is Superman only to have her brain wiped at the end. Clark gives up his powers for Lois then gets them back by the end*. Lex Luthor is only an annoyance in this, which makes it surprising he could ever pose a threat to Superman. I like superhero movies when they are somewhat episodic, but I could've skipped from Superman to Superman III without missing a beat. That's a bit too episodic.

 

*I'm also not sure why giving up his powers is required to be with Lois, but whatever.

 

I think Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder remain the best Clark and Lois, and I appreciate how much they get to interact in this without Superman in the way. It's still odd to me how naturally bald Gene Hackman looks so right but fully bald Gene Hackman looks unsettling here. Is that a bald cap? Maybe that's it. Regardless, I appreciate that he really goes for it with how much of a little shit Lex Luthor is, even if he doesn't make as good a lead villain that way. Terence Stamp's Zod is appropriately intimidating. The movie has plenty of fun with him and his crew figuring out Earth.

 

Not nearly as endearing as the original, but still a thoroughly good time.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Yes God Yes

Premise: A high school girl at a Catholic high school in 2000 starts to question both her understanding of sexuality and religion when she goes on her Junior retreat.

 

I really really liked this movie even though certain aspects annoyed me to no end. You see, I too went to a Catholic high school in a "flyover state" in the early 2000s and went on a Junior retreat with a similar 4-day structure. Let's just say this triggered a lot of memories.

 

The biggest strength of this movie is how keenly observed it is. It's obvious that writer/director Karen Maine grew up in the Midwest and went on a Catholic retreat like this. If she wasn't born between 1982 and 1984, I'd be shocked. She captures all the awkwardness of things like talking to priests and confessing sins to them. I love when Alice (Natalie Dyer) is in her small group and makes up something traumatic in her life to this group of classmates she barely knows (I recognized that hard). Even the way the internet is used is spot on: asking questions in random AOL chatrooms and panicking over every sound you hear from another room because you think your parents will catch you. I don't know how this movie plays to people not born sometime in the 80s, but it sure captured a moment for me.

 

The humor mostly worked for me. I was hoping for something a little more pointed like Saved. This mostly has fun with people not knowing what they're talking about, like Alice's inability to find out what "tossed the salad" means. There's all the virtue signaling, which I somewhat recall from high school as well. And the message of the movie is great. It's not so much saying that all religion is dumb. Instead, it's a reminder that no one has all the answers and you should interrogate the rules you are told rather than blindly accept them.

 

The things that annoyed me about the movie come down to me being a little too close to it. I don't know Karen Maine's exact situation growing up and I did have my Junior retreat in 2004, when the internet was more accessible than in 2000, but this all felt annoyingly exaggerated. My Catholic high school in Kentucky was nowhere near that repressed. Did kids really get that much savvier in 4 years? I remember at my own retreat treating my atheism like some dangerous secret I was keeping, but I also remember most students rolling their eyes at the "Live the Fourth" stuff a week later.

 

Then there's the line from the movie that pissed me off. After Alice runs away from the retreat and finds herself at a lesbian bar nearby, the owner has a talk with her before taking her back to the camp. As she's leaving, she asks Alice where she's planning to go to school. Alice tells her she's probably going to "State". The bar owner then suggests she should look for schools on the East or West coast to get away from this stuff. I'm sorry, but that's just dumb as shit. The state school is not a fucking bible college just because it's not on a coast. That is so lazy. Why couldn't it have been that Alice tells her she's looking at some Private Catholic college and the bar owner tells her to look at some state schools? Or why couldn't the advice have been to look for something out of state to get a little further away from home? The east or west coast school advice is lazy writing. I wish more movies would stop it with this idea that tolerant and intolerant people are in geographically distinct locations. After all, there is a fucking lesbian bar just a couple miles from where this Catholic retreat is taking place.

 

But again, overall a good movie. Just a couple bugaboos that really got to me.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Palmer

Premise: A former football star who just served a 12-year prison sentence somehow becomes a father figure to a young boy who is more free-spirited than the small town is ready for.

 

Are we running out of time to make Justin Timberlake a star? That feels strange to ask, because he isn't even 40 yet. I feel like he should be a real movie star by now though if it's going to happen. After a few years of taking some serious roles in forgotten movies like Alpha Dog and Black Snake Moan, he had a huge moment around 2010-2013. He turned fringe Oscar consideration for The Social Network and rapturous praise for SNL hosting gigs into every kind of movie he could be in, in search of an identity that worked. He did comedies (Bad Teacher, Friends with Benefits), action (In Time, Runner Runner), and drama (Trouble With the Curve, Inside Llewyn Davis). And even those were different kinds of roles: some lead - some supporting; some singing - other not; Sci-Fi, romance, thrillers. He was decently praised in some of these too, but nothing stuck. Bad Teacher broke $100 million barely with him in a supporting role, and that was his biggest success. Of his lead roles, none got above $55 million. He mostly retreated back into music after that run, and there's no more urgency to make him a star at this point.

 

All that said, I think Palmer is the right direction to go if he's looking to be more than a pop star who dabbles in films. The energy that he brings to SNL doesn't translate to fleshed out movie characters. He doesn't ooze with the right charisma for movie star franchise roles. He's been at his best in dramatic roles. Previously, I wondered if it was just that David Fincher and the Coen Brothers can make anyone look good. And he was supporting characters in those movies. Palmer though, is a leading role with a less lauded director (sorry Fisher Stevens) and Timberlake is still really good in it. I think what it comes down to is that Timberlake is at his best when no one is expecting him to bring anything; when he doesn't have to bring the SNL energy or translate the pop star fame into onscreen charisma. In Palmer, he's just acting and letting the film figure the rest out.

 

Look, Palmer is a trite movie. It's cleanly messy. The characters' lives have a lot of complications, but the story moves forward in very familiar ways. No one will accuse it of being too experimental with the storytelling. It works though. Justin Timberlake dials it back a lot. I believe him as a reformed criminal. Prison didn't harden him. It just made him more cautious. Palmer is a former high school football star and he seems genuinely humbled by life. I love June Squibb as his grandmother. It's the first time I've seen her since that Oscar nomination for Nebraska in which she was written as a human and not cheap laughs. She's really lovely with the young boy played by Ryder Allen who she watches over because his mom (Juno Temple) is a train wreck. Timberlake seems to inherit her decency around the boy.

 

I was so pleased with how the movie handles the boy, Sam. He's a 10-or-so-year-old kid in a small town who likes dressing like a princess and other traditionally girly things. 9/10 movies would make him a complete reject who only Timberlake grows to understand. Instead, many people in the town take the kid under their wing. Sam has several friends in school (all girls, but so what). Other moms try to make him feel included, as does his teacher. June Squibb is kind to him, even if he challenges some of her old school notions. Sure, he has some assholes who mistreat him, but it's a much more realistic ratio of people. Compared to how often I see these lazy depictions of small towns in things like The Prom, Palmer was so nice to see. Here's proof that it's not that hard to make a movie that doesn't look down on people who don't live in a city.

 

I've gone on way too long about a movie that I just liked. It's a sweet movie. Justin Timberlake and the rest of the cast are good. It gets a little melodramatic, but that's part and parcel with this kind of movie. I really just liked how nice the movie is. 

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

 

Quick Reaction: Computer Chess

I really loved Andrew Bujalski's movie Support the Girls. The movie he made before that, Results, I found charming, but not quite as good. Computer Chess is the movie he made before Results, and I liked it a little less as well. Put a different way, I think Bujalski is improving as a filmmaker appreciably with his latest films. I doubt I'll go back to his early mumblecore stuff, because I've come to realize something obvious: mumblecore directors get a lot better with better actors. It's been true of Joe Swanberg and the Duplass brothers. I don't know if Noah Baumbach counts, but it applies to him too. I like the point of view of these filmmakers. They just need better actors delivering the performances. Like, I'm not going to love Support the Girls without Regina Hall and Haley Lu Richardson playing the roles so well.

 

I bring all this up because I felt that absence of familiar actors in Computer Chess. This mocumentary about a computer chess tournament in 1980 has the charm of a Christopher Guest film, but Bujalski cast mainly tech professionals for all the roles. not professional actors. This does add authenticity to the lingo, which is important since so much of the film was improvised. There are some funny ideas in this, just no actors to land the punchlines. The movie is good enough. It's got some very subdued humor. I'm glad Bujalski was able to use this as a stepping stone to make bigger movies. This one didn't do much for me though.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Little Things

Premise: A former detective and a hot shot city detective try to find a serial killer.

 

I've tried starting this Reaction a few times and every time, it gets snarky very quickly. Instead, let me just be direct. This movie is based on a screenplay written in 1993 and it shows. The movie is set in the mid-90s for no specific reason. Other than cell phones maybe, there's isn't much to this that needs to be a period piece. More importantly though, this plays like any of the crime movies of the 90s. It's got the characters of a Se7en, the story of a Kiss the Girls, and the legal dubiousness of a Double Jeopardy. Even that much is fine. I enjoy a throwback. I too lament the disappearance of the mid-level budget movie for grownups. The problem is that the movie doesn't want to comment on anything from the last 25 years either. I'm not sure I need more movies about men terrorizing character-less women. Women exist in this movie to be pictures on Denzel Washington's wall, which is something I really thought we'd all moved past. The bigger issue though I can't really talk about without spoiling some of the movie. The way things resolve in the end of this movie involves a type of police work that is really tone deaf to the last few years. Partly thanks to Denzel's own work in Training Day, opinions of cops taking advantage of the rules to save their own asses have changed significantly. The movie doesn't comment at all on how fucked up it is when a cop brazenly bends the system to his advantage. If anything, it has sympathy for the detectives breaking the rules.

 

Even if I stop looking at the movie with modern lenses and try to enjoy it as a simple throwback, I didn't really care for the movie very much. Denzel plays a former L.A. detective who burned out and moved out of L.A. to be a small-town cop. A clerical task takes him back to L.A. for a few days where he gets involved with investigating a serial killer case that Rami Malek is the lead detective on. They soon zero in on Jared Leto, playing the most suspicious person ever, as the lead suspect. It's then a game of wits to see who can outsmart whom. Denzel can play this role well in his sleep - best in the business, with a haunted past, and is his own worst enemy. He's the only main performance I came close to liking. That said, I think his character would make more sense if he played the role in 1993. The man is 66 now. Even if we cross the customary 15 years off the age of any of his roles, he still feels too old for this. Maybe that's just me though. Rami Malek is a very specific on-screen presence. He doesn't play decency or natural well. He can be cocky but not an everyman, which is his role in this unfortunately. He's a hotshot detective with a normal family life, and I swear I saw the envy in Malek's eyes every time he shared a scene with Jared Leto. Leto is fine, I guess. Personally, I'm a little tired of Leto going big and weird in performances. I am so confused about how he got SAG and Golden Globe nominations for this performance. That performance in this movie has no business getting any awards attention.

 

I don't think I hated the movie. It feels like a waste of three Oscar winners, but that's true of a lot of movies. I wish the crime and investigation was a little more interesting in the movie. I found the conclusion intentionally deflating, which would've been fine had it been making a point that felt more relevant.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend