Frozen II review

Following from the 2013 mega-success of Frozen, Disney have been champing at the bit to make a sequel ever since. Almost every major Disney animation is going to be a big hit but Frozen‘s success was unexpected. This brought the problem that the source material – Hans Christian Anderson’s The Snow Queen – was its own story and so, in turn, was Frozen. Six years later, directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee return with the original cast of animated characters and the Frozen world is being expanded.

After spending the opening five minutes providing exposition, we learn that the kingdom of Arendelle is not far from an enchanted forest. Elsa (Idina Menzel) hears a literal “call to adventure” and goes to investigate, leading to many events along the way. The story is, shall we say, rather slight. However, it provides just enough of a framework for what’s important: the music. A major complaint of the first film is that, whilst it had fantastic songs, they dry up rather quickly in the second half. The same complaint cannot be made here as song after song is brought before the audience whenever it looks like the story might be slowing down.

There are several memorable numbers, though arguably nothing quite hits the heights of “Let It Go” and the hilarious “In Summer”. Nevertheless, the songs are top notch, with “Lost in the Woods” being an hysterical homage to ’80s and ’90s boy band pop ballads and “Into the Unknown” letting Menzel show the quality of her pipes once more. In fact, this is one of those soundtracks you may hear playing on a loop in many cars for the next few years.

As per usual, the animation is stunning. Interestingly, this one strays away from the Scandinavian themes into more colonial images. It presents an oddly political theme that Disney only semi-commits to but it nevertheless provides a different flavour from the first. The inevitable cop out where no one suffers any real consequences bears its head again.

Fortunately, this continuation of the story (or should I say franchise) focuses on the characters – who are just as delightful as ever. Yes, nothing particularly original happens to anybody and their stories don’t develop very far but they all have funny, dramatic and/or heroic moments in good measure. Despite its title, this is a warm blanket kind of movie. The sort many will snuggle down together to watch on a cold winter’s night once it’s out on home release.

As previously mentioned, the story isn’t up to much and it does end rather abruptly after some random magic seems to rectify everything. However, there has definitely been left some room for a sequel if the appetite for the franchise remains – which early evidence suggests it does.

If you’re a fan of the first, then you can’t really go wrong. It’s not going to rock your world but it will cheer up your day and leave you humming a tune or two by the end.

IT Chapter Two review

Film and television adaptations of Stephen King’s literary works have always been popular but 2017 saw their popularity skyrocket with numerous properties being committed to the screen from the peculiar to the obscure. However, none were more successful than the adaptation of King’s 1000+ page novel, It. An adaptation that did away with the asynchronous narrative of its source material and focused on the Losers Club as young teenagers being tormented by the embodiment of fear. It was a taut, extremely well-produced mainstream horror movie with a standout performance from Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise, the terrifying titular clown.

The sequel is set near enough in modern day, some 27 years after the events of the first movie. All but one of the Losers Club has remained in Derry – where the horrifying events occurred – whilst the others have gone off to live very separate lives from one another and have seemingly forgotten their awful encounters. However, when Mike (Isaiah Mustafa) beckons them back to Derry, they all feel compelled to return, knowing they have some kind of unfinished business.

What follows is an alarmingly long sequel that has plenty of memorable moments but that doesn’t ever achieve the same lofty heights of its predecessor. The adult Losers are well-cast and you still root for them but it is simply not as effective as the relationship between the children who were all dealing with their own torments.

Moving from set-piece to set-piece, returning director Andy Muschietti crafts plenty of creepy and exciting moments, though nothing can cap the fear created from the horror house section of the previous film and the underlying feeling of dread. This is partially caused by the film’s insistence to undercut the horror with moments of half-hearted levity, which only comes off some of the time. Moreover, as each successive Loser has to go through their perfunctory scary moment, it starts to become formulaic.

There are standout scenes, such as the one in the trailer where Jessica Chastain’s Beverly visits her old home only to find a creepy old lady there. But as the nearly three hour running time plods along, the horror simply lessens. By the end, nothing can surprise you and you find yourself longing for a tighter experience.

Despite my complaints, this is still a highly enjoyable film and it’s more frustrating that this could have been a classic rather than it being poor. Far from it. The performances are superb, with Skarsgard continuing to make Pennywise a horror movie classic character. Plus, there’s certainly been some money spent on the effects, which is rare for a horror film. However, it could be argued that big budget effects take away from the mystery and horror of the unknown.

Now, though, we just need to wait for a 5-6 hour supercut that puts the whole experience together. That would be fun for Halloween!

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood review

If the rumours are true, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is to be Quentin Tarantino’s penultimate film – with a possible Star Trek movie on the horizon! Set in the late 1960s, this drama focuses on the languishing career of a typecast cowboy actor, Rick Dalton (Leonardo Di Caprio), and his stuntman/chaffeur/handyman, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Running alongside the main narrative is the disturbing true life story of the Charles Manson family and one of their victims.

This is distinctively a Tarantino film, with many of the recognisable hallmarks we’ve come to expect. It’s long and self-indulgent but the central characters are so vividly and enticingly drawn that you want to spend time with them, even when what’s on screen isn’t exactly driving the narrative forward. It’s like listening to a great storyteller who keeps going off on non-sequiturs. Furthermore, there’s an energetic narrator (this time in the guise of Kurt Russell), Tarantino’s continued penchant for feet and lots of loving allusions to the filmmaking of yesteryear.

Surprisingly, the film is quite low on the ultra-violent displays often seen within a Tarantino picture – which makes the few instances here even more impactful. There’s a tremendous feeling of building tension in so many scenes that highlights the unpredictability of what could unfold. Calling to mind scenes from Reservoir Dogs, Inglourious Basterds and The Hateful Eight.

Di Caprio and Pitt deliver predictably great performances, whilst a host of recognisable faces crop up all over the place from Bruce Dern to Dakota Fanning, and Al Pacino to Maya Hawke (the daughter of Tarantino’s muse-like Uma Thurman). As has been the case for a while now, this can be a little distracting and some actors are definitely coming in on the basis that they are going to be in a Tarantino film rather than actually having an interesting part but most are given the kind of zippy dialogue that allows them to shine.

Whilst Di Caprio portrays a man realising more and more vividly that he’s becoming obsolete, Pitt is more stoic. However, the one bum note is the underuse of Margot Robbie as the real-life actor Sharon Tate. Robbie is barely in the film and acts more as a device than as an actual character. Fortunately, she is given a few nice character notes in order to flesh out a personality, such as blagging her way in to a movie that she’s starring in.

This a film with melancholy and sadness, paired with visual verve, tension-building and dark humour. Though, oddly, the much more restrained amounts of violence and certain optimistic narrative choices make this a much lighter and happier film than almost all of Tarantino’s back catalogue.

It’s flabby – at 161 minutes – and some could argue insensitive regarding its real life characters, but the film pulls you in and entertains you in a way few movies do nowadays. You never feel bored, despite the slow pace, and the emphasis on 1960s filmmaking is a joy for anyone who’s a sucker for the ’60s or film sets. It’s certainly not the best Tarantino film out there, but you could do a heck of a lot worse than seeing this one!

Blinded by the Light review

Gurinder Chadha’s latest directorial effort has a few similarities with arguably her most well-known hit, Bend It Like Beckham. It focuses on a British-Pakistani teenager living in Britain with parents who have a particular view of how they should be living their lives. Both central characters feel trapped by their respective worlds and find outlets in unexpected places. Whereas in Bend It…, it was football, here it is the music of Bruce Springsteen – the Boss.

Set in Thatcherite Britain, 1987, Javed Khan (Viveik Kalra) lives in Luton with his parents and two sisters. He watches his friend, Matt (Dean-Charles Chapman, also known as Tommen from Game of Thrones), enviously as Matt gets the kind of gifts he wants, goes out with the kind of girls he can only dream about and hosts the kind of parties that he’s not allowed to attend. When Javed goes to sixth form, he misleads his controlling father (Kulivinder Ghir) that he is studying Economics. Rather, he is studying English, with aspirations to become a writer. A new friend introduces him to the music of Springsteen and a flame is lit within Javed.

Based on the real life story of journalist Sarfraz Manzoor, this is a coming-of-age story with heart, humour and plenty of music to tap your feet to. The performances are strong, with Ghir giving sympathetic heart to Javed’s hard but well-meaning father. Also, there are small appearances from some of Britain’s comedy crop, like Rob Brydon and Sally Phillips, that generate a few smiles.

The film spends a large amount of time establishing the angst that Javed feels and doesn’t shy away from showing the shocking racist attitudes and actions of far right groups in the late 1980s. However, the film really gets going when Javed sticks his first Springsteen cassette into his Walkman and his life begins to change and his words begin to flow. It’s fun and musical with some visual verve.

It’s unfortunate then that some parts of the film are heavy-handed or even twee, thoroughly indulging in that monologuing manner of speaking often found in coming-of-age pictures. However, you can’t help but delight in Javed’s triumphs – despite his actions sometimes coming off as a little self-centred.

It’s not the best film of the year but it paints a clear picture of a Pakistani family living through the issues of that time and place. Furthermore, it celebrates how music – amongst other things – can help to inspire people all over the world. So, despite some heavy-handedness, this is a very entertaining offering from one of Britain’s most distinct filmmakers.

The Lion King (2019) review

Jon Favreau’s remake of The Jungle Book back in 2016 was one of the best of Disney’s recent and increasingly aggressive attempts to poke people in the nostalgia and get them to pay a second time to watch something they’ve already seen. The Jungle Book updated the story, changed certain elements and introduced some amazing special effects and a winning turn from its young star. Now Favreau has turned his gaze to one of the greatest animations – nay, films – of the last 25 years.

So what’s different? Story-wise: not a whole lot. Unlike the modernisation and tangible feel given to The Jungle Book, this film sticks closely to the film that Millenials were rightly obsessed with. Some parts are literally shot-for-shot. Of course, now it looks photo-realistic. It’s beautiful and astounding and weird. For example, a lion’s mouth just doesn’t look right belting out Can You Feel the Love Tonight? and the complete lack of expression possible to convey on an animal like say, a hornbill… So some moments look amazing and the vistas are jaw-dropping but the lack of cartoon stylisation becomes the film’s biggest issue. In fact, much of it becomes rather soulless.

Fortunate then that the story is just as strong as ever. Most of the songs are there too, although some have been neutered because the new animation style wouldn’t work with the song (which is a particular issue for fans of Be Prepared).

The voice cast are a mixed bag, with John Oliver, Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner standing out as the new Zazu, Pumbaa and Timon, respectively. They maintain the original concepts of the characters whilst also giving just enough of their own spins to make it worth watching. In fact, these characters are where the most flavour comes from, introducing new jokes and tweaked dynamics to the relationships. Unfortunately, Donald Glover and Beyonce Knowles-Carter feel like ineffective stunt casting, preying on popular culture rather than being able to give the required emotion for Simba and Nala. Also, Beyonce seems to be trying to prove just how many notes she can sing rather than actually get the point across.

But more to the point, James Earl Jones returns as Simba’s father Mufasa. He’s great. As great as he was last time, but what’s the point in hiring the same person as last time unless you just want to have the same effect. The whole thing therefore is nothing but a huge comparison for anyone who’s seen it before, which has been evident in this review.

From the point of view of first-timers, though, the story, characters, comedy and songs are engaging enough to entertain the masses (though they should definitely prioritise watching the original version). However, due to the realistic stylisation, the five year-old amongst us was forever confused as to which lion was which and so on, so some fundamental issues of clarity do occur with this remake.

There you have it. If you’re seeing this, it’s most likely for nostalgic purposes and you’ll be listing similarities and differences throughout. For kids, it’s pretty scary with the muscular, toothy lions fighting with a fiery background, and the running time is a bladder-testing 118 minutes. It’s good because it’s The Lion King and Disney are going to keep making these as long as we’re willing to cough up the cash. Let’s hope they go back to the quality and reinvention of The Jungle Book, though, rather than expensive retreads like this and the recent Aladdin. Mulan is already next on the cards…

Spider-Man: Far From Home review

Can you believe that Tom Holland has appeared in five films as Spider-Man since 2016?* It was nearly six but the animated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse cut the idea for a cameo from other Spider-Men to reduce confusion for the casual audience. Nevertheless, Holland now fully embodies the role of Peter Parker and his eponymous alter ego, and has been more successful than other iterations because of the more light-hearted approach to the character.

In fact, Far From Home, just like Spider-Man: Homecoming, is one of the funniest instalments in the already pretty funny Marvel Cinematic Universe. Following the universe rescuing events of Avengers: Endgame, Peter Parker is dealing with the ramifications of that significant death and everything else that’s happened as a result of Endgame.

Conveniently, all of Peter’s core friend group from Homecoming were also dusted and therefore came back at the same time, making them the same age still. If that sentence doesn’t make sense to you, go and watch the previous movies from this enormously long series and get up to speed… And Peter is desperate for a break from the responsibilities of being Spider-Man. That basic idea is very similar to other Spider-Man films; however, this time Peter’s going on holiday across Europe for a school trip, which means we get to see Spider-Man in a whole host of recognisable locations.

Of course, Peter’s wish to have a break doesn’t come true as the appearance of elemental monsters from a different dimension scuppers affairs. However, Peter seems to have found a new father figure/mentor in Jake Gyllenhaal’s mysterious super-powered hero, Mysterio (the name is on the money).

Like the Ant-Man movies and Homecoming, Far From Home provides a lighter tone with a smaller scope (which is odd to say in a film with such globe-trotting sensibilities). Not everything makes logical sense and the film acknowledges this but provides no explanation. Basically telling you, “Look, do you want to see Spider-Man in places like London or Paris, or not?” Also, the villains’ motivations are weak, which is disappointing after Marvel made such great strides with characters like Killmonger in Black Panther and Thanos in the last two Avengers movies.

Nevertheless, the characters are superb and often hilarious. Holland truly is the best live-action Spider-Man but his best friend Ned and love interest MJ (not Mary Jane but you see what they did there…), played by Jacob Batalan and Zendaya respectively, make perfect foils for one another. Furthermore, Gyllenhaal remains an ever-engaging screen presence, whilst familiar faces – like Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury and Jon Favreau’s Happy Hogan – make satisfying reappearances.

The action is good, without being particularly inventive. To be fair, by this point, it must be getting difficult to think of new ways to show off Spidey’s talents. But really, this is a film where it’s just a joy to be amongst these characters. Having said that, if you didn’t like the dynamic and tone of Homecoming, you should steer clear of this one.

Marvel’s streak of great movies continues with this one, though, and there are a couple of tantalising mid/end-credits’ scenes that are definitely worth sticking around for.

 

*Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Avengers: Infinity War, Avengers: Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home. See, told you…

Yesterday review

It’s not very often we get high concept rom-coms. Let alone ones that aren’t entirely obnoxious. So here we have an idea that seems entirely British: what if everyone forgot The Beatles except for one man… a man who happens to be a musician. Better still, the screenplay is by Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually and About Time) and directed by Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting and 28 Days Later). Is it as good as it sounds, though?

Himesh Patel (most well-known for his tenure in Eastenders) plays failing-musician Jack Malik, who has a cycling accident at the exact same time the entire Earth’s electricity goes out for 12 seconds. Upon waking up, he discovers he’s lost two front teeth and no one remember The Beatles. Not even his manager/best friend Ellie (Lily James from Cinderella and Downton Abbey) is aware. So he begins trying to remember their songs and making a success of it, whilst also struggling to realise his true feelings for Ellie.

It’s a very sweet film. And it makes decent use of The Beatles vast back catalogue. The story itself is a bundle of towels and doesn’t really go very far with its enticing premise. Nevertheless, the sheer charm of the cast sails you through to the end of the film, with Curtis’ characteristically witty and lovely dialogue, accompanied by Boyle’s distinctive direction style. Many of the elements are recognisable from previous Curtis scripts, such as Joel Fry’s Rocky, who may as well Rhys Ifans from Notting Hill. However, it still works and Patel and James make yet another delightful central pairing – if not quite as adorable as Domnhall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams in About Time.

Unfortunately, it’s very predictable and doesn’t take many risks, which is fine as this is a comfort food kind of film. What it does lack is bigger laughs, instead providing a steady stream of smiles. So whilst it isn’t amazing, it’s absolutely worth a watch. Plus, it’ll appeal to a wide audience thanks to its killer soundtrack.

However, one odd point – that fortunately doesn’t derail the film – is the not insignificant appearance of Ed Sheeran, playing himself, as someone who helps Jack on his journey to stardom. He’s fairly integral to the plot and not a terrible actor. Yet, it’s so odd that it is somewhat jarring.

Anyway, a good date movie, one for your parents or even a decent family movie (providing everyone’s 12 or over).

Toy Story 4 review

Toy Story is a rare trilogy in that every film is pretty much perfect (barring technical advances that make the original look rather outdated now). So no one could be blamed for feeling great trepidation when Pixar revealed they were producing a fourth film. With a first-time director in Josh Cooley, returning characters and new characters, can this live up to the Toy Story standard?

Opening with a brief recap of events preceding this story, Woody and the gang of toys are no longer with their child, Andy, and have instead gone to Bonnie – a pre-schooler about to start kindergarten. Meanwhile, in Toy Story 3, Bo Peep – Woody’s love interest from 1 and 2 – is mentioned to have been given away and this is actually shown this time to set up the plot.

On her first day at school, Bonnie literally makes a new friend out of a spork, some pipe cleaners and a lollipop stick: Forky. Unfortunately, Forky thinks he’s trash because that’s what he’s made from, which means Woody is responsible for keeping him from throwing himself away. Along the way, Bonnie’s family go on a road trip where all the toys come along and many shenanigans occur.

Toy Story 4 is a great movie: that’s undeniable. But there are plenty of reservations too. The animation remains the best in cinema and the voice acting is top-notch, with safe hands (or should that be vocal chords) from returning cast members like Tom Hanks, to amusing new characters, such as Tony Hale as the aforementioned Forky. However, the film struggles in its opening third for relevance as Toy Story 3 had so perfectly completed the narrative and left a feeling of completion rarely felt from a film series like this. As a result, the early beats of the film cover ground seen in previous films, such as rejection, longing and the struggle to fit in.

However, at a certain point around the middle, the film kicks into gear and offers something new. It’s funny, inventive and emotional, which are all the things we’ve come to expect from this film franchise. It’s also littered with a litany of easter eggs for eagle-eyed Pixar fans.

Where the film suffers throughout, is that it simply isn’t as good as the third film, which remains the best in the franchise. And, with the ending to Toy Story 3 being so emotionally satisfying and fulfilling, Toy Story 4 unfortunately sullies that ending. Again, it’s not a bad film – in fact, it’s probably an excellent film – but it just doesn’t need to exist and leaves characters in places that aren’t as satisfying as they were at the end of the previous film.

Nevertheless, this is family entertainment of the highest order and deserves to be seen by adults and children alike. You’d happily take this over a whole host of offerings like Despicable Me, Secret Life of Pets or other similar films.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix review

X-Men: Dark Phoenix is the twelfth film based on the X-Men comics and the second film that uses ‘The Dark Phoenix Saga’ as its inspiration, after being used as a story thread back in 2006 for X-Men: The Last Stand a film that was not widely well-received. Veteran X-Men screenwriter Simon Kinberg takes the helm this time and Game of Thrones‘ Sophie Turner takes centre stage as Jean Grey – the eponymous Dark Phoenix.

Set in 1992, nine years after the events of X-Men: Apocalypse, the X-Men are seen as heroes and mutants are enjoying a period of respite from human scorn after saving the planet. When a space mission goes wrong, the X-Men are called upon to save the astronauts, which subjects telekinetic Jean Grey to a mysterious solar flare (clearly not a solar flare). This dramatically increases Jean’s powers and she becomes the Dark Phoenix, not fully in control of herself. The X-Men try to recover Jean before she causes too much destruction; meanwhile, an alien force attempts to steal the power from Jean.

20th Century Fox have distributed the X-Men films since 2000 but now they have been bought by Disney. This means that this is likely one of the last two X-Men instalments in this cinematic universe, with New Mutants already filmed but heavily delayed (if it ever is released). So, in all likelihood, this will be the last time the likes of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender will show up as these characters before the X-Men inevitably become part of the MCU. In a way, then, this sets up Dark Phoenix as a climactic final film to wrap up the nearly 20 year old series. In this way, it has been set up to fail. However, it is by no means a bad film.

Ever since the X-Men franchise was – kind of – rebooted with X-Men: First Class, the timeline of events have never really made sense and the Wolverine subcategories further confused the matter. Then, with X-Men: Days of Future Past the series had a time travel element that essentially undid and reset certain elements of the story. However, it’s simply not worth trying to take Dark Phoenix as a cohesive continuation of a storyline and is best enjoyed as a separate entity of its own.

Focusing on Jean’s story allows for a more streamlined narrative than usual. However, Dark Phoenix‘s production suffered some issues so the film doesn’t flow perfectly as a result. This becomes clear in the final act, which was largely reshot due to similarities to the end of another recent superhero movie (rumoured to Captain Marvel‘s space-battle ending).

As is ever the case with an X-Men film, there are a lot of characters to get to grips with and some are there for fan-service or because they have abilities that allow the plot to move forwards. Conversely, some characters have to be strategically incapacitated at certain moments in order for events to make more sense (as seems to commonly happen to Quicksilver, who is so fast that many issues could be rectified immediately if he remains in the fray). Unfortunately, some characters have become tiresome and, after so many films, you may prefer the focus to be elsewhere.

The performances are fine but talented actors, such as Jessica Chastain, are wasted in relatively archetypal, one-dimensional roles. Furthermore, the script doesn’t allow for any characters to have particularly memorable moments, the likes of which made Hugh Jackman so successful as Wolverine in the earlier films.

Moreover, the action sequences are well-produced and contain the typical levels of excitement that come from seeing multi-talented mutants co-operating to take down essentially meaningless foot soldiers. Yet, there is little as jaw-dropping as the events of X2 or Days of Future Past.

All in all, this film is good. It’s not great and it’s certainly not going to be your favourite X-Men or Marvel movie. However, neither is it one of the worst X-Men films; in fact, it’s a substantial upward turn after the abysmal Apocalypse.

If this is the end for this crop of X-Men (which it probably should be), it is slightly unsatisfying but certainly not a travesty. But it’s best to compare this film to Star Trek: Beyond, which was another film from a popular science-fiction franchise that marked a significant moment in the history of series but failed to deliver anything more than something merely watchable.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters review

Whilst a direct sequel to the 2014 Godzilla reboot, Godzilla: King of the Monsters also marks the third film in Legendary’s “MonsterVerse” – because, you know, everyone’s got to have a shared universe these days – after 2017’s Kong: Skull Island. However, Godzilla 2014 had mixed responses: some liked the slowly building magnitude of the film, whilst others were annoyed due to the titular character’s lack of screen time. King of Monsters looks to remedy this criticism.

Starring a host of recognisable faces (Charles Dance, Kyle Chandler, Ken Watanabe, Millie Bobby Brown, Sally Hawkins – to name but a few), the plot rattles along coming up with absurdity after absurdity in order to have excuses to pit enormous monsters head-to-head with one another. The human characters are there to give context to why these monsters are around and smashing the world to bits but, truthfully, if you couldn’t refer to characters as “that girl from Stranger Things” and “Tyrion’s dad in Game of Thrones” it would be pretty baffling to try and follow or care about the humans and their respective plights. Not that the acting is bad, in fact, everyone’s doing the best they can. No, it’s that the script is nonsense.

That being said, it is not all together a bad film. It serves a specific purpose, which is to see enormous monsters – or kaiju – on-screen, knocking seven bells out of one another. Featuring fan favourites from the Toho originals, such as Rodan, Mothra and, most importantly, the almighty King Ghidorah. All of whom look suitably spectacular in their CGI glory.

Unfortunately, none of the battles will particularly live in the memory. Presumably to assist the special effects, most of the battles are surrounded by a degree of darkness or swirling weather effects. Things clash together with seismic aplomb, yet you never see any of the effect it is having on the mass populace, which shows how this iteration of Godzilla fundamentally misses the point of the monster’s original concept (a reflection of the devastation caused by the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

And yet, the film doesn’t employs the silliness of some of the more popular Toho films either. Therefore, everything is treated very po-faced, aside from one or two lightly comic side characters who whizz off mildly amusing/annoying one-liners when the heavy-handed plotting has got in the way for too long.

On a side note, teleportation seems to exist in this universe too. They mention a subterranean network of tunnels for Godzilla but the humans and some of the more ambling creatures seem to be able to globe-trot pretty instantly.

Within the MonsterVerse, Kong: Skull Island reigns as king but the standard has not been set particularly high. However, Skull Island was colourful, more fun and you cared more about the central beast. Godzilla 2014 went with the “less is more” approach, whilst King of Monsters went with the opposite “more is more” approach. Either way, if you’re going to see these films, you should see them on the biggest screens possible.

So it’s not good but you might still enjoy it. As far as bangy-crashy films go, it’s not terribly obnoxious at least. There’s just something ineffably awesome about seeing a three-headed dragon the size of a skyscraper, though.

Everything is gearing up now for next year’s Godzilla vs Kong. Despite myself, I still want to see that movie but I hope for two things: 1) More inventive sequences; and 2) Better human characters. To be honest, even one of those things would be fine.