They took the Kong from Skull Island, an excellent film plus the recent less than excellent Godzilla film and smashed them together into a confused mess. They simply tried to do too much. They take the basic titan fight and added "Journey to the Center of the Earth", "Upside Down" Kong as Indian Jones, "Transformers", a light saber Ax, teens save the world, and a little girl saves the world. The company Apex are the bad guys who are trying to do something good. Good visuals. Just a messed up plot.
Godzilla vs. Kong
Action / Sci-Fi / Thriller
Godzilla vs. Kong
Action / Sci-Fi / Thriller
Loading video, please wait...
Legends collide as Godzilla and Kong, the two most powerful forces of nature, clash on the big screen in a spectacular battle for the ages. As a squadron embarks on a perilous mission into fantastic uncharted terrain, unearthing clues to the Titans' very origins and mankind's survival, a conspiracy threatens to wipe the creatures, both good and bad, from the face of the earth forever.—Warner Bros.
Uploaded by: FREEMAN
June 21, 2021 at 03:31 AM
Tech specs3D.BLU 720p.BLU 1080p.BLU 720p.WEB 1080p.WEB 2160p.WEB.x265
Kong bows to no one.
I've expected much more...
Separately King Kong and Godzilla work pretty well, together ,for merit was a disaster of a movie. Laughable plot, ridiculous action, all in all very boring time...
This would be the right recommendation to return to cinemas, taking advantage of the titular conflict's scale that, otherwise, wouldn't be so well experienced. And yet, I prefer to resist recommending in any way this film, since the public's appreciation is dependent on their acceptance of the rest of the wanderings through idiotic situations and characters.
Despite its long history, there was an avalanche during the 1990s of a series of American films focused on large disasters caused by internal or external natural forces. If some sought to offer some human drama (see Dante's Peak or Deep Impact), most recognised the absurdity of the proposed situations and, thus, knew how to set themselves in the right tone to tell their narratives.
Movies like Armageddon or Independence Day sought pure entertainment. Will Smith saying "Welcome to Earth" when punching an alien will be, for me, the highest sign of this understanding. In the simplicity of their narratives and the iconography of their visuals and charismatic protagonists, these films have allowed themselves to remain re-watchable and appreciable to this day, even beyond their cinematic quality.
It will be perhaps from the 2010s that this type of movies begins to explain in a serious manner the underlying logic of their stories. Perhaps partly because the public already keeps an attentive look on the absurd plot-holes, given the wide offer of such films. Even the sequel to Independence Day (twenty years after the original) is hostage to this attempt to forcibly introduce apparently more modern and complex concepts and justify every narrative choice.
It was this tendency that immediately crossed my mind, as I watched this and, thus, recognised the inconsistency underlying such an attitude. For, if the events portrayed understand the premise, at the same time they find the most chaotic entanglement of explanations to arrive at the illustrated situations.
This isn't more obvious that near the movie's end, where Godzilla is headed to Hong Kong, while the giant ape is in the centre of the earth -whose journey had already required several technological explanations to overcome the unnecessary obstacles-; Godzilla then stops his quest to open a hole directly to the centre of the earth (and, conveniently, to where Kong is located), to quickly enable the ape's return to the surface, to allow the second fight to take place.
The biggest sin is that we recognise simpler situations in which we could expose these creatures' conflict. The competition between two forces of nature for their place as the only alpha predator would be enough to justify the encounter (without needing to explain Kong's ancestry). In view of the volatility of the behaviour of these creatures, humanity itself would need to come into play in order to move away from potential extinction. Concepts referred here, but hidden behind a collection of ancestral connections between the two species and simple human villainy.
Even the second confrontation between the creatures could have taken place in Kong's land, where he would be at an advantage, instead of creating such an expensive situation to justify the encounter in Hong Kong. It would further justify the presence of this territory (instead of illustrating the battles in urban environments where people are always seen in the background but whose consequences are never seen at that scale).
Even by the end, the thing that unites both monsters, which could have been a simple robotic creation whose a.i. Gained autonomy, has mechanisms as complex as they are stupid. Mechagodzilla is generated through neuronal connections with a dead titan's skull and its energy source is remotely transferred from the centre of the earth (?!). All this is explained with such seriousness as if it were a plausible explanation.
Thus, the movie needs to create these secondary situations just to justify the ones we really want to see, waiting boringly every forty minutes for the few moments of epic battle.
And even these battles, with a new director with mere experience in horror (like with its predecessor King of the Monsters), lack the scale that someone specialised in visualising such visual effects can impregnate.
The framing of the camera, moving with the monsters themselves and too close to them, doesn't understand the scale of how they should be seen. For, instead of illustrating them from a human point of view or, on the contrary, framing them entirely in the screen, we mostly see body parts and debris in successive cuts that, after some time, are more visual noise than anything else. Even Godzilla, which in 2014 was the slow but inescapable wave of destruction, now runs as if its size was not a factor to consider.
Other than that, if there is any (minimal) effort in offering a history to the countless human characters that fill the screen, in the same way there is never time (or desire) to even meet them -beyond young Jia (Kaylee Hottle), the best and most wasted presence.
The absurdity of the character of Brian Tyree Henry is the one that brings us closer to something like the Jeff Goldblum's character in Independence Day, as an individual who tries to offer nervous credibility to the most fanciful conspiracy theories and who expresses the most enviable skills as an engineer and hacker. However, his presence is so sporadic and unnecessary in his secondary plot-line later exposed anyway, that his sincere naivety is lost through the rest of such serious characters.
Tom Holkenborg's score is a victim of this tonal dissonance, where the grandeur transposed by each musical track aggressively collides with what's seen on screen. The epic tone, where each note explodes incessantly in our ears, ends up losing its impact, when it's even used during the departure of a group of people from a ship, while Kong sits on a throne. It is a continuation of Bear McCreary's previous work, but here exhaustively applied.
Not even in the simplicity of its premise can this experience be justified. Rather, its audience has to go through a frankly boring and excessive script to witness the few moments that don't even justify going to a cinema. It's just another case of an experience that doesn't know how to go for the tone or stand out from its former counterparts. This movie even seems to deplete the opportunities of this universe, following the previous movie(s). Perhaps it's time to revisit its better inspirations and not offer time to such weak attempts at modernising them.