Godzilla's roar can't compensate for human bores in King of the Monsters

Godzilla versus King Ghidorah in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Image courtesy Warner Bros.

It's always fun to watch an audience pop during a movie, folks getting perfectly stoked by the machinations occurring on screen. Godzilla: King of the Monsters created several of these moments, with the lion's share coming from the appearances of Godzilla, King Ghidorah, Rodan, and Mothra. (The Boston audience cheered vociferously at the sight of Fenway Park, because of course it did.) And the film often justified their excitement, offering some of the best monster battles ever shown on screen, as well as a surprising amount of emotion from its monsters. The filmmakers had a win with their monsters, yet the movie ultimately falls short because of an overabundance of the human element.

King of the Monsters picks up a few years after the events of the 2014 Godzilla flick, as the world copes with the realization that enormous monsters are real and savage. Scientist Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) are in China watching the birth of a new monster, Mothra, when terrorists led by Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) show up and take Emma, Madison, and a device that emits an alpha sound wave to control the monsters. As the terrorists travel the globe to wake dormant monsters (starting with King Ghidorah and Rodan), Emma's ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler) is recruited by Monarch heads Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) and Vivianne Graham (Sally Hawkins) to find his family and retrieve the device. They are joined by a collection of scientists and soldiers (Ziyi Zhang, Thomas Middleditch, Aisha Hinds, O'Shea Jackson Jr., David Strathairn, and a crazed Bradley Whitford) in the pursuit. Meanwhile, Godzilla is back in action to fight these other titans for supremacy.

By far the highlight of King of the Monsters is the monsters themselves, especially how good they look. The design work for Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan, and King Ghidorah is incredible, far richer than other recent monster flicks. They don't completely cross the uncanny valley, but they make it far enough to heighten some the danger depicted for the human characters on screen and to have a fair amount of personality expressed through their motions and facial expressions. Godzilla in particular comes with the added benefit of a consistent look of annoyance with the humans who pursue him, grumpily waking up from a satisfying nap with a glare that says “Fine, I'll go fight Ghidorah again. Lazy humans.” Cranky Godzilla is a treasure to behold and it effectively justifies a potential heel turn down in one of the ensuing sequels.

 

Godzilla, Ghidorah, and Mothra are by far the most interesting characters in King of the Monsters, and they receive precious little screen time for their efforts. The movie is more focused on the antics of the Russell family, Serizawa, Alan, and Whitford's increasing insanity. The humans in any of the Godzilla vs. monsters films are better served in the background, plotting to help Godzilla defeat whichever monster he's facing that day. The attention belongs to Godzilla though, the Shaft of the monster world who shows up just to wreck the bad guys' worlds. King of the Monsters puts the poor lizard in the corner. This movie just screams for monsters, its title literally promising a slew of beasts ready to run amok. Yet film's the heartbeat belongs to the humans, and it suffers for greatly because of it.

King of the Monsters greatest failing is its attempts to surround the monsters with vital themes. Writers Michael Dougherty (who also directs) and Zach Shields make their story about almost everything:environmentalism, animal rights, family drama, the danger of good intentions, nature versus science, the complexities of love, and the existence of what is effectively Atlantis are all in this movie. And this movie just can't handle that much, losing track of both its message and of its monsters. The original Japanese Godzilla used the monster to convey a devastating fear of nuclear destruction and the dangers humanity brings upon itself. The original isn't subtle about its message – it is about a giant lizard with atomic fire breath – but it is a clear, effective message buoyed by legitimate pathos. King of the Monsters is a bigger film and suffers in part because of its attempts to have more characters, more plot, more themes, and more monsters. To paraphrase one of America's greatest poets, more monsters, more problems.

Review: Two and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

 

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 131 minutes

Genre: Action

tl;dr

What Worked: Monster battles, cranky Godzilla.

What Fell Short: Dearth of monster battles, the human interactions, the script in general.

What To Watch Instead: Godzilla (1954, 2014), Kong: Skull Island, Pacific Rim

First Man a stunning trip through space and time

Ryan Gosling in First Man. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

The driving force of First Man isn't the figure at the center of the movie. The biography of the first man to step foot on the moon is a justification for the filmmakers to take the audience through a visually stunning journey into space. It's a dream and an example of wish fulfillment, the hope of achieving something beyond the realm of a possibility for eons. That the man who actually took those first steps is otherwise unspectacular proves one of the points of the film; dreams don't belong to the most talented, but to the dreamers with drive and tenacity.

First Man provides a snapshot of the life of Neil Armstrong, the eponymous American astronaut played by Canadian Ryan Gosling. The movie opens with Armstrong working as a test pilot in 1961, living a quiet life with his wife Janet (Claire Foy) and children. After the death of their daughter Karen, Neil applies to work as a pilot on the Gemini program, the precursor to the Apollo missions to reach the moon. The ensuing years up to 1969 are a series of trial and errors for NASA and the multitude of scientists and pilots (played by a collection of character actors like Ciarán Hinds, Kyle Chandler, Corey Stoll, Lukas Haas, Jason Clarke, Ethan Embry) who put their lives at risk to get to the moon.

There is a soupcon of jingoism inherent in that description, a sense of American exceptionalism director Damien Chazelle and writer Josh Singer grapple with throughout the film. Some of the issue is just the setting, as it seems highly difficult to make a movie about the 1960s without associating it with some levels of idealism and hope. Chazelle and Singer try to cut through it by tossing references to protests against NASA and the space program on the outskirts, which don't succeed at tempering the accidental patriotism but do add a political action this movie didn't intend to have. To avoid being too dangerously patriotic, the filmmakers teased a part of their history that should have been either directly approached or ignored for the sake of storytelling.

Then again, the film is not really about how man landed on the film. Based on the title, it would appear First Man is about Armstrong and his heroics, about what it takes to launch oneself into orbit. Yet the movie doesn't delve much into Armstrong because Armstrong doesn't really delve into himself. As written by Singer and played by Gosling, Armstrong isn't a traditional square-chinned patriot or some mythical being. Rather, he's stoic and reserved, hiding his true thoughts and concerns inside of himself. Armstrong is taciturn (a trait Gosling has perfected at portraying) whose greatest strength as a pilot and greatest weakness as a human is detachment and an otherworldly cool. The depiction is something of a mixed bag. It keeps Armstrong grounded as a person, evading some ugly hero worshiping that has dinged other biopics and resulting in an interesting character because of the silence. If Armstrong is heroic, it's because of his actions, not his personality. The problem arises because the stoicism reflects against Janet, who is not fleshed out enough as a character to fully combat Armstrong's quiet. Janet instead is something of a trope, the supportive wife who has that one moment of verve before returning to her station, safe in the thought that she at least did something. Chazelle and Singer do offer her a decent amount of solo time, but they don't use it particularly well to build up her character. 

 

This would be more of an issue if First Man was really about Armstrong. It is nominally about the man, but the point is less that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, but there was a person there at all. Armstrong is necessary because he was the first, but Chazelle and Singer are far more interested in bring audiences up to the moon with him. Armstrong himself is effectively a vessel to get to the stars, a justification for Chazelle and cinematographer Linus Sandgren to take audiences to space. The trips to space veer wildly from sublime peace to pure horror when the danger lights start up and the sounds of imminent failure start blaring across the rickety hunks of metal thrown into space. But the best moment is the landing on the moon and the first steps on the surface, when the film and the audience are stunned into silence, caught up by the majesty of the moment.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 141 minutes

Genre: Biography

tl;dr

What Worked: Cinematography, Acting, Pacing

What Fell Short: Incomplete characterization for Janet Armstrong, political commentary

What To As Well: From the Earth to the Moon, Apollo 13

Breaking taboos

Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett star in "Carol." Image courtesy The Weinstein Company.

One of “Carol’s” most interesting aspects is its employment of the holiday season as a backdrop. Like the film, the days leading up to Christmas and New Year’s Day are equal turns cheerful and miserable, and it is the one time of year in which both feelings are equally acceptable. As “Carol” shows, the sense of optimism and hope brought by the season is undercut by a sense of disappointment and even sadness, essentially creating a paradox befitting a film that revels in contrasts and ambiguity.

Funny enough, “Carol” starts off as a meet cute between two women who are very, very different. Shop girl Therese (Rooney Mara) is a mousy girl whose small ambitions match with the tiny, barely furnished New York apartment she calls home and boyfriend (Jake Lacy) constantly pushing the relationship. Contrast that with the life of the eponymous character Carol (Cate Blanchett), a miserable housewife with a loving daughter and a husband (Kyle Chandler) who fights furiously against their impending divorce. Still, Mara and Blanchett see something in each other – a quiet sense of desperation each has – and kick off a strange, mismatched romance. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Blanchett’s divorce proceedings turn ugly due in part to Blanchett’s relationship with long-time friend Abby (Sarah Paulson). She needs to leave town for a while and takes Mara with her on a road trip to the west, stopping by a few small towns along the way. The trip is fun and cute at first, until a dramatic twist curtails the party and results in a major change in the relationship.

“Carol” is a difficult film to get a good read on because director Todd Haynes and screenwriter Phyllis Nagy break a few conventions along the way. The romance between Blanchett and Mara is often quiet, as the two exchange far fewer words with each other than they do with the rest of the cast; the film even makes a point to catch the two toward the end of conversations. Most films would flip that around, but the result shows effectively how extraneous words get in the way of the heart of the romance. Their language consists of devilish smiles and subtle touches that add a hint of intimacy to the film itself.

Also bizarre is a plot point that violates one of Checkhov's most well-known rules of writing. Haynes and Nagy establish the element in an obvious and intentionally cliched fashion, yet the payoff never occurs, and the moment where it could happen reflects the circumstances the characters involved face. It’s a masculine concept, and the women can’t bring themselves to violate their sapphic natures.

Little in “Carol,” essentially, is as it appears to be; rather, it's all just a bit distorted, a little bit off kilter. The sparse dialogue spoken between Mara and Blanchett has an odd cadence to it, the lines delivered with caution and with a comedic timing that wouldn't necessarily fit into such a heavy drama. It's as if the reality within “Carol” is heightened to an extravagant level – not overly surprising considering how the film oscillates between dreams and reality in a manner akin to a David Lynch film that makes everything feel a little surreal. Everything is a little ambiguous, and straightening out what is going on would remove some of the mystique that makes “Carol” so wonderful. There's a lot of mystery to be found in this film, much of which emanates from the terrific performances offered by both Blanchett and Mara; neither says everything on their respective minds, but get just enough across to have an inkling of what they might be thinking and allow silence to fill the holes.

And yet they do get what they want from the other without overly expressing their desires, and their wishes are both rooted in offering honesty. For Blanchett, it's escaping a situation she cannot cope with and being herself; Mara, on the other hand, wants control over her life and to establish something resembling a path through life, The ending suggests both characters might get what they want (arguments are easily made the other way though given “Carol's” inherent ambiguity) but the question Haynes and Nagy offer is whether the journey to that happy-ish ending is worth it. Happiness often has an exorbitant and unfair price, and like the season the film centers on, that joy is tainted by misery and despair.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 118 minute

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Anyone interested in LGBTQ issues and who are down to watch some wicked good performances.

Take the whole family?: The film takes a while to get to it, but it does get quite explicit. In other words, it might be best for the children to stay home.

Theater or Netflix?: “Carol” is definitely worth a theater trip.

Academy Award odds?: Cate Blanchett is close to a lock for a Best Actress nomination. Rooney Mara's status is up in the air – the main question is if she'll qualify for Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress according to sites that track these things– and the film is on track for nominations for Todd Haynes for Best Director, Phyllis Nagy for Best Adapted Screenplay, and for Cinematography and Best Picture.

Watch this as well?: Hit up another Todd Haynes film about homosexuality and forbidden desires rooted in 1950s society, “Far From Heaven.” Julianne Moore is terrific as usual, and Haynes evokes great performances from Dennis Haysbert and Dennis Quaid.