Godzilla King of the Monsters (Sequel)

Drumpot

brianregan09 wrote: »

I loved it , the human characters were terrible for the most parts , but i came to see Godzilla fight things and fight them he did

The White Wolf wrote: »

Same here, humans were tedious at times but I couldn't help but smile watching King Ghidorah and Godzilla take their intimidation stances before throwing down. Mothra was fantastic as well.

Worth the trip for me anyway.

Cheesy dialogue, wooden characters, , predictable wafer thin plot, basic script prob written in 10 Minutes and the story could prob be written by a 10 Year old. If you went to this movie looking to find the opposite of above , take out a glove and slap yourself on the face.

This was pure visual stimulation and some of the fights were jaw dropping. This gets an 8 or even 9 out of 10 for what I expected. When I think of the Meg and this I think this is Oscar worthy. And that’s the sort of mindless blockbuster this should be benchmarked against.

I hope this does well so I can look forward to another 2 hour switch your brain off sequel.

Headshot

Just home from the cinema and man my desire for destruction and bad ass monsters fighting has been quenched.

I loved it.

Headshot

Oh by the way great to hear Blue Oyster Cult Godzilla tune at the end (even though it's only a cover)

expectationlost

anyone find a good clip of the credits and post credit

Mitch Connor

Drumpot wrote: »

Cheesy dialogue, wooden characters, , predictable wafer thin plot, basic script prob written in 10 Minutes and the story could prob be written by a 10 Year old. If you went to this movie looking to find the opposite of above , take out a glove and slap yourself on the face.

This was pure visual stimulation and some of the fights were jaw dropping. This gets an 8 or even 9 out of 10 for what I expected. When I think of the Meg and this I think this is Oscar worthy. And that’s the sort of mindless blockbuster this should be benchmarked against.

I hope this does well so I can look forward to another 2 hour switch your brain off sequel.

Godzilla vs Kong already in post production.

Tazzimus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Godzilla vs Kong already in post production.

Due out early enough next year I believe.
Plus there's the implications of the post credit scene as well.

Moar chubzilla please.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Godzilla vs Kong already in post production.

Yeh I saw that, prob should of clarified I’m thinking more from a justice league league point of view where BvS didn’t do great , the studio panicked and made awful changes.

sonic85

What was the post credits scene? I didn't stay for it.

Just back from it and really enjoyed it. One or two bits I either didn't like or didn't make sense to me and a couple of the human characters were just plain annoying but overall I thought it was great! Godzilla himself is a badass - I love his look. Roll on the next one!

Slydice

sonic85 wrote: »

What was the post credits scene? I didn't stay for it.

Post Credits Scene:

Alright, it's yer man from Game of Thrones (Charles Dance), Colonel Alan Jonah is being walked through the corridors of a warehouse/building by some dude in Mexico. He's all talking to him about getting stuff on the black market and how Godzilla became King (of the Monsters).

Then they walk into a bigger room and it's one of the Ghidorah heads.

That's it. End.

Anyway.. So you gotta remember back to the first Godzilla battle with Ghidorah. Godzilla bit off one of Ghidorahs three heads but didn't eat it like in the final battle.

I posted earlier that my guess is either he's gonna grow Ghidorah back from the head or clone Ghidorah or some something crazy with Ghidorah

During the Credits:

There's not so much a scene. If I remember correctly, there's a lot of SKULL ISLAND this, SKULL ISLAND that...

so like *hint hint* SKULL ISLAND

as in... King Kongs Island.. Skull Island

so in Universe Building, this jumps out as a pointer to the Godzilla vs. Kong film that is due next year...

and you know what... it's already made so it'll get released regardless of how badly this film flops because of the low quality people story pegged onto it.

MisterAnarchy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Godzilla vs Kong already in post production.

I presume that Godzilla wont actually be fighting Kong as it would be a fairly one sided fight.
Godzilla is 400ft ,Kong is 100ft and Godzilla has his atomic breath.
Kong would have no chance.

El Duda

John C Reilly's character in Skull island clearly says that Kong isn't fully grown yet.

razorblunt

peteeeed wrote: »

OUCH
1 out 5
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/godzilla-king-monsters/review/

EMPIRE must not have been invited on set with exclusive access enough for their liking.

Drumpot

razorblunt wrote: »

EMPIRE must not have been invited on set with exclusive access enough for their liking.

If anybody needed any evidence that most reviewers can’t help bringing their own bias into the equation. Hard to take anybody serious who gives 1-5 reviews in these sort of scenarios, it was nowhere near that bad for what it was.

Tony EH

Haven't seen the film, but that review is perfectly fine and the author lays out in detail why, to him, the film is just worthy of a single star.

He could have given it 0.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

Haven't seen the film, but that review is perfectly fine and the author lays out in detail why, to him, the film is just worthy of a single star.

He could have given it 0.

All reviews are subjective but generally you can gauge reasonable reviews within a couple of stars. Being able to rationalize why you think something is that bad doesn’t equate to objectivity it just means you can articulate why you felt the way you did. If you haven’t seen the movie you can hardly defend any review , no matter how much it explains it’s reasoning for said review.

johnny_ultimate

Reviews aren’t objective - an objective review is perilously close to being an oxymoron. They’re a personal response to any given piece of work.

If a reviewer wants to give the most beloved film in the world a one-star review, that’s completely within their rights - and should be absolutely respected if they can articulate their opinion clearly and coherently. As I’ve said elsewhere before, some of the most insightful reviews I’ve read are ones I completely disagree with.

A scathing review for a film I like isn’t a personal insult or a failure of criticism (unless it’s badly written or just plain ol’ trolling). It’s a symptom of a healthy, interesting discourse.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

All reviews are subjective but generally you can gauge reasonable reviews within a couple of stars. Being able to rationalize why you think something is that bad doesn’t equate to objectivity it just means you can articulate why you felt the way you did.

That's only your gauge. That doesn't apply across the board.

However, Ben Travis's review actually details his issues with the film very clearly. Of course his points are subjective. Every opinion is subjective on some level. This is especially the case with reviews. "Objectivity" doesn't really exist in this realm. But just because you don't like the review, it doesn't make it a bad one, or "unreasonable" either.

Drumpot wrote: »

If you haven’t seen the movie you can hardly defend any review , no matter how much it explains it’s reasoning for said review.

I'm defending it as a review. An opinion piece on an item of entertainment. If and when I see the film, I can decide if I agree or not with the sentiments expressed within.

Travis's review is a negative one, but it's also a relatively well written one too. He explains the problems he has with the script, the characters and the "monster mash-ups", leading to his conclusion that the film just isn't good or satisfying.

There's nothing wrong with it.

Drumpot

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Reviews aren’t objective - an objective review is perilously close to being an oxymoron. They’re a personal response to any given piece of work.

If a reviewer wants to give the most beloved film in the world a one-star review, that’s completely within their rights - and should be absolutely respected if they can articulate their opinion clearly and coherently. As I’ve said elsewhere before, some of the most insightful reviews I’ve read are ones I completely disagree with.

A scathing review for a film I like isn’t a personal insult or a failure of criticism (unless it’s badly written or just plain ol’ trolling). It’s a symptom of a healthy, interesting discourse.

Everybody is within their rights to review and comment on a movie. And equally their unclear motives or sentiments towards a movie can be challanged. I don’t understand this “they are within their right” defence because nobody is saying they aren’t. I’m saying a review that’s overly negative or positive should be challenged and be dubiously considered, no matter how well written. A movie review this out of kilter with what I would feel is the mean (between maybe 5-8) makes it come across more like somebody trying to stick out TBH.

Unless you know the motive (if any) behind a reviewer or indeed understand their own unique perspective (that can be prejudice based) or preferences you can’t really trust or respect a review just because it’s written well. It’s one of the reasons why people are so easy to manipulate and once they find a review that mirrors their views they endorse it completely. Being able to articulate , no matter how well , how you felt about a movie , doesn’t make your review more “right” or accurate.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

That's only your gauge. That doesn't apply across the board.

However, Ben Travis's review actually details his issues with the film very clearly. Of course his points are subjective. Every opinion is subjective on some level. This is especially the case with reviews. "Objectivity" doesn't really exist in this realm. But just because you don't like the review, it doesn't make it a bad one, or "unreasonable" either.

I'm defending it as a review. An opinion piece on an item of entertainment. If and when I see the film, I can decide if I agree or not with the sentiments expressed within.

Travis's review is a negative one, but it's also a relatively well written one too. He explains the problems he has with the script, the characters and the "monster mash-ups", leading to his conclusion that the film just isn't good or satisfying.

There's nothing wrong with it.

As I said, a well written review only implies that said reviewer can articulate well how they subjectively feel about something. You respect their ability to articulate how they feel but since you haven’t seen it yourself you actually don’t know if the content of their review is fair or accurate.

I’m not angry at somebody reviewing this movie as bad. Its thid whole “everybody is entitled to an opinion” argument that comes up regularly on these forums. And this usually gets thrown out when another opinion is being challanged. I think this dramatically extreme (0-2 out of 10) review is just short of snobbish trolling for coverage IMO. Since it’s my opinion I trust it’s equally valid.

I read the review and it’s not particularly insightful to be fair. Just a copy and paste of a review of any popcorn flick somebody didn’t enjoy.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

As I said, a well written review only implies that said reviewer can articulate well how they subjectively feel about something. You respect their ability to articulate how they feel but since you haven’t seen it yourself you actually don’t know if the content of their review is fair or accurate.

This is neither here nor there.

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m not angry at somebody reviewing this movie as bad. Its thid whole “everybody is entitled to an opinion” argument that comes up regularly on these forums. And this usually gets thrown out when another opinion is being challanged. I think this dramatically extreme (0-2 out of 10) review is just short of snobbish trolling for coverage IMO. Since it’s my opinion I trust it’s equally valid.

I read the review and it’s not particularly insightful to be fair. Just a copy and paste of a review of any popcorn flick somebody didn’t enjoy.

But you haven't given a coherent challenge to Travis's review.

You've simply countered his 600 word article with:

Drumpot wrote:

If anybody needed any evidence that most reviewers can’t help bringing their own bias into the equation. Hard to take anybody serious who gives 1-5 reviews in these sort of scenarios, it was nowhere near that bad for what it was.

expectationlost

39% critic score on rotten tomatoes 86% audience score https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godzilla_king_of_the_monsters_2019

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

This is neither here nor there.



But you haven't given a coherent challenge to Travis's review.

You've simply countered his 600 word article with:

His entire review is actually in my initial mock post :

Drumpot wrote: »

Cheesy dialogue, wooden characters, , predictable wafer thin plot, basic script prob written in 10 Minutes and the story could prob be written by a 10 Year old. If you went to this movie looking to find the opposite of above , take out a glove and slap yourself on the face.

I said that because I knew some lazy reviewers would revert to it and I never even saw that review before posting that. There is nothing to challange in his review , he didn’t like it and told us why, which as I said was as generic a “I didn’t like this popcorn flick” review as you can get.

Tazzimus

I seen whinging about a lack of plot for the humans in that review. You don't go to a Godzilla movie for the plot, or the humans..
They're just there to kill some time between the giant monster fight's.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

His entire review is actually in my initial mock post :



I said that because I knew some lazy reviewers would revert to it and I never even saw that review before posting that. There is nothing to challange in his review , he didn’t like it and told us why, which as I said was as generic a “I didn’t like this popcorn flick” review as you can get.

So you agree with Travis's review. Just not in so many words.

...and here's the rub, just because something is a "popcorn flick", it doesn't let it off of any scrutiny or criticism.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

So you agree with Travis's review. Just not in so many words.

No. This ....

Tazzimus wrote: »

I seen whinging about a lack of plot for the humans in that review. You don't go to a Godzilla movie for the plot, or the humans..
They're just there to kill some time between the giant monster fight's.

If you don’t know how to adjust your expectations for s popcorn flick you shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously when you review it as you would an Oscar nominated film.

Tony EH

Je repete...

Just because something is a "popcorn flick", it doesn't let it off of any scrutiny or criticism.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

Je repete...

Just because something is a "popcorn flick", it doesn't let it off of any scrutiny or criticism.

Would you review a rom com the same way would review a serious documentary or a children’s movie?

It’s not about being exempt from criticism it’s about reviewing it from a level platform where you understand and accept what the movie was trying to do, even if it’s not for you. I went to this and knew seeing massive monsters fight on screen was my primary desire. I got that and refute the waffley review that failed to grasp its primary goal.

Anybody saying that the plot and characters of a movie were poor can mean different things for different movies. If a movie is classified

- drama (bad plot and characters makes it hard to make it any good)
- blockbuster (bad plot and characters doesn’t nevessarily matter to entertainment)

If you don’t or won’t understand this then there’s not much point in talking much more about it. You are defending a review of a movie you haven’t even watched so I’m not sure where to go other then agree to disagree.

TerrorFirmer

In fairness I love a good 'popcorn' film, and for such a film I expect very little other than to be reasonably entertained. It doesn't mean that I'll happily accept any old tat though just because it has explosions/destruction, there has to be a some degree of quality to support the spectacle and add weight to it.

It is entirely correct to say that you can't apply the same standards to every genre of movie, but rather by how well it accomplishes what it set to do, and also by how well it satisfies reasonable expectations.

Kong: Skull Island, which ties into this franchise, is a good example of a movie I thought was an incredibly dumb, but perfectly entertaining popcorn flick with undeniable charm.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters does not have any of that, on any level. It is a terrible, bloated, horribly made movie no matter what yardstick you measure it by. The CGI is pretty good admittedly, but that's about it. The script and dialogue, are all outrageously poor. A lot of the action is pure empty and unsatisfying spectacle because of it.

With regards to this whole "Sure, who goes see Godzilla for the script?"; no-one expects world class dialogue from such a movie or even close to it but it's also not asking too much that a major Hollywood production exceeds the quality of something like 'Sharknado' or 'Lava Spiders'.

I honestly think the Empire review is bang on, I could probably be inclined to give it 2/5 rather than 1/5 for some of the reasonable visuals but it is a really poor movie and I couldn't wait for it to be over.

At the time, I don't remember being amazed by the 2014 Godzilla but I do know compared to this it is a masterpiece.

This is definitely the blockbuster turd of the year for me so far.

MisterAnarchy

El Duda wrote: »

John C Reilly's character in Skull island clearly says that Kong isn't fully grown yet.

Yes ,he is an adolescent in Skull Island but cant see him quadrupling in height .
Himself and Godzilla will unite to fight the common foe in the next film Id imagine.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

Would you review a rom com the same way would review a serious documentary or a children’s movie?

A documentary isn't a piece of entertainment, even if they can be entertaining. It's primary concern is as a vehicle for imparting information. So, the most useful judgement is reserved for how well it does that, which is very different from how a fictional (and they are all fictional) film is going to be reviewed. If a good looking, well produced, Battle of Britain documentary shows a Ju87D flying, while the narrator talks about Focke Wulfs over London. Then it hasn't done its job well on numerous levels.

But, we're not talking about documentaries here. We're talking about fictional movies, and yes they will all be judged on certain milestones in reviews. That is script, acting, direction, production and entertainment value. These five basic areas of a review will apply to all movies, whether it's a romantic comedy or a horror, with production covering a large area (such as sound design or lighting) and entertainment value being the hinge point, as it were.

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s not about being exempt from criticism it’s about reviewing it from a level platform

Exactly. But, when you want a certain film to be judged differently, because it's a "popcorn movie" (or whatever type), then you are removing that platform. So called "popcorn movies" should be judged no differently from anything else really. It's popcorn status doesn't offer it any protection from critical analysis regarding its script, acting, direction, production or entertainment value.

Ultimately, whether someone finds a given film entertaining or is based on what they feel when watching it and whether you believe that popcorn movies or B movies or horror movies should be reviewed differently matters not.

Drumpot wrote: »

If you don’t or won’t understand this then there’s not much point in talking much more about it. You are defending a review of a movie you haven’t even watched so I’m not sure where to go other then agree to disagree.

I'll repeat, once more for you, I am only saying that Travis's review is a fairly well written piece that clearly outlines his opinion on the film.

It DOESN'T MATTER whether I have seen the film or not.

And no, I don't and won't agree with YOUR set of personal criteria for reviewing a film. You don't like the Travis's review of a film you personally like.

That's all this really comes down to.