I’ll add it to the list 
2 Likes
Finally saw Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire today with my wife, and… I have some issues. And they can all be traced to the director, Adam Wingard. Spoilers below, but they are not marked, so skip the whole thing if you don’t want to know anything. This is a long post with a big rant at the end, so TL;DR, I loved it, but also hated it for one reason.
The movie, overall was better even than I thought it would be. The usual stuff was said about the human characters being boring and useless, and that Godzilla is barely in the film, and I found neither to be true. Godzilla’s appearances were spaced out throughout the movie, but it’s not like the ones where he doesn’t show up until late into the film, only has a few scenes, and he’s not onscreen for very long when he is. The 2014 film can make that claim, as can Godzilla vs The Sea Monster, and possibly Godzilla vs Kong too, but I think we got just the right amount of him. And the human characters were actually funny, and involved with the story. Yeah, they did the usual unbelievable exposition about things they couldn’t possibly know about while bringing along people on a mission who have no business being there (like a kaiju vet and a podcaster), and use the stupid cliche of a smart person having more than one PhD (nobody does that!), but this was probably the most enjoyable that the humans have been in the Monsterverse, or at least on par with the cast from Kong: Skull Island.
My wife even enjoyed the film, and she’s not a Godzilla fan. She enjoyed Godzilla Minus One (because, really, who wouldn’t, it’s the Godfather Part II of Godzilla films), but I didn’t expect her to get invested in this movie at all and to just be there to humor me. To both our surprises, she enjoyed it a lot, with the only thing she didn’t like being that she felt the final battle wasn’t long enough. Me personally, my only issue that isn’t part of my problem with the director is that the main villain wasn’t seen until halfway through the movie and I expected him to have a bigger role. That’s it, and we both enjoyed ourselves.
But, that leaves the issues that I have with where Adam Wingard has taken this series, and it’s an issue I had with the last movie, too. I do not like that Wingard has taken what started off as a fantastic but mostly grounded series and turned it into a full sci-fi series bordering on fantasy. What I mean by that is, in the first movie, there were giant monsters, yes, but their existence was given a grounded if implausible explanation. The second movie established the idea of Hollow Earth, but it was just giving the impression of some cavernous regions below the Earth’s crust that had ecosystems that some monsters fled to and thrived in as Earth cooled. The third film, while establishing the ideas of tunnels in the Earth for travel, ancient civilizations older than written history, monsters turning into energy beings, and the existence of aliens, it was still presented in a way that didn’t really break away from what the first two films set up. Fantastic, but still in the realm of believable if you were willing to stretch far enough.
But then, with the fourth film, Wingard made this bizarre world within our world that looks like something that would belong more in a Star Wars film, including a wormhole/warp-drive that exists inside the planet. This was taking it too far, I felt. And now, he’s gone even further, with the whole concept of the humans who live in the Hollow Earth manipulating gravity, using energy crystals, Mothra being summoned purely out of energy instead of being reborn through her egg, and telepathy between humans, as well as prophecies coming true. One character in the movie even uses the word “magical” to describe this whole thing, and yes, that’s a good description. Adam Wingard has taken this series with only a few science-defying conceits, and has built two films around throwing any sense of being grounded to a set of rules out the window.
But while I dislike these points, they don’t ruin anything for me; I still love the movie and the story being told. Those points, while disappointing in how things could have gone differently, more serious, in the last two movies, it’s not a deal breaker for me.
However, there is one thing, one very briefly seen thing in this movie, that not only ruins the movie for me, but also retroactively ruins the entire Monsterverse series. There is a moment in the film where Kong is walking across a chasm on the skeleton of a dead monster that is so big, the size difference between it and Kong is the same as the difference between Kong and humans. A skeleton of a creature that existed so large that it could eat any two monsters that have already appeared in this series in one gulp at the same time.
What. The. Fuck? This is beyond not acceptable, this is infuriating; this is insulting; this is a slap in the face! Congratulations, Wingard, you just reduced Godzilla and Kong and every other monster to utter irrelevancy in their own series by including this scene! I know there are creatures way larger than these monsters that exist in other franchises, but you do not put monsters into this franchise that are on another order of size from the main monsters. You don’t. Even monsters that are twice Godzilla’s size in total mass like Ghidorah, Biollante, or Destoroyah, they are all still on the same general size scale. Godzilla’s size compared to normal animals, on top of his power when fighting other monsters, is his main feature, and Wingard just shit on it and on the perceived enormity of these monsters in all previous films by making them share a universe with a creature that could treat them like mice.
Adam Wingard’s ideas are too silly and fantastical and go against the order established by his predecessors, and he should not direct any more films in this franchise before he does any more damage. I know that’s not gonna happen because he’s made huge money off both films he’s done, so I guess I’m just gonna have to tell myself that that wasn’t an actual skeleton but a stone and wood bridge built by the Kong apes made to look like a skeleton to seem scary to intruders, but dammit, this is gonna leave a sour taste for a long time.
2 Likes
You’re welcome to Space Jesus and pals if that’s what floats your boat, but it’s not for me.
I’m a huge fan of all of Denis Villeneuve’s other films (in fact if someone made me choose one single favourite movie ever with a gun to my head, it would probably be Blade Runner 2049), so my guess is that it’s less his fault and more that I don’t jive with the setting/source material, although I haven’t read the books so I can’t be sure.
I also think Star Wars (all of it, including the first 3 films) is absolute bobbins, so I think I’m safe to say now that space operas aren’t my genre.
Made my annual-ish pilgrimage to an actual movie theater and saw my favorite movie, Alien, on the big screen for the first time.
It was glorious. 
Now I’m just trying to figure out if the ticket guy gave me the senior discount on my popcorn and soda because he was actually being nice or because he really thinks I’m old. Still, $15 for everything, including the ticket, so I’m not complaining. 
8 Likes
Just saw Alex Garland’s “Civil War”, which follows a group of journalists / war correspondents that are trying to cover a civil war in the US.
The film was a well constructed, nicely shot, well acted movie… but I feel like it had the opportunity to say something about, civil war, nations with internal conflict, war journalism… well, anything really, and in the end it just felt sort of hollow to me.
Also casting Nick Offerman as the president seemed strange to me, I’d say he has 1 minute of screen time at most.
5 Likes
Saw all three Star Wars films in the cinema for the first time. The place was packed.
6 Likes
Like a marathon? What versions? (assuming you mean the original trilogy)
I remember seeing them when the first versions with CGI added were released a long time ago. I was young enough that I thought the CG additions were cool. Now I just wish Disney would release restored/remastered versions of the originals.
4 Likes
Marathon. Original trilogy. It’s the only Star Wars content I’m genuinely interested in. Quite the ordeal, though. I was a bit worried the crowd would be full of noisy prop-carrying cosplayers making lightsaber sounds, but that wasn’t the case.
I’d hope so. I’ve never seen the theatrical cuts. Some of the alterations are a legitimate hindrance and have aged poorly. It feels like the prequels creeping in.
6 Likes
I just watched Unfrosted, the Pop Tart movie by Jerry Seinfeld. Of all of the corporate origin story movies that have come out in recent years, this was the worst one. I had heard that it was supposed to be satirical, but it’s really… not? It’s just an obnoxious, boring, feature-length advertisement for Pop Tarts. I don’t believe that Kellog was affiliated with the film’s production, but it honestly doesn’t even matter because it’s shamelessly selling their brand regardless. There’s nothing really of any redeeming value to be had.
2 Likes
It’s because Jerry Seinfeld has went on record about how he loves Poptarts just as much as he loves cereal. Conceptually this movie has been his brain child for years, Kelloggs isn’t affiliated with the production which is why you don’t see JS plastered on their Poptarts. This to them is just free marketing.
2 Likes
Dracula: The Last Voyage of the Demeter. A movie that’s been on my watch list for some time. A movie that flew under most peoples radar and I found it by luck while browsing a movie pamphlet in my local cinema.
I really enjoyed this little gothic horror film, the setting being the ship journey between Romania and England in Bam Stoker’s Dracula. So it’s not a new tale, but uses the claustrophobic setting of the Ship Demeter to tell it’s story. It’s not a masterpiece, it’s a solid little old school vampire flick that we saw in the dozen in the early 2000’s.
By the end the film sets up a potential sequel, sadly the film underperformed and it’s unlikely that a second movie will ever be made. I would love to see the continuation of this story. I’ll just have to settle with Robert Eggers Nosferatu. Even if it will be a completely different beast.
6 Likes
Furiosa was fucking badass, on par with Fury Road imo. That’s my review. Go see it.
4 Likes
How´s the main actress? I mainly enjoyed the character in Fury Road due to Charlize Theron´s performance, so part of me has been a little worried if the new one could live up to that (even if it´s a prequel / younger version).
4 Likes
She was great. At no point did I feel like I was watching an imitation or impersonation, she both reflects the character we know while adding youthful elements of a person who is not yet as battle-hardened. I’m a little biased, I’m a fan of Anya Taylor Joy and have enjoyed pretty much everything that she’s appeared in. The Witch, The Northman, The Menu and The Queen’s Gambit all feature really great performances from her, on top of this.
1 Like
Ok, cool. I haven´t seen her in anything yet, so I wasn´t sure what to expect. Will probably go watch it next month then.
2 Likes
Anya Taylor-Joy is one of the best actors of her generation. She is captivating as hell and I have never not seen her deliver. I haven’t seen Furiosa yet but I fully expect her to be great in it.
3 Likes
Finally watched Collateral. It was $3.99 to rent on Amazon… But $4.99 to buy. So I went ahead and bought it. Tom Cruise as a hitman working for… Well, if you know you know. I’ll not spoil it. He’s not a good guy. He also doesn’t seem too worried about doing as clean of a job as 47… he just gets the job done and moves on to the next target.
A few nit-picks in retrospect… He uses a loud gun on some robbers in an alley but uses a silencer on a target in a nightclub… Yet, is again without a silencer in a later hit (and very crowded place). And he takes his time with his final target or, doesn’t immediately end this person upon sight like I assume he did with a couple of other targets - but we never see those kills.
The different guns might have to do with close (point blank) vs remote/distant kills. I’m no expert on firearms - but perhaps this was the reason for this seeming inconsistent.
I liked it and will definitely watch it again.
5 Likes
I watched this film because I found out that it was the one which started it all for Statham.
Did you notice him there at all? 
Ooh. 
I didn’t even realize. Maybe because he still had some hair. 
I did watch him in Wrath of Man, though.
1 Like