Movie Review: My Little Pony: A New Generation

It feels like it's been longer, but My Little Pony: The Movie came out four years ago. It says a lot about the state of the industry that it was the 2D tie-in that made it into theaters, while the more professional-looking CG installment wound up on Netflix. That's not intended as a slight against the 2017 movie - I liked it quite a bit - but I can't imagine anyone comparing the two and concluding that one was "more theatrical."

A little background for those of you who don't follow nerd stuff: the 2017 movie functioned as an extension of the television series, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. That series recently wrapped up its tenth and final season, which is an astonishing run in kid's media. Without going into too much detail, the series' success upended entrenched ideas about the value of animation aimed at a female audience, to say nothing of the impact it had on studios' willingness to gamble on female showrunners. Sadly, it also became a trailblazer in accidentally cultivating a toxic fanbase. The "Brony" thing may have started cute, but it sure as hell didn't stay that way.

Regardless, A New Generation represents a fairly ambitious attempt to reboot the franchise with new characters. There's a brief intro sequence tying this to the last iteration, though it's a tad ambiguous on whether Friendship is Magic should be regarded as a precursor or as myths that survived about that era. Either way, that's all the distant past.

Compared with Friendship is Magic, A New Generation is far more grounded. Part of this is due to the story, which is built around a generic "magic has left the world" premise, but even beyond that everything is significantly smaller in scope. The threats are political, rather than existential, and the power levels are more in line with other animated films, as opposed to the superheroics of Friendship is Magic.

Those "political threats" aren't subtle, either: this is My Little Pony for a divided world. The dangers are fear, xenophobia, and lies, and it's hard not to draw parallels between the villain and the guy we just tossed out of the White House. To be fair, that character's arc also works as a reference to season 3 of Community (they hired Ken Jeong for a reason, after all).

Of course, this is all going to go over the heads of the movie's target demographic. I assume the animation will keep them happy, though. This is more or less on par visually with most other non-Pixar CG films, which is to say it looks good, but isn't a visual masterpiece or anything. Same goes for the musical numbers: they're solid pop numbers that do the trick.

The humor mostly works, too, both for kids and adults. They maintained the tradition of interspersing references grown-ups will pick up on but kids will miss (the Community connection being one example).

Overall, I enjoyed this. It's cute, fun, and entertaining. I do think there was at least one plot point they could have smoothed over towards the end (they repeat a story beat they could probably have streamlined), but that's a minor quibble. Likewise, it's worth noting I found this effective and at times impressive, but not particularly moving. This is pretty good - it's not great or anything.

Lastly, I want to mention one aspect I find a little disheartening. Looking over the team of directors and producers driving this incarnation, it looks like the majority are men. Friendship is Magic was headed by women, and - while the new team did solid work - I think it's a misstep to move backwards on that front.

At any rate, if you've got Netflix, you've already got access to this. If you're a fan of the last show, this is worth a watch. And if you've got a kid the right age, they'll probably love it.

Movie Review: The Suicide Squad

Watching The Suicide Squad feels a lot like reading an issue of a comic entrenched in continuity you know nothing about. For better or worse (mostly better, but not entirely), this comes off as being part of something much, much larger than what's onscreen. Only that "larger thing" doesn't actually exist, so we're left to fend for ourselves. In other words, if there's a problem with The Suicide Squad (and, to be clear, that's a big IF), that problem is the DCEU. Because the movie is framed as a deviation from the norm, it's a bit awkward there's no real "norm" for it to deviate from. The last seven movies in this franchise are Justice League, Aquaman, Shazam, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984, Justice League again, and now this: if everything is weird, is anything? And more importantly, is that even an issue?

It's certainly a double-edged sword. The DCEU's lack of cohesion makes it more conducive to experimentation than the relatively focused MCU, but it also robs its successes of the contrast that contextualized the Guardians of the Galaxy movies. The Suicide Squad feels like it should also be interesting as part of its franchise, in addition to as its own story.

But since it's got to stand on its own merits, it's fortunate it's got merits to spare. The movie is overflowing with fascinating characters, thoughtful dialogue, and absurd action. It works simultaneously as a war story, a comedy, a satire, and - lest we forget - a superhero flick.

To be clear, there's a lot going on here. This is a movie that revels in gratuitous violence one moment, only to shift to a poignant philosophical or political point the next. When it's not ripping off heads, it's sweet, heartfelt, and at times shockingly beautiful. It cares deeply about its characters, even if the world they inhabit doesn't. The unapologetic fantasy elements in the trailers obscure the fact that this movie has a great deal to say about very real foreign policy.

Depending on your point-of-view, I think you could accurately describe the film as a whole as layered or patchwork. The themes resonate with the characters and their stories, but at the same time there are so many flashbacks, cutaways, and asides, it feels a little like you're being tricked into believing the plot is more complicated than it really is. This is more intended as an observation than a complaint: I think the style adds a great deal to the movie.

The characters are more or less universally wonderful. I felt a little shortchanged by several not getting enough screen time, but if you asked me for something to cut to free up space, I'd be at a loss. This definitely leaves you wanting more, but that's hardly a problem. The movie isn't above killing off minor characters for laughs, but when it wants you to feel a loss, it succeeds. Without giving too much away, I'll say it gave the character I'd least expect to care about a final line that stopped me in my tracks. And, to be clear, I'm the kind of person who expects to care about talking raccoons, tree men, and walking sharks. When I say this movie pulls out a surprise twist on a character's inner life and motives, trust it's something truly unexpected.

This is a great movie. Is it my favorite James Gunn movie? Nah, that's still Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 2. It's not quite my favorite DCEU movie, either, though it's somewhere in the top tier alongside Wonder Woman, Birds of Prey, and Shazam. This is worth seeing, assuming you're not easily grossed out. For the record, I'm not big fan of gore, and nothing in this bothered me too much (and almost everything that came close was in the first ten minutes).

One last note I feel needs to be acknowledged: I watched Suicide Squad the only way that made sense to me, given the fact we're in a pandemic, and I've got a young child - on HBO Max. There is a very real possibility that impacted my reaction to the movie, so take that how you will.

Movie Review: Black Widow

By my count, there are at least four distinct movies in Black Widow, two of which I really enjoyed. If you're thinking that's a roundabout way of saying the film as a whole is something of a mess... well, you're not wrong. But I mean what I say about the good stuff: when this works, it really works. Of course I can't really talk about the component parts without at least acknowledging what they are, so consider this an extremely longwinded and needlessly confusing spoiler warning.

My guess is the script for Black Window went through quite a few iterations before reaching this point. It feels like a movie that started with a strong vision that got chipped away by studio notes and rewrites. The first act goes in some dark directions: we get some backstory and insight into Natasha and the world she comes from. Tonally, this clashes a bit with the jokes tossed in to maintain the MCU flavor, but it still worked for me. I thought it did a great job selling this as a darker corner of the same world.

After a few action sequences (more on these in a minute), the movie transitioned into a sort of Soviet superhero sitcom for a while. I really liked the spy thriller opening, but this... this I absolutely LOVED. It was weird, funny, and surprisingly touching. The characters were emotionally broken people, and it was a joy seeing them interact in almost a parody of 80's situation comedies.

You've probably already done the math, so here comes the stuff that disappointed me. First, the action. It's not so much that it leans heavily on CG and blue screens, or that it doesn't look real: that's true of a lot of the genre. The larger issue is it doesn't feel integrated into the story. The fights feel like distractions, and not particularly interesting ones. It doesn't help that most of the antagonists aren't distinct or interesting enough to be compelling. The only one with a personality stays offscreen most of the movie, and the rest are literally mindless puppets. This becomes a pretty big issue towards the end, when an army of nondescript enemies works against the theme they're supposed to represent.

And speaking of theme...

Here comes that "fourth movie", and I need to be very, very careful, because I have a feeling I'm going to be in bad company here. Black Widow tries to work in some social commentary, and it just didn't work for me. Before I go on, I'll acknowledge I'm a cisgender man, and it's entirely possible this will play better for other audiences.

To be clear, I think what Black Widow tries to say is good, and I like the concept behind how they're trying to say it. But I don't think the idea was given enough room to breathe, particularly because it was competing for screen time against themes of family, and those felt more developed. Themes built around misogyny and control came across as rushed and didn't deliver enough of a punch.

Ultimately, I think this was one of the MCU's weaker entries, though that's a long way from a failure. We still got great characters, including several new additions I'd like to see again. It's enjoyable enough to warrant a viewing or two, but aside from the aforementioned sitcom sequences, it's not all that memorable. It also raises the question why Disney+ is charging an extra $30 bucks for this but giving us far superior Marvel series free with subscription.

Movie Review: Shadow in the Cloud

By rights, this should be in one of those mini-review roundups I've been doing. This movie isn't all that new (its US release was on January 1, and it technically premiered last September). And I was going to just toss it into one of those. I even started typing up some thoughts. The thing is... it's just that...

This movie fucking rules, and I couldn't bring myself to relegate it to a few paragraphs.

More than that, this doesn't just rule in a conventional way. This isn't a situation where someone took a typical premise, produced a typical genre movie, and just managed to get everything right. This thing is weird as hell, its existence feels bizarrely anachronistic, and it delivers an experience that's as unique as it is, once again, fucking awesome.

If that's enough for you, please stop reading, open Hulu, and watch this batshit crazy horror/action/adventure hybrid for yourself. Just take it in. Maybe you'll love it like I do; maybe you'll be more bothered by the obvious seams where the movie's budget falls short. Either way, I promise, it's not what you're expecting.

For those of you still here, as always, I'll try and avoid plot points or twists, but I want to stress this thing isn't really powered by those. Its strength comes from visceral emotion and artistic audacity, and it's hard to talk about a movie like that without spoiling a bit of that experience. So, again, I'm inviting you - begging you even - to go watch Shadow in the Cloud without reading another word.

All right then. Since you're still here, let's talk about realism, or more accurately the absence thereof. This movie is untethered to reality in a way few modern movies are. What's almost more intriguing, however, is how it reveals that. Most movies that embrace truly impossible elements (I'm not just talking monsters - I mean physics and reason) do so upfront. They open with an acknowledgement of the absurd to get you onboard. They ask you to suspend your disbelief from the start, so you're not surprised when reality unravels. Think Tarantino movies or Speed Racer: these movies maintain a consistent tone to ensure they're not too jarring.

This does something a bit more subtle. With the exception of a monstrous creature, the first half of the movie is largely realistic. It uses this time to bring us into the point-of-view and psychology of its protagonist, played by Chloë Grace Moretz. It creates a claustrophobic environment for her and puts pressure on her from all sides. You see that pressure affect her. Scare her. Threaten her. You almost expect it to break her, only...

If she was going to break, she'd have broken a long time ago. The movie doesn't say this outright, but it shows us. It sells us on how tough she is, which matters, because we need to buy into that to accept what comes next.

We've seen heroines in horror movies pivot before - that's not new. I'm not sure I've seen it done this effectively. Everything in the movie builds to a moment when we watch Moretz lose her patience rather than her mind, and just as the first half was expressed by showing her being quite literally bottled up, the second half... well... you couldn't convey her mental state in anything resembling reality, anyway.

The movie's big set piece is, in a word, audacious. It would have been audacious in a movie with ten times the budget this had. Attempting it at all was absurd, and by rights it shouldn't work. We're talking trying to do a big-budget sequence without the budget, so they're left trying to sell an already ridiculous sequence with obvious green screens, silly-looking explosions, and not even a big enough fan to sell the wind in her hair.

And they knock it out of the goddamn park.

None of it looks real or believable. But because of the way the movie's structured, it doesn't have to. Because we're in the head of the protagonist, we only need to believe in her motives and determination. We don't need to believe any of this is real; we need to experience the story on its own terms.

They used to make genre movies this way. They used to sell fantastic ideas with actors and stories rather than trying for flawless effects. I'm not saying that philosophy was always better, but it's refreshing to see it used again, and even more refreshing to see it used that well.

It's also refreshing to hear it. This thing also tosses out the assumption movie music should disappear into the background. Shadow in the Cloud features a delightfully retro soundtrack that makes its presence known, and I love it.

I love a lot of things about this movie. I love that the monster is maybe the third most pressing concern as far as the main character is concerned. I love that the ending goes in a direction I don't think I've ever seen before, and it's glorious. I love that the theme is as unsubtle and unapologetic as the physics. Chloë Grace Moretz nails absolutely every scene she's in, which it turns out is literally every scene in the movie, so that's another point in the movie's favor.

This was directed by Roseanne Liang, who I'm guessing you've never heard of before, either. Well... now I've heard of her, and I want more. Someone airdrop her a pallet of money to make a Marvel flick or two dozen indie productions or something. Anything. Whatever she wants.

It's hard to compare this movie to anything, but if pressed I'd point to Attack the Block or Mandy. It's genre that ignores the rules and actually offers some genuine surprises.

Catch-Up, Part 6: Awards Bait

This is the sixth installment in my ongoing series of mini-reviews of newish movies I missed in the theater, because I literally haven't been to a movie theater in close to two years.

The movies I'm looking at today were all well received and with good reason: to the extent the word "objectively" means anything in this context, they're all objectively great films.

I hadn't meant to do a "movies for grown-ups" installment - I'm a strong believer that "good" and "genre" aren't mutually exclusive labels, and further that most "awards contenders" can be accurately classified under various genre labels. But I basically spent the last five articles siphoning off all the conventional genre movies - good and bad - I've seen, leaving... well... mostly a bunch of high quality films that didn't fit elsewhere. I don't want to sit on these forever - I saw one of the movies below back in January 2020 - so here we are.

Nomadland (2020)

Not a lot to say here aside from the obvious: it's beautifully shot and edited into something that feels closer to a cross between a documentary and poetry than a narrative film. This is already blurring the line between reality, adaptation, and story - it doesn't fit neatly in any bucket. On one hand, it's a moving and simple character study; on another, it probes into some darker aspects of how our nation operates.

It's a fantastic movie, so I feel bad admitting my main takeaway is that Eternals is in great hands.

Jojo Rabbit (2019)

I hate that I don't love more of Taika Waititi's movies. For the record, I did love Hunt for the Wilderpeople. And I've been getting into the series, What We Do in the Shadows, but the movie it was based on didn't really work for me. Same goes for the rest of his filmography - I liked them fine, but I didn't love them.

The weird thing is I should love them. I'm generally a sucker for this kind of humor, and I love absurdist settings and situations. His approach should be right up my alley. And it's not like I think the love he gets is unearned - I can watch these and appreciate how well they're crafted. He's a phenomenal filmmaker.

I think it comes down to a minor stylistic quibble. His movies are made to keep the audience at arm's length. He wants you to be conscious of the fact you're watching a movie, and he uses the fourth wall accordingly. He doesn't want the audience pulled so far into the film they get lost in the story.

Again, this isn't a good or bad thing, just a choice. But it's a choice that clashes with my personal preferences regarding movies (especially these kinds of movies).

I want to stress, this is a great film. The characters are fantastic, the direction is wonderful, the story is timely... it's fantastic. I'm not criticizing any aspect. I honestly wish I could toggle the part of my brain that kept me from enjoying this more.

Little Women (2019)

I'm a geeky man who generally prefers movies about spaceships and superheroes. If I'd been living in the world of Little Women, I'd have been one of the readers who was sad Jo's violent genre stories disappeared. This movie isn't from a genre I seek out.

A few years ago, someone convinced me to give the 1994 adaptation (that's the one with Winona Ryder) a shot. Their pitch may have involved overselling its holiday credentials (I've got a relatively liberal outlook on what constitutes a Christmas movie, and Little Women doesn't check enough boxes). At any rate, I watched that and was bored to tears. Nothing about the story or characters clicked with me.

So why in the world did I give another adaptation a shot? Simple. Because all the geeky reviewers I listen to who also like spaceships and superheroes swore this was one of the best movies of last year. So I gave it a chance, and...

Yeah, this movie rules. It just totally rules.

I'm not going to sit here and write at length about how amazing the cast was or how beautiful the film was. I'm not going to go in depth about how brilliant the structural changes were or how cleverly the movie explored the book's relationship to the author's life or any of that. I'd just be rehashing what a billion critics already said. And besides, while those aspects are a big part of what I appreciated this adaptation, they're not why I loved it.

What I actually loved about it was the humor and warmth. Moments that bored me in the 1994 version felt fresh and real here. It didn't matter that I knew the story or even that I had negative associations with it - I was riveted. 

That's a hell of an achievement. Check this out if you haven't already.

Spaceship Earth (2020)

Do I include documentaries in these things? Have I ever talked about a documentary on this blog in any context? Damned if I remember. But I want to say a few things about this one, mainly because it was a lot of fun. Also, while it isn't technically science fiction, it's science fiction adjacent to a degree that's absurdly rare.

The subject of the documentary is the 1991 "experiment" where eight people were sealed (well, mostly sealed - there were complications) in an airtight complex for two years. The goal was to create a sustainable environment made up of habitats from all over the planet. The idea was both inspired by science fiction and motivated by a similar drive: if we ever want to set up colonies on other worlds, this is what they'll need to look like.

The first third largely centers on the group behind the project, and they're hard to categorize. Part-hippie, part commune, part corporate think tank... I kept feeling conflicting reactions where part of me wanted to laugh at them while another part wishes I was alive back then and could have joined them. They're a fascinating group.

It's kind of a shame they conducted their experiment when they did. I feel like the concept could be executed much more effectively now using hydroponics and an improved understanding of biology. But good luck getting the funding together - I suspect that was a one-time deal, at least in this country.

At any rate, the documentary is worth a watch, just be prepared for the twist ending, when [spoiler alert] Steve Bannon shows up and takes over. Seriously - Steve Bannon. It feels like the studio interfered and made the director wedge him into the movie to set up a sequel, until you remember you're watching historical footage and all this really happened.

Hustlers (2019)
Hustlers is the kind of movie I'd typically ignore entirely, despite being able to hear every critic in the country hollering its praises at the top of their lungs. At a glance, it just doesn't sound like a genre I'd be interested in.

But, okay, funny story. A few years ago I got bored and watched "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World," a movie that received lukewarm reviews. And once I finished watching it, I vowed to watch basically anything else the mad genius behind it made for the rest of her career. Damn, that movie is good.

I wasn't disappointed in The Meddler, and I sure as hell wasn't disappointed in Hustlers. Lorene Scafaria is a master at juggling genres and balancing tones. Hustlers is more or less a mafia movie spliced with a drama about friendship, all delivered with humor. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't work, but Scafaria makes it look easy.

Track this down if you haven't seen it. And, for the love of God, also watch Seeking a Friend for the End of the World. Seriously. It's one of the most underrated genre films of all time.


Dolemite is My Name (2019)
After watching Dolemite is My Name, I tried explaining the premise to my wife and was mostly at a loss. In some ways, it's closest to Ed Wood, but that's not a fair comparison. If anything, this movie seems intent on dismissing just that sort of characterization of Rudy Ray Moore. The film is ultimately a comedy, but it's not an especially funny one. It's more interested in celebrating its subject's unique place in cinema and pop culture than in making jokes.

This is, at the end of the day, a character study. It's a biopic about a man who realized there was a untapped market for a particular type of entertainment producers didn't understand or take seriously. While I don't have a background with this character or the genre he worked in, I'm more than familiar with that theme - it's somewhat universal in film and television. And this movie handles it masterfully.

And that's not even getting into the fantastic character work and the beautiful visuals (this looks more like a movie made in the '70s than most movies made in the '70s).

If you've got a few hours and a Netflix subscription, this one's more than worth the time.


The Farewell (2019)
This is the sort of movie I rarely watch unless it’s set at Christmas, but my sister gave it a strong recommendation. And… yeah, it’s pretty great. It’s a dramedy about cultural differences, family relationships, and difficult moments. There’s not a great deal of story beyond the premise (which I’m not spoiling for a reason), but this winds up feeling like a feature rather than a bug. Characters behave realistically, which means growth and development are more subtle and internal than you’d typically get in this genre. I spent the movie waiting for “the big moment” and was pleasantly surprised when it went in another direction (it kind of had to – the movie’s based on a true story).

Beyond the fantastic character work, amazing acting, and nuanced look at cultural differences, the movie also features some stunning cinematography. It’s beautifully shot, to the point I’d recommend it on that fact alone (or at least I would if everything else wasn’t even better).

Movie Review: Mortal Kombat

The 2021 Mortal Kombat movie is the movie they should have made in 1995. Swear to God, this movie would have seemed awesome twenty-six years ago. I know we all have fond memories of the campy, cheesy, stupid, bloodless flick that dropped back then, but nostalgia's doing that movie a lot of favors. What the 90's needed was a campy, cheesy, stupid flick with blood, and now... here it is, a few decades late.

Is it too late? Maybe. Probably. Depends how generous you're feeling.

This is... it's fine. Not good, mind you, but fine. The movie does a solid job adapting the core of the game and a passable job assembling that into a format resembling an actual movie. Mostly passable. Sort of passable. It comes a lot closer than most video game adaptations, anyway. But structurally, this is still more like a fighting game than a movie. Was that intentional? Probably. Was it advisable? Probably not.

I'm tempted to say this is likely the best version of this premise we could have hoped for on the big screen, but the truth is a version of this with interesting character dynamics wouldn't have been all that difficult. I'm not saying we needed awards-caliber writing, but the reason, say, Infinity War works without much of a story is that the banter is fun and the relationships are engaging. Here, it's mostly just filler and exposition between fights. Only a few characters have relationships to each other, and those are clichés. When the most compelling character is the video game equivalent of Captain Boomerang, you've got a problem.

That's the larger issue, at least as far as this thing's entertainment value is concerned. There are some pretty big structural and pacing issues, but to be frank, I think issues like those come off as more academic than fatal flaws in movies like these. They're the kinds of things that don't bother you too much unless you stop and think about them, but whether it was wise or not...

...I stopped and thought about them. So, uh, spoilers.

The weirdest - I don't think "flaw" is even the right word - choice, maybe? The weirdest choice the movie makes, in my opinion, is to not actually do the Mortal Kombat tournament. The tournament is supposed to happen, the lore from the games (or at least my limited understanding of that lore) is largely intact, the main characters spend the first few acts getting ready for said tournament, but instead they just kind of fight all the bad guys one-on-one outside of the tournament. Then no one really explains if the tournament is postponed, if the villains forfeit, if it's still going to happen in a couple days with new or resurrected bad guys, or what's going on.

And here's the thing: the one-on-one fights were shot in a way they could have been the tournament, they just weren't. Like, we weren't watching the tournament on a technicality. My running theory is they originally were part of the "official" tournament, then the movie got recut and streamlined into it's current form. Maybe they couldn't swing some reshoots because of COVID, and this was the workaround?

I also have my suspicions about the "big fight" at the end, mainly because it *wasn't* really a big fight, at all. The movie's climax is a fight between one ninja fighting two ninjas, and the two ninjas win, because [checks notes] there are two of them.

Meanwhile, the main character takes out Goro at the end of the second act. Given how much of the Goro fight is CG, I can't help but wonder if maybe the order of those fights got flipped at some point. Because, as it is, there really isn't a "boss fight" at the end of the movie, which feels wrong for a fighting game adaptation.

Again, none of this is necessarily a major problem; just... weird. The movie feels like it doesn't quite click together, but... does it have to? The fights are pretty good, and that's the selling point of this thing, anyway. I wish they'd held back more from the trailers, but the "good parts" are indeed pretty good. Does a Mortal Kombat movie need to be a coherent, well-made film, or is "people fighting" enough? I'll leave that to philosophers to decide.

Let's talk gore. Yes, there's blood and occasionally guts and brains and stuff, but honestly... I thought there'd be a lot more. This isn't a complaint - I'm squeamish, so I didn't miss it - but it's notable the fatalities in the movie are significantly less gruesome than some I've seen in the more recent games. Again, not a complaint: I was just a little surprised.

Along with Detective Pikachu, this is easily one of the best video game movies I've ever seen, but if that's not damning with faint praise, I don't know what is. I can't imagine spending additional money to see this on a big screen, but if you're already paying for HBO Max... hey, it's right there. That's certainly how I watched it. Not sure this qualifies as a recommendation, but I suppose you need to ask yourself how bored you are.

Movie Review: Godzilla vs. Kong

I think I've said some version of this every time I've reviewed an installment in this franchise: when the biggest complaint people have about a monster movie is the human characters or the plot or the logic or literally anything other than the monsters... take a bow - you did your job. I hope this won't be read as being synonymous with "turn off your brain" or some kind of attack against people who aren't satisfied with a big, silly adventure movie about a giant ape and a radioactive dragon punching each other - that's not it at all. It's simply an acknowledgement that these movies first and foremost exist to spotlight the monsters, and if they fail to do so, every review in existence is going to harp on that fact.

And, once again, Legendary knocked this out of the park, at least as far as those monsters are concerned. Kong and Godzilla are awesome, as is the "Hollow Earth" we finally get to see. And that other thing they kept secret (but that was kind of in the trailer, anyway)... yeah, that's awesome, too. The movie is visually inventive, exciting, and - above all - about as fun as they come.

But, yes, if you care, the plot is about as dumb as a rock.

I'm honestly not sure that's fair. A more accurate statement might be the film sacrifices story and logic for pace, and if anything I'd say that's a smart decision in this case. But if you want to pick apart the logic of who manages to go where and when, you'll have an easy time doing so. Even suspending disbelief around things like Hollow Earth leave you scratching your head around geography and geometry. It's pretty obvious when the movie just skips over explanations or causality to get back to fights and destruction. I know that's deal-breaker for some people... and that's fine. By now, you probably know whether spectacle and action are enough for you. If not, this probably isn't a genre you enjoy, and Godzilla vs. Kong won't change your mind.

For the rest of us... my God, this thing is great. It's absurd fantasy/adventure pitted against sci-fi destruction. It's silly and awesome and crazy. Like its predecessors, it's an absolute joy to watch. But you probably figured all that from the trailer. If you want to nitpick, there are some moments (particularly in the third act) where the movie starts looking more like a really expensive cartoon than live-action. Even then, it's still a *good* cartoon, so that's at most a minor criticism.

I don't want to go into too much detail about which visuals work best, because... well... the joy of watching a movie like this is discovering those moments for yourself. But I also don't want to cut the review off this soon, so I guess I have to talk about the human characters.

I'd argue the MonsterVerse is getting better in that department. The least interesting character from King of the Monsters is relegated to a minor role this time, and we're instead largely following kid adventurers who are invested in the outcome. This still doesn't quite gel into anything I'd call compelling, but it's not tedious, either, which is quite a bit better than par.

I feel for the writers of these movies. The stars are the monsters, not the people, but if you tried putting the monsters on camera for two hours straight, there wouldn't be any suspense or anticipation (also, it would almost certainly be cost-prohibitive). You need people in there to take up time, serve as the audience POV, and maybe (just maybe) add more than they detract. I don't think the humans in Godzilla vs. Kong quite get there, but they come close. Essentially, their presence is a wash, neither enhancing nor hurting the experience.

You can see them drawing from Stranger Things (hell, that was evident in King of the Monsters), which is probably the best path forward. Lean into it and have the human stuff just following a group of absurdly competent kids on an adventure in the middle of a kaiju attack. Make the kids likable enough, and you've got an interesting B-story to go along with the A-list monsters tearing up cities.

I want to stress that, in my opinion at least, these movies don't need to fix anything. The MonsterVerse films are great as is, and this one ranks in the top half. I have no idea if this franchise can keep going, but I really hope it will. These are delightful, fun films that deliver everything they promise and maybe a little more.