Godzilla × Kong: The New Empire (2024)

While I may have been thinking about it a lot during the movie, I will not be reviewing Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire in direct comparison to every other Godzilla movie that we've seen in recent years. That wouldn't be fair, especially in the wake of the superb Godzilla: Minus One, and it's fair to say that, whether you like or dislike this movie, it feels like an attempt to stay true to the featured big beasties while taking the movie series into even wilder and more fantastical territory.

Kong is lonely. That's pretty much what the movie starts with. He also has a toothache. So he moves from the Hollow Earth back to the surface of our planet, where he can receive some dentistry from a brave specialist vet, Trapper (Dan Stevens). Meanwhile, Godzilla is on the move, and there are signs that things are changing down in Hollow Earth. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) heads there, accompanied by her adopted daughter, Jia (Kaylee Hottle),  a returning Bernie Hayes (podcaster and social media ägitator", played by Brian Tyree Henry), Trapper, and Mikael (Alex Ferns). It doesn't take long to start figuring out what kind of new problem they have on their hands, but can they figure out a solution before Kong is badly affected by it. And will Godzilla be of any help to them?

With so many people returning to roles both behind and in front of the camera, this could have easily been an easy continuation of the storyline that proved to be so much fun in Godzilla Vs. Kong. Adam Wingard is back at the helm, having helped to develop the story for this with Terry Rossio and Simon Barrett, assisted by Jeremy Slater when moving from story to screenplay form. They do try to stick to the rules that were put in place in the last movie, but they also try to keep moving faster in between the set-pieces to avoid giving viewers enough time to pick apart the many plot holes.

The cast all seem to know that they're very much playing second fiddle to the headlining creatures, and that's fine. Both Hall and Henry try their best with some weak dialogue, Hottle remains as cute and vulnerable as she was in the previous film, and everyone watching can breathe a sigh of relief whenever Stevens is onscreen, because he actually knows how to lean into the silliness of everything and have fun with his role. 

A blockbuster movie doesn't need to make great use of the human cast, and nor does it need a script that would win any literary awards. Sometimes just being fun and spectacular is enough, and any film with both Godzilla and King Kong in it should deliver on that front. Welllllllll . . . I don't think this does. There a few great visual moments here and there, especially when Godzilla in being shown travelling around the planet, but most of this film is an ugly mess, with an overuse of CGI that varies wildly in quality, a lack of decent reference points to keep track of locations and scale, and a disappointing lack of weight (sometimes literally). There are also scenes of mass destruction that focus on buildings and cityscapes being reduced to rubble without maintaining any interest in the human cost. But that’s all meant to be ignored because there are occasional moments that make good use of neon.

I wanted to have fun with this, but it never once hooked me in. There is a nice extra “cameo” later in the movie that I enjoyed, but the film needed to do more elsewhere. A better script, a better main villain, better visual effects, and generally something that makes it easier to ignore the inherent silliness of it all and just enjoy the monster mash moments.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
  

The Puppet Masters (1994)

Although very similar to The Body Snatchers, The Puppet Masters is actually based on a Robert A. Heinlein book that came along a few years before Jack Finney's seminal work. It's a fun film, but also one that is very much a product of its time, that being the early to mid-'90s, when The X-Files had made us all aware of how government agencies move in and deal with potential alien threats.

Things start moving pretty quickly, with head guy Andrew Nivens (Donald Sutherland), and agents Sam, who is also his son (played by Eric Thal), Mary (Julie Warner), and Jarvis (Richard Belzer) among the first to investigate some strange events in a small town. It's an alien invasion, with the little parasitic creatures attaching themselves to people and controlling them, making them part of a hive mind. In a race to stop the little buggers from taking over the world, Andrew and co. have to find out exactly how they work, and find out what is the most effective weapon against them. Because once they attach to a host, removing them can be a very tricky, and life-threatening, operation.

Written by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, a successful writing duo who went on to craft a number of massive box office hits, The Puppet Masters also had many other people trying to help finalise the script, including director Stuart Orme and David S. Goyer. The script remains weak, certainly in a middle act that moves between familiar “body hopping” moments and attempts to explain the full M. O. of the creatures, but it still has enough fun contained within it to keep things just about entertaining enough in between the more exciting story beats.

Helped by a cast that also includes Keith David, Yaphet Kotto, Will Patton, and some other familiar faces, Orme gives viewers something that absolutely, for better or worse, plays out like a feature-length TV episode of something from this time (as well as The X-Files, you also had Dark Skies and First Wave, the latter two shows coming along after this film). Basically, if you like that aesthetic then you will find enough to like here. The look of the whole thing is quite flat, but there are some decent practical effects, although some aren’t so decent, and plenty of people in suits looking serious and commanding soldiers to contain/destroy a major threat. 

Sutherland is very good in his role, and he provides a connective tissue between this and a previous incarnation of Finney’s tale (thanks to his work in the ‘70s version, consciously or subconsciously helping people to forget THIS is actually Heinlein’s story), but he’s left a little bit out on his own in scenes that have him working with Thal and Warner. It isn’t that Thal and Warner are terrible, although they are sorely hampered by the script here, but they don’t have an ounce of Sutherland’s charisma and presence.

One of many films that fares better in your memory than it does on a full rewatch, The Puppet Masters is a lightweight bit of sci-fi horror entertainment. It just isn’t half as good as most of the films that adapt this kind of material.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Here's an anecdote that will make sense to nobody outwith Scotland. When I was quite young I wrote in to the letters/joke page of the Oor Wullie section of The Sunday Post. I sent in a joke and received, if I remember correctly, a £5 gift token, and my name in print. The joke wasn't great, but I still kinda like it. See what you think.

Tonto is riding through the countryside one day and sees The Lone Ranger coming towards him, with a bin bag over his shoulder.
"Where are you going?" asks Tonto.
"To the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump. To the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump."

I admit, it may not work quite as well when written down. Anyway, let's move on.

There are some movies that just don't stand much chance with the critics. That can happen for a variety of reasons. The subject matter. The budget. Bad casting choices. And much more besides. The Lone Ranger was one of those movies. And I can think of two main reasons for the knives being drawn. One, the budget, which apparently went just over $200M. Two, the casting of Johnny Depp in the role of Tonto, the Native American sidekick to the main character. I don't care about the budget for blockbuster movies, personally. Once you're over $100M then everything tends to blur into one big, fat wad of cash anyway. I do agree with everyone who thought that casting Johnny Depp as Tonto was ridiculous, however, but realise that he's the only BIG name in the cast. That means that the decision is still dubious, but a bit more understandable. Yet it's still not a good enough reason to completely drub a film that actually has some moments of rollicking entertainment.

The story is, as if you couldn't guess, all about how a man (Armie Hammer) assumed the role of The Lone Ranger. With Tonto by his side, for better or worse, he eventually comes to realise that his idealistic approach to the law may not be beneficial to his health, especially if the criminals that he wants to capture are just working for more powerful, but hidden, villains.

Directed by Gore Verbinski, there's no denying that the film has a certain Pirates Of The Caribbean vibe to it. There are issues with the pacing, there are some big, entertainingly complicated, action sequences, and there's Johnny Depp being a bit kooky. The script, by Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, packs in much more than it needs to. The Lone Ranger doesn't have to be a complex character. He's a good guy, plain and simple. Yet the writers here decide to focus on his steep learning curve, as he grows into the mask, and then amuse themselves with a framing device that allows them more room to play around with the narrative. It does make for a few good moments, admittedly, but could easily have been trimmed to save the movie a good 10-15 minutes, in my estimation.

Hammer is good as the hero. I like him a lot, thanks to his ability to temper the stoic heroic qualities required with some solid comedic talent. Depp - well, we've already covered his performance. He's not terrible, although many will disagree. Ruth Wilson is a tough woman who finds herself in danger, and she's okay, but given short shrift by the script. William Fichtner fares much better, playing the dangerous criminal known as Butch Cavendish, and Tom Wilkinson repeats the kind of decent performance that is often required of British actors in American blockbusters. Barry Pepper proves to be a highlight, once again. As he does in almost every movie that he appears in. And there are also small roles for James Badge Dale, Helena Bonham Carter, Harry Treadaway and Stephen Root, among others.

There are a number of scenes that feel a bit dull and lifeless, yet the movie really shows how great it could have been in a few extended set-pieces that raise up the energy levels and mix CGI, fantastic stunt work, and a healthy dollop of humour to provide the kind of exuberant fun that I wish more blockbusters would strive for. And the finale, accompanied by that rousing theme music (well, it's the final section of the "William Tell Overture" but many grew up with it as "the theme tune from The Lone Ranger"), is a surprisingly great piece of cinema, marred by some excessive FX work and both helped and hindered by a sense of ridiculousness.

I wouldn't be brave enough to say that this is a movie that you may be pleasantly surprised by. Okay, what the hell, I will. Give The Lone Ranger a try some time, and you might be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Ranger-Blu-ray-Digital-Copy/dp/B00DJYJWVW/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1409322376&sr=1-2&keywords=the+lone+ranger

Ani-MAY-tion Month: Shrek (2001)

The joy of Shrek may have been diluted slightly nowadays, after multiple sequels and spin-offs, but I'm still a fan of most things that feature the big green ogre at the centre of events, and the first film remains the best of the lot.

Based on a book by William Steig, Shrek is, for anyone who doesn't know, all about the titular ogre (voiced by Mike Myers). He likes to live alone in his swamp, but that isolated existence is threatened when a talking donkey (Eddie Murphy) bumps into him while fleeing from armed guards. That isolated existence is threatened even further when numerous fairytale creatures start to fill up his home, due to it being the one safe haven. The nasty Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow) doesn't like fairytale creatures, and has been causing them no end of problems. When Shrek visits Farquaad to sort out getting his swamp back to himself, he ends up being tasked to rescue Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz). If he does that then Farquaad will ensure that the swamp is back to how Shrek likes it.

It took a lot of people to craft this script - including Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, Joe Stillman and Roger S. H. Schulman - but the end result is a wealth of great gags and sly references, as opposed to a bloated mess. The twisted fairytale may be overdone nowadays, but it's rarely been utilised to better effect than it is here, with the whole premise of Prince Charming rescuing the trapped Princess turned gleefully on its head.

Directors Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson do a great job of keeping everything perfectly paced and perfectly balanced. There may be a number of audio and visual gags aimed more at adults than the younger viewers, but they stay just the right side of cheeky, and there's never anything done that spoils the experience for the target demographic.

Myers, putting on a sorta-Scottish accent, makes Shrek an ogre that it's fun to hang around with. He's very childish, which obviously makes him appealing to children, and as the movie progresses we get to learn that ogres can be layered (like an onion, but not necessarily like a parfait). Murphy has his best role in years, as the cute, chatterbox Donkey, Diaz is a good match to play Princess Fiona, and Lithgow is a lot of fun as the diminutive Lord Farquaad.

There's a lot in this movie that people could choose to either love or hate - the accent that Myers uses, the standard selection of child-friendly tunes (All Star by Smash Mouth again??), the ending that rounds up some characters for a bit of a song and dance sequence. I loved it when I saw it at the cinema, and I still love it now.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Shrek-Whole-Story-Forever-Blu-ray/dp/B0046A9RMC/ref=sr_1_6?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1399983784&sr=1-6&keywords=shrek

Don't forget, every copy of my book sold gets a few pounds in my pocket, and gets you a good read (if I say so myself).

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.