With their son "Martin" supposedly out for the count, "Henry" (Sam Robards) procures a solution for his wife "Monica" (Frances O'Connor) in the form of "David" (Haley Joel Osment). He is a state of the art android. Not robotic in function like previous models, but an adaptive model that can learn to love, to feel, to be... Initially very apprehensive, she gradually bonds with the curious and friendly young man just as readily as dad "Henry" starts not to. Then, re-enter "Martin" (Jake Thomas) who turns out to be a rather malevolent and jealous lad who, with his fellow human friends, contrives a scenario that results in "David" becoming abandoned with only his talking "Teddy" for company. Now "David" had learned of the famous "Blue Fairy" who could turn him into a real boy, so convinced that his mother would love him again, sets out to track it down at the end of the Earth. His adventures along the way are perilous, he meets some salvage hunters with an almost circus-like approach to recycling before alighting on "Gigolo Joe" (Jude Law). His name says it all, his job being to "pleasure" women who want something that bit special. The two share his quest as the latter is pursued by the authorities - but can "David" reach his holy grail? This is heavily based on the "Pinocchio" story and that gives it a solid, potent and dark bedrock for a story of wishing for the moon. Osment is super here as the vulnerable but determined and lost lad looking for a mother's love and affection. Law also reminds us why he was ever an A-lister with an almost Astaire-esque performance as the ostensible wastrel who has more substance to his character than we might expect. The last half hour takes it's time, that could do with being tightened up - but the whole gist of this story of being careful what you wish for is otherwise well balanced between the drama, the emotion, a bit of technology and some fun too. It takes a swipe at the temporary culture that has prevailed for generations and maybe just reminds us that if it seems to good to be true, then it almost certainly is. Looks great on a big screen and is Spielberg at his most sensitively imaginative.

The movie was actually pretty good. The ending sucked to me though.

I bought this on DVD many years ago, convinced I had never seen it. I finally got around to watching it, and it wasn’t until I reached the robot demolition circus (words I bet I have never seen in the same sentence before) that I realized I had watched this movie before. That is a memorable sequence.
In many respects I thought the movie was well made: the special effects, the deep thinking behind the plot, and the writing was mostly good. It almost felt like it was covering too much ground, and I felt there were a few lapses. I will mention only one, and try not to give anything away. There is a pivotal scene where John Hurt’s character is with the AI child David. It took a lot of effort to get David there, so what does the guy do/ he leaves David alone and unchaperoned. And the end of the movie turns on that. Why would he wander off like that except to serve the plot?
Still, the film, mirroring and projecting the story of Pinocchio into the future, was quite an achievement. I liked it, but not as much as a lot of other Spielberg efforts.

This is my kind of action animation. Two elves go on the hunt for the teeny weeniest bit of magic that might just enable them to catch up with their late father who passed away before they really got much chance to know him. What they didn't do before they set off on their quest, though, was tell mum ("Laurel"). She's narked - and worried - so elicits the help of the powerful "Manticore" and sets off in hot pursuit. It's good fun this, from start to finish. The combination of a strong adventure story full of myth, magic, peril (and totally devoid of romance) is complemented by some super animation and some wonderful creatures - including the hybrid scorpion/lion/eagle creature travelling with their almost as menacing mum. The script is entertaining and sparing - it's not just endless gibbering as our not particularly intrepid or heroic brothers try to reconvene with their dad before all it's just too late. It's a big screen delight this, and has plenty for the grown ups - especially if you are into legends - to enjoy too. Perhaps not the best title, but it's good stuff!

Solid.
I enjoyed 'Onward'. It sets up a cool world filled with intrigue, whilst also having a heartwarming story and good lead voice actors. It doesn't, at least for me, hit every hearty note it attempts but you definitely end up caring for the main two characters.
Tom Holland (Ian) and Chris Pratt (Barley) are a smart pairing, they work together nicely. I don't love those around the Lightfoot brothers, the stuff with Laurel and Corey isn't all that interesting even if Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Octavia Spencer are fine choices as their voices.
Overall, a good watch.

Chock full of contrivances and just straight up contradictions, both which annoyed me to a pretty severe degree, but there was enough cutesy stuff in my lane to keep me from actively disliking it. Not a fan of the naming convention though.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Unicorns, pixies, elves, and wizards have lost the magic of the past in “Onward,” a formulaic animated adventure from Pixar. Set in a suburban world of fantasy, the film tells the story of two teenage brothers who embark on a quest to find a magic gem that could hold the key to a little familial enchantment.
Ian (Tom Holland) and his older brother Barley (Chris Pratt) are still mourning the death of their father several years ago. Ian was just a baby when he died, and Barley barely has any memories of his dad. When mom (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) gives Ian a gift that his departed pop left for his 16th birthday, it turns out to be a wizard’s staff with instructions for a visitation spell that can bring the patriarch back for one day only. Something goes wrong, and the two siblings must set out on a danger-filled journey to find the missing piece of the puzzle before the sun sets.
Onscreen adventures are supposed to be exciting, but this one is considerably dull. The story feels very personal yet unfortunately sanitized for broader audience appeal. It works best when the story leans on the theme of reconnecting with your family, especially as the two brothers use their road trip as a way to bond over their differing ways of dealing with grief and regret. It’s poignant, and the film’s sincerity is a heartwarming reminder that we shouldn’t waste what precious time we have left.
The movie has a weird “Weekend at Bernie’s” vibe as the two teens drive around in a rock n’ roll van with the bottom half of their reanimated dad in tow. It’s not very funny, and the heavy themes of loss and the meaning of family will likely resonate with those who’ve lost a loved one and still yearn for one more day. It’s a strange film with and unsatisfying ending that doesn’t really pay off.
“Onward” doesn’t make the most of its solid premise, which is a real shame. The plot is repetitive and predictable; the story sentimental and drawn out. It’s one of the weakest films in the Pixar catalog, but it does meet the studio’s basic checklist for acceptable quality (great animation, good voice performances, mediocre story). It could benefit from a little extra sprinkling of magic.

Onward is a family quest that delights (Boom Bastia!) and pulls at your heartstrings along the unpredictable Path of Peril. There is a delicate balance between tear-jerking moments and comic relief that Pixar and Disney have been known to master throughout many of their films. If you can look past the Pixar and Disney blueprint of the missing family member tragedy you’ll find many successful attempts to modernize the film to relate to many ages and families.
Read the full review at FeaturedAnimation.com.

Animation has such an important job. The messages I was talking about earlier are not just intended to teach kids things - we learn from them too. I think that's what made 'Onward' a little disappointing: I didn't come out having learned something new in the context of my adult life. Nonetheless, it's still a lovely allegorical tale that promotes brotherhood, adventure and generosity. Animation's got a big duty of shaping up future generations from a young age, and they can't always deliver the goods for all. With that, I sign off - eagerly awaiting Pixar's next drop where, fingers crossed, I get to discover something new too... don't forget the big kids, Pixar.
- Lily Meek
Read Lily's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-onward-not-the-fairytale-pixar-film-we-wanted

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
I always struggle to find reasons to dislike a Pixar film. One of the most annoying preconceived notions about genres is the one about animated movies. "They're for children, how can you enjoy stuff like that, you're so childish", people say. Little do they know that animated flicks have as much or more emotionally compelling narratives and characters than live-action films. The score is usually more important in the former genre, and the visuals always look stunning. The partnership Disney-Pixar is probably the best thing that could have happened to Hollywood.
Dan Scanlon delivered a surprisingly good sequel to Monsters Inc. back in 2013 with Monsters University. Making an efficient sequel twelve years after its original is a challenging task, and Scanlon succeed, so I had good expectations going in. Onward might not be one of Pixar's best movies, and I doubt that a lot of people will place it as one of their favorites when comparing with the studio's films of the same type. However, it still carries the trademark emotional narrative with relatable characters that Pixar always delivers.
I grew up with a father, mother, and two older brothers. Just with this information, I know that I'm luckier than a whole bunch of people all around the world. Onward focuses on the relationship between two siblings (Chris Pratt and Tom Holland), and I love their adventure together. It made me recall my childhood and the awesome moments I shared with my brothers. If you're a fan of Dungeons & Dragons or other quest-based games, the main plot's structure will definitely please you as it did me, but it's connected to my biggest gripe...
The concept is pretty neat, but its execution lacks a little bit of more... magic, as ironic as it might be. For example, Frozen II isn't about a "world full of magic", but Elsa (Idina Menzel) alone has more magical scenes than Onward in its entirety. In the former, the actual magic feels the screen with stunning animation and chill-inducing music. Onward feels like a diminished version of its true potential. While it's true that the world where the main characters live in has lost its overwhelming magic from the past, their adventure is filled with obstacles which they deal with... you guessed it, magic.
I don't want to sound like that guy who only wants "action for the sake of action". I hate when people dislike a movie simply because they didn't see enough stuff exploding or something. It's a bit about expectations and about what I know Pixar can do. Obviously, I'm expecting more from them now more than ever. It's not that the story isn't interesting or captivating because there's definitely an entertaining vibe throughout the whole runtime. It's well-paced, there's always something going on, and the humor is pitch-perfect. It's GOOD. Simple as that.
The voice acting is fantastic. Tom Holland and especially Chris Pratt really incorporate their characters' spirit, and it's almost palpable that the actors had tons of fun behind-the-scenes. Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Octavia Spencer are also quite good, but their characters' respective arcs aren't near as compelling as the primary narrative. Every moment I spent with them is every moment I wanted to go back to the brothers. However, the fun and entertainment never go away. The story never fails to be exciting, it just goes increases and decreases its level ever so slightly.
I saved the best for last. Even though the second act feels a tad repetitive, the ending is incredibly satisfying. Predictable? Yes. Will it be underwhelming/disappointing for some people? Surely. But it delivers the most beautiful of messages in the most emotional way possible, as Pixar always manages to do. A lot of nice, small morals are learned throughout the story, but the final one is absolutely perfect, and it left some tears in my eyes. The ending is heartfelt and genuine for everyone, but it will have a tremendous impact on families that lost a member way too soon.
All in all, the Disney-Pixar's partnership continues to provide the world with the best animated films of each year. Onward is the most recent success, even though it lacks a bit of magic and creativity when compared to the studio's movies of the same genre. Boasting a talented voice cast, the two brothers go on a fun, quest-based adventure that concludes with a wonderful, heartfelt message to every family out there. Some people might find the ending too predictable and underwhelming, but the climax is emotionally powerful, and it will unquestionably cause an impact on everyone (tissues, anyone?). Its second act feels a bit repetitive, but the entertainment never fades away. Hilarious and clever humor, compelling main characters, not-that-interesting secondary characters, and gorgeous animation as always. The end credits song is pretty cool too. Can't wait for Soul...
Rating: B+

I don't now quite what I was expecting here - but this really fails to deliver on any front. Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno probably did the best recent version of this back in 1998 and this isn't a patch on that. The special effects are spectacular, but not in any particularly innovative way - and the monsters just keep coming like every kid in the class got to design one (and it was a big class!). There isn't much writing to speak of and the cast might as well just have stayed in bed. The action scenes are lengthy and repetitive and I was, frankly, quite bored by the whole thing after half an hour.

It features some decent moments (cool end shot!), but overall I was feeling rather indifferent throughout 'Godzilla: King of the Monsters'.
A bad movie this is not necessarily, though it is not one I'd file under 'good' either. The run time ought to have been shorter and the human characters could've been more interestingly portrayed. The big fight sequences didn't really do anything for me either, which is kinda reminiscent of 2014's 'Godzilla' in truth. I do like the titular character, but these (sole) two experiences of it have been underwhelming.
Vera Farmiga is alright as one of those onscreen, I'm a fan since seeing 2011's 'Source Code' so have been wanting to see her act further. The cast, including Farmiga to be honest, are all quite forgettable in this (not helped by issues that I alluded to with their characters above) - so much so, I'm unable to pick a standout. Bradley Whitford's Rick Stanton, conversely, is somewhat irritating.
Here's hoping I will actually enjoy what 'Godzilla vs. Kong' has to offer.

I felt like a kid again watching my fave monsters fight like they did when my late dad and i watched them together. I freaking loved it. THAT is how you make a Godzilla movie. Can't wait till he fights Kong.

When Charles Dance first entered the scene I was like; "Tywin Lannister's alive?!"! LOL
Don't know why everybody is hating this, it was actually a pretty good films.
Can't wait to see GvK!

When I watched the 2014 Godzilla movie I was less than impressed as can be seen from my review here.
When watching this one I felt it was marginally better.
True to the Hollywood standards today, or perhaps lack thereof, the script writers just had to try and squeeze in a lot of green bullshit about how we destroy the planet and something has to be done bla bla bla.
Interesting enough though, the way it was done, actually made the green fanatics the bad guys in the movie. Whether that was intentional or the writers was too stupid to realize it I do not know.
The story is essentially about how one green fanatic in particular releases the “Titans” as they are called in the movie and uses them to wreak havoc, killing millions, to “balance things” and start a new world. That is your typical green fanatic although with a bit more means than usual to implement his deluded fantasies. Of course Godzilla, with the help of a few clear minded humans, comes to the rescue. That’s pretty much it. As I wrote, a typical substandard Hollywood script.
What makes this movie better though is that the implementation is not so shit full of absolutely stupid and unintelligent sequences as the 2014 movie. The implementation is actually not that bad. The action sequences are really quite good and there’s plenty of big ass monsters in this movie.
I also quite liked that cool super-carrier airplane that the Monarch crew flew around in.
As despicable as the previously mentioned green fanatic is, the role was nicely implemented as well as the main protagonist and most people around him.
The part about kick-starting Godzilla after he was wounded by detonating a nuke in front of his nose was a bit silly though. So was the hole it’s to hot and radioactive for drones as well as for a nuclear submarine so let’s send in a guy on foot. Seriously?
Also the after scenes where life magically sprouted everywhere the Titans had wrecked havoc was more than a little stupid.
If this hadn’t been a cool giant monster movie with a lot of special effects I would have scored it a lot lower. However, I am a sucker for these kinds of movies and I really like Godzilla. I even watched some of the old black and white movies when I was a kid.

**_Very loud, very dumb, and very entertaining_**
>_And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, "Arise, devour much flesh." After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, whic__h had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns._
- Daniel 7:3-7
>_Behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth_ [...] _And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea_ [...] _And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"_ [...] _And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world._
- Revelation 12:3-13:8
I really enjoyed Gareth Edwards's 2014 _Godzilla_. Sure, there were plot holes through which you could drive an entire fleet of trains carrying nuclear weapons, it featured coincidences that stretched believability even by Hollywood's standards, the human characters were paper-thin, and it took itself very, very seriously. But I enjoyed it. As Edwards had already proved with his debut film, the superb _Monsters_ (2010) and as he would subsequently prove with _Rogue One: A Star Wars Story_ (2016), he has a knack for wedding large-scale CGI grandiosity to stories that feel contemplative and personalised. And I don't care how long this franchise may run, and how many films get churned out, Godzilla's mic-drop moment, when he holds the female MUTO's mouth open and breathes blue fire down its throat will never be topped in its "holy shit"-ness. Ironically enough though, what I admired most about the film is the same thing that a lot of people disliked - the fact that Edwards kept Godzilla's appearances so fleeting; it took over an hour before we first saw him, and then he got only seven minutes total screen time. Personally, I thought it was a masterclass in directorial restraint, and it had the effect that when the big final fight came, it hit home on so many levels because here, finally, we were getting to see the big guy throw down. Remember when Hulk Hogan was the WWF champion for three years running? He didn't wrestle on every show, he didn't even appear on every show. So when Wrestlemania came around, and we knew the Hulkster would be headlining, it meant more than if we'd just seen him the week prior. Same thing with _Godzilla_. However, I understand why some people were unimpressed that a film called _Godzilla_ featured so little, well, Godzilla!
The third film in Legendary Entertainment's "MonsterVerse" franchise, _King of the Monsters_ is a direct sequel to Edwards's film (although sadly, he doesn't return as director), and sets up Adam Wingard's _Godzilla vs. Kong_, which has already wrapped shooting, and is scheduled for release next summer. However, whereas Edwards held Godzilla back and made the action feel smaller by focalising it through the human characters, new director Michael Dougherty (_Trick 'r Treat_; _Krampus_) essentially inverts that formula, putting Godzilla front and centre for pretty much the entire runtime (there are four big fight scenes within the first half-hour alone), and shooting the action in such a way as to make it seem as grandiose as possible. Indeed, he told Collider, "_I would call it the_ Aliens _to Gareth's_ Alien." And although Dougherty isn't half the director that Edwards is, _King of the Monsters_ works pretty well in a braindead summer action movie that's wall-to-wall giant monsters fighting one another kind of way. Sure, there are significant problems (all the best shots are in the trailer, the plot is beyond laughable, the characters are so thinly sketched as to make those in the first film feel Shakespearean, clichés abound, the talented cast is wasted), but all things considered, I enjoyed it, as it accomplished exactly what it set out to accomplish, and you really can't fault a film for succeeding at its primary objective.
Five years since Godzilla defeated the MUTOs, many more creatures (newly dubbed Titans) have been found throughout the world, all in various forms of hibernation. In charge of studying and protecting them is the private company Monarch Sciences (introduced in a fledgeling state in Jordan Vogt-Roberts's _Kong: Skull Island_, which took place in 1973). As the film begins, Monarch employees Dr. Ishirô Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) and Dr. Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins), both returning from the previous film, are attempting to convince the Senate that under no circumstances should control of the Titans be turned over to the military, something with which Admiral William Stenz (the great David Strathairn, also returning from the first film) strongly disagrees. Meanwhile, in China, paleobiologist Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) watch the awakening of the larval form of Mothra. However, when Mothra becomes distressed, Emma is able to calm it using the ORCA, a device which monitors the Titans' bioacoustics and transmits a dominant "alpha signal" capable of placating them. Soon thereafter, eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) and his private army storm the facility, stealing the ORCA, and kidnapping Emma and Madison. In response, Monarch track down Dr. Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler), Emma's estranged husband, and co-designer of the ORCA, hoping he might be able to help find Jonah. Mark and Emma lost a son in San Francisco during the fight between Godzilla and the MUTOs, and whereas Emma came to feel the Titans could help humanity, Mark became convinced they should all be eradicated. Meanwhile, Jonah heads to the Monarch facility in Antarctica and unleashes the only non-terrestrial Titan, a fearsome three-headed dragon codenamed "Monster Zero", but whom ancient humans knew as King Ghidorah. Arguing that humanity has brought the planet to the point of destruction, Jonah believes that if the Titans are awoken, the ensuing conflict would wipe out most of human civilisation, allowing the planet the time it needs to heal. And so, with Ghidorah awakening the various Titans throughout the world, Godzilla emerges to stand against him.
With production wrapping on _King of the Monsters_ in 2017, and with two release dates scrapped, the film was beginning to accrue some pretty bad buzz. Then that magisterial first trailer dropped, showing Mothra spanning her glorious wings scored with a remix of Claude Debussy's "Clair de Lune" from _Suite bergamasque_ (1890) and promising a film of pensive apocalyptic goings-on. It was the sort of trailer to turn even the biggest naysayer around. The good news is that all the best bits from the trailer are in the film. The bad news is that most of the best bits from the film are in the trailer.
Godzilla was originally created by Tomoyuki Tanaka, Ishirô Honda, and Eiji Tsuburaya, and first seen on screen in 1954's _Gojira_ (released in North America in 1956 as _Godzilla, King of the Monsters!_, a reedited version of the original with additional scenes and new actors). Over the last six decades, he has appeared in all manner of films and TV shows, from action flicks to eco-metaphors to kid's cartoons to comedy to whatever the hell Roland Emmerich's 1998 version was. Conceived in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Daigo Fukuryū Maru incident, Godzilla was intended as a metaphor for the destructive power of nuclear weaponry. Thematically speaking, the highpoint of the "Kaiju" (Japanese for "strange beast") genre thus far is probably Hideaki Anno's _Shin Gojira_ (2016), which was a political satire inspired by the Japanese government's response to the 2011 Tôhoku earthquake and tsunami, and the subsequent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.
_King of the Monsters_ has one eye on its themes too (a dire warning of oncoming eco-disaster, biodiversity, co-existence with other species, military impulsiveness, the insignificance of humanity compared to the vastness of nature), but really, the sermonising, exposition-heavy script by Dougherty and Zach Shields, from a story by Max Borenstein, is so badly put together, with the characters' motivations so poorly delineated, that any thematic concerns dissipate into nothing. Part of this is that the narrative simplifies Godzilla's 'morality'. Traditionally, Godzilla is inherently benevolent. However, in the 2014 version, Edwards muddied this concept brilliantly, depicting a monster that was fairly indifferent to humanity and was far more concerned with the biological drive to reassert his alpha status. In _King of the Monsters_, both Godzilla and Mothra are fundamentally good, and they wish to protect humanity from Ghidorah, which is more binary and not nearly as interesting a position to take.
And yes, the film does address the fact that through inattention and greed, humanity is on the brink of ensuring its own extinction. Jonah, of course, believes that giving the earth back to the Titans is all humanity deserves, and is exactly what the planet needs (it's revealed early in the film that the Titans leave behind biomatter which results in the rapid growth of vegetation). For her part, Emma compares humanity to a virus, and the Titans to a "fever" that could eradicate it. Elsewhere, obviously with one eye on the issue of American isolationism under Trump, as well as the unstable geopolitical situation, Serizawa states, "_sometimes, the only way to heal a wound is to make peace with the demon who caused it_". The problem with all of this is that the script is so ham-fisted and poorly structured, the eco themes so preachy, and the organic integration of those themes into the action so lacking, that they come across as background irrelevancies at best, and distracting moralising at worst. And in any case, the film ultimately undermines all of this in favour of reaffirming the clichéd old notion of human perseverance in the face of adversity.
As we're discussing the script, another problem is repetition. For example, on several occasions, Godzilla is getting his ass handed to him, only to make an 'unexpected' comeback, whilst not one, not two, but three characters sacrifice themselves for the greater good (all at different times), resulting in none of the sacrifices really meaning anything. There are also some hideous clichés. At one point, on their flagship the ARGO, the Monarch people are listening to Godzilla's heartbeat, which is becoming weaker and weaker, and Dr. Rick Stanton (a criminally underused Bradley Whitford) implores, all earnest-like, "_c'mon big guy_." It's supposed to be a moment of great pathos, tapping into the audience's empathy for Godzilla. Instead, at the screening I attended, everyone laughed, so clunky and self-serious was the moment.
Another scene that doesn't work, although in a completely different way, is the death of a major character; it happens so suddenly, amidst so much chaos, with the camera not even focused on them, that in the very next scene, the film has to show us their face on a monitor with the word "Deceased" written underneath. Not exactly the best way to handle a major death. There's also a (predictable) twist based on what could charitably be called ill-defined character motivations. The character of Mark is also peculiarly written. Played by the top-billed Kyle Chandler, he has precious little to do for most of the film other than look at monitors with a concerned expression, coming off more as a fed-up dad than the protagonist of a Kaiju film. There are also far too many scenes of characters standing on the bridge of the ARGO, spouting expositional word-dumps at one another, oftentimes even narrating their motivations. In any case, not a single character in the film comes across as three-dimensional, with not a hint of interiority amongst the lot of them. Additionally, because the scale of the fights is so massive, and the humans so poorly written, Dougherty is unable to make the characters seem even remotely significant. This was another area where Edwards did well, marrying the spectacle with smaller human drama, but Dougherty allows the spectacle to overwhelm everything else.
There are also some hilarious spatial hijinks going on. I get that the ARGO is supposed to be a super-advanced high-tech mobile fortress, but it seems capable of flying from one side of the planet to the other in about ten minutes. From Colorado to China to Bermuda to Antarctica to Mexico to Massachusetts, unless the ARGO is capable of transportation, there's some _Game of Thrones_-level compression of distances going on. Related to this is that Zhang Ziyi plays twins (Dr. Ilene Chen and Dr. Ling Chen), who we never see together. Except I didn't even realise there were two of them until I read a few reviews. Sure, I noticed what I thought was a singular character appear to be in two places at once, but because the ARGO had already been globe-hopping all over the place by that point, I just put it down to the film's lack of geographic realism. The fact that it's so easy to miss that there are twins is spectacularly bad writing, especially considering they're supposed to be a modernised version of the Shobijin, two fairies that speak for Mothra. Also, Aisha Hinds as Colonel Diane Foster, O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Chief Warrant Officer Jackson Barnes, and Thomas Middleditch as Dr. Sam Coleman may as well not be in the film at all, so little are they given to do. The same could be said for most of the Titans. Apart from the central tag-teams of Godzilla and Mothra facing off against Ghidorah and Rodan, most of the rest (including those newly created for the film - Baphomet, Typhon, Abaddon, Bunyip, and Methuselah) are seen only in news reports and a montage that plays behind the closing credits, although a few do turn up for one scene.
But for all that, however, I thoroughly enjoyed _King of the Monsters_. Although the trailer does promise what the film can't deliver, aesthetically, there's a lot to admire. The sound design by Erik Aadahl (_I, Robot_; _The Tree of Life_; _A Quiet Place_) Brandon Jones (_13 Hours_; _The Shallows_), and Tim Walston (_The Incredible Hulk_; _Pacific Rim_; _Chronicle_) is suitably deafening, and the cinematography by Lawrence Sher (_The Hangover_; _War Dogs_; _Joker_) has a well-judged sense of scale, especially in the 2.39:1 3D IMAX format. This is complemented by the editing by Roger Barton (_Gone in 60 Seconds_; _Pearl Harbor_; _The Grey_), Bob Ducsay (_Season of the Witch_; _Looper_; _Rampage_), and Richard Pearson (_The Bourne Supremacy_; _Quantum of Solace_; _Iron Man 2_), who maintain the rhythm of even the most chaotic action scenes. And even though pretty much the entire film takes place at night in the midst of a storm of the Titans' own making, it never becomes difficult to follow or see what's happening.
The film also does some interesting things with colour. Whereas the palette is predominantly mixed when we're with the human characters, the Titans are coded in binary elemental colours: Mothra glows blue as a larva and gold in her final form, Rodan reflects the hardened red of the lava from which he emerges, Godzilla is the green of nature, Ghidorah is a neutralising dark brown. There are also some extraordinary individual shots (most of which have unfortunately been spoiled by the trailer); Mothra spreading her wings for the first time, Ghidorah perched atop an erupting volcano with a crucifix looming in the foreground, the reveal of Godzilla's lair. And the final shot is a goosebumps moment with which no Kaiju fan could possibly be dissatisfied. Purely at the level of craft, this is a hugely impressive film.
_Citizen Kane_ it most certainly isn't, but who expected (or wanted) it to be. The key to really parsing the film is to consider the context, looking at what it was trying to be. And in this sense, it's a success. Sure, the script is hideous, and Dougherty is no Edwards, struggling to accomplish what Edwards seemed to do with ease; bring his own personality to the spectacle. However, if you approach it for what it is, a dumb summer blockbuster about large monsters punching each other, you'll like it just fine.

It's dumb. Really dumb. And I don't mean "Oh it's a big, noisy action movie and it doesn't engage you very much mentally so that means it's stupid", I'm talking like, the rules contained within just this movie are frequently broken, and a big chunk of the ideas make no sense by the end. Dumb. But I still had a pretty good time with _King of the Monsters_ (kind of a weird title to give Godzilla when the tagline for the sequel is "God VS King", and Godzilla is not the king in that matchup, but I digress). The quality of the CGI varies _drastically_, but when it's good, it's **just** enough to get me over the line to enjoying it to the point I can give the movie a positive review.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
As some of you might know, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is one of my Most Anticipated Movies of 2019. Not because I expected it to be a beautifully written, heartfelt story with fully-developed characters who I would immensely care about. I was incredibly excited because it’s freaking Godzilla and from the few images that I had seen, it looked absolutely stunning. I didn’t need an Oscar-worthy screenplay or amazing performances. I just wanted a decent and logical (this last word is important) narrative with reasonable characters, and tons of monsters fighting to the death against each other. So, my expectations were neither complex or as high as some other people might have.
Unfortunately, I left the theater extremely disappointed. I can’t deny the impeccable VFX and the infinite amount of wallpaper-worthy images spread across the entire film. Some scenes are filled with jaw-dropping cinematography, astonishingly gorgeous monsters, and the fights feel so real that the sound design alone takes you to the edge of your seat. However, when the two pillars of any movie (story and characters) are so far away from even remotely working, there are no technically perfect aspects that can save the film from a disaster. I wrote this exact last sentence a few weeks ago regarding Game Of Thrones, and I will stand by it. I’m always the first guy to praise exceptional filmmaking skills, but if I have to choose between a technically seamless movie, and a film with a fantastic story and fully-developed characters, I have no doubts that the latter is the indisputably right choice.
Ultimately, that’s the huge problem here. The screenplay is loaded with some of the laziest exposition scenes I’ve seen in the last few years. Characters continuously have some sort of presentation to explain something in a completely unpredictable conversation randomly. Generally, a movie like this always has some kind of cliche secondary characters who are either a nerdy scientist, a comic-relief guy, a duo of bantering personalities or a military general who always wants to attack something, even though everyone knows it’s not the most intelligent decision. King of the Monsters has all of these types and more! More?! Seriously, Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields overstuff the narrative with so many unnecessary, useless, stereotypical characters who stretch the overall runtime and extend the periods between the massive fights, turning them into minutes of complete boredom.
I yawned during a Godzilla blockbuster. Yawned. How sad is that?! I really enjoyed Gareth Edwards’ 2014’s Godzilla. At the time, the most common complaint was that there wasn’t enough Godzilla in it. Most of the characters were well-written, despite that some could have been more fleshed out. King of the Monsters is (kind of) the other way around: there are dozens of monsters and bone-crushing, titanic fights, but they literally forgot to write a captivating story with compelling characters. In the first installment, even though I also wanted more Godzilla, when he actually shows up, I was so freaking excited! Since I had to wait for the third act to watch the Titans fight, the build-up that was generated and its payoff actually made the time spent with the human characters worthy.
This sequel was doomed from the moment the characters were written. There are a lot of fight sequences, and I wrote above that unnecessary characters extend the periods between these scenes. The dilemma is that those periods need to exist, making the whole thing look like a double-edged sword that the director is trying to avoid. On one hand, you can’t have an action set piece after another action set piece consecutively, otherwise, these will lose impact over time and become monotonous, so you need to spend time with the horribly-written human characters. On the other hand, you can’t have dumb characters with unclear motivations on-screen for long periods, otherwise, the audience will fall asleep of tediousness or get annoyed, so you have to insert a massive fight sequence again, hence making the audience gradually lose interest in those scenes.
King of the Monsters continuously repeats this cycle of going from one situation to the other. No one wants to have back-to-back fights because they’ll lose the impactful energy, but no one wants to waste their precious time listening to exposition-heavy PowerPoint presentations from characters no one is going to remember their name. I can’t even remember the main characters’ names, and I watched the movie yesterday! I can’t blame the cast, everyone gives good performances. Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell) continues her path to become one of Hollywood’s biggest stars (in less than 10 years, she’ll have an Oscar in her hands, I guarantee you that). Kyle Chandler (Mark Russell) does more than what was expected of him with such a lousy script, and Ken Watanabe (Dr. Ishiro Serizawa) is the only one who delivered a solid performance AND had a suitable character (fruit of the previous film). Vera Farmiga (Dr. Emma Russell) is connected to the worst character of the movie (atrociously irrational decisions made by Emma), and everyone else is pretty much one of the vast cliche secondary characters.
They had five years to write a straightforward narrative with simple characters. No fan neither wanted or needed a brilliant, groundbreaking screenplay. Dougherty and Shields delivered one of the worst scripts of the year, one filled with exposition, cliche characters, and a runtime that turned out to be way too long for someone to tolerate all of the dreadful dialogue. I don’t know if it will clearly end up as one of the worst films of 2019, but it’s definitely one of the biggest letdowns. All in all, Godzilla: King of the Monsters didn’t meet my expectations (and mine were pretty fair), not even close. Visually, it’s one of the most striking movies I’ve seen this year, and that can’t be dismissed. From the massive fights with the Titans to the impressive wide shots, Dougherty had a gorgeous diamond that he just needed to polish with a rational and simplistic story, like it was a soft, clean cloth. Instead, he used a hammer…
Rating: C-

Picking up after the events of the previous film; “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” deals with a world trying to assess what to do with the presence of the giant Titans. The Monarch Corporation wants the creatures studied and has established locales to study the ones they have found currently hibernating. The U.S. Government wants them destroyed as they do not want repeats of the destruction that was previously caused by Godzilla.
Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobbie Brown) have developed a device known as Orca that will allow them to communicate with the creatures using specific sonic frequencies.
After a successful test under duress; the duo are captured by a ruthless Eco Terrorist group who want to use the giant creatures for their own objectives.
This leads to a chase around the world with Monarch attempting to stop them and with Emma’s ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler) deeply involved though he is deeply divided as he blames Godzilla for the loss of their son.
When a gigantic creature is freed; Godzilla faces his greatest challenge as there is a race against time to save the world.
While the film has some very impressive visual effects, the film drags as aside from a couple of brief encounters; the audience is required to sit through roughly 90 minutes of plodding story to get to the action which is roughly only the last 15-20 minutes of the film.
The human characters were very disinteresting and many of the international cast looked at times like they were sleepwalking though their lines as they seemed to have a real lack of passion for what they were given to work with.
The human characters were also very annoying and I found myself hoping that they would be taken out by the creatures as I had no connection to them and they did not inspire any sympathy.
While it may possibly appeal to hardcore fans, this was a miss for me as there simply was not enough creature action to counter-balance having to sit through the human characters and plodding plot to get to the good stuff.
2.5 stars out of 5

‘Godzilla II: King of the Monsters’ promises to build on the great work already laid out for this franchise, mixing popcorn fun and thrilling craft, but instead it relinquishes all of that to be a predictably dull and plodding bore. It doesn’t even manage to be a fun, brainless monster movie, assuming that a satisfying monster battle is all about being big and loud and doing nothing else. We waited five years for the follow-up to ‘Godzilla’, which only makes this new film even more of a disappointment, and doesn't excuse the badly-written screenplay or the poorly-executed visual effects. With Dougherty handing the reigns over to horror director Adam Wingard for 2020’s ‘Godzilla vs Kong’, here’s hoping the Monsterverse finds its feet again.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-godzilla-2-king-of-the-monsters-the-king-stumbles-in-this-loud-and-blundering-mess

Is she still in the dark place?
After the mysterious death of her niece Katie, journalist Rachel Keller starts to investigate an urban legend about a videotape which kills you seven days after watching it. With dire consequences coming her way if she can not solve the mystery....
The sentence, English language remake of successful foreign horror film has been known to instill fear of the wrong kind in many a genre fan. So when it was announced that Gore Verbinski was to remake Hideo Nakata's terrifying nerve shredder, Ringu, the reaction in horror circles was akin to someone urinating on your chips. Refreshing to report then that The Ring is a candidate for best American remake and proof positive that remakes sometimes can be a good thing.
Starring Naomi Watts (who is terrific) as Rachel, Verbinski and writer Ehren Kruger (adapting from Kôji Suzuki's novel) successfully transfer the atmospherics of Nakata's piece to a dank and eerie Seattle. It's with atmosphere that The Ring starts to play on your nerves, because after viewing the creepy and unsettling tape itself, we ourselves have been set up for the race against the clock theme that is driving Rachel on. So as the mystery starts to unravel, and sadness threatens to take a hold, the story quickly shifts direction to give horror one of its most baddest and cruelest characters. It's the kind of impact that crawls under your skin and refuses to move when you are trying to sleep at night.
Though the story has been streamlined from its source, The Ring still has a bit too much filler in its meaty structure. Feeling a need to give Watts a quest among quests, Verbinski almost over cooks the mystery essence of the plot. However, with much relief he reins it in to stop any sort of scooby doo like nonsense detracting from the creepy sense of dread that has been built up previously. The ending here works a treat, but it is a tone down from the source and with that it's not even close to Nakata's version, and just maybe it has something to do with Dream Works wanting to secure a PG-13 rating?
What is left though is a truly suspenseful and unsettling thriller - come horror film. One that even on revisits manages to bother and keep one on the edge of the seat. It made an $80 million profit in America alone, ensuring that a sequel was sure to follow. Now was that one a bad idea! 8/10

Still as funny as the first time I saw this, probably way back in 2008. Good send-up on war movies and just great comedic performances all around, but especially Robert Downey Jr. **3.75/5**

A woman involved in a car accident emerges with amnesia and with the help of a would-be starlet they try to get to the bottom of who did what to whom and why. Thereafter it twists and turns like an adder on steroids - but to what end? Sorry, but I just didn't get it. I'd ask what is it really about, but I am not sure I'd believe anyone who actually claimed to know. Is it really about anything tangible at all or is Lynch daring the audience to admit that they are too dense to grasp the "creative concept" here? It is a well put together piece of cinema, and we do get good performances from Naomi Watts and Justin Theroux, but I just don't inhabit the parallel universe in which this is all set, and it was wasted on me.

**Today, I finally understood this movie… and I was amazed by it.**
I think what happened to me was exactly the same as what happened to most people: when I saw this movie for the first time, years ago, I didn't understand a thing. That went on for a long time: whenever I saw this film, I ended up not understanding it. That ended today, when I saw it with a friend of mine, who also likes cinema and who told me _“you have to keep two things in mind: the first is the non-linear narrative, sometimes with very subtle changes; the second is that most of the film is not real life, it is a dream of the protagonist”_.
If there are films that are almost perfect, this one is close to it, although it is not easy to understand, and it is necessary to watch it five or six times to understand it well. I had already the experience that David Lynch's films are not easy... I had my first contact with the director a few years ago, with _Blue Velvet_, and I realized that he makes hermetic films, with implicit ideas and dreamlike suggestions, which often (almost always) escape our eyes. I like that: it's a challenging kind of cinema, which makes you think and moves you. It doesn't mean that I understand everything! And today, talking with my friend, I finally managed to understand this film better. Initially made in 1999 as a pilot episode for a TV series, it was made into a feature film after TV producers rejected the product. The very way Lynch took his failure and turned it into one of his biggest hits is remarkable, revealing his style and persistence.
The film is really good, and I believe that, by commenting on what I learned today, I am already helping those who want to see it and understand it. If we pay attention, it indicates the moments when the main character falls asleep (right at the beginning) and wakes up again. And I think I can still say, without revealing too much, that the party at the film director's house, very close to the end, is the key scene to understand more than half of the plot, which basically focuses on a young woman, who goes to Los Angeles with the dream of becoming rich and famous and fails in that desire, combining this frustration with a huge love heartbreak, and the loss of her own moral values and innocence.
The cast is perfectly up to the challenges they're getting from the director, and it's amazing to see Naomi Watts here. This film truly symbolizes the start of her career, as she only did a few minor jobs, in Europe and the USA, until making this film. She is truly excellent, managing to capture all our sympathy and make us like her character. To a certain extent, I think the actress saw a lot of herself in the character she played: she also had a dream of succeeding in her career, and she also suffered to achieve it. Also, Laura Harring did very well and deserves praise for her work. Justin Theroux, who played director Adam Kesher, makes a welcome and solid contribution to the work of the actresses, even though this film is clearly dominated by them.
Technically, this is a film class at all levels. In addition to the brilliant direction, Lynch bets a lot on cinematography. Here, it is worth seeing how he uses the locations he chooses, the cityscapes, and some techniques such as zoom, close-up or blur, to convey messages to the audience about the characters' state of mind. He also makes good use of color, vibrant and beautiful, with the colors red and blue having a particularly important meaning for understanding the film. The film has some intense nude and sex scenes, and a very slow pace that is intentional. The settings are also very important: sometimes, the arrangement of props and the way the actors relate to them helps us to understand what we see, but this is really subtle, and you have to be attentive. Finally, a very special word for the hypnotic and almost unforgettable soundtrack, signed by Angelo Badalamenti, which is worth listening to, from the main leitmotif to the songs, happy and carefree, in the style of the 50s.

"Lilo" is a young and caring lass who dreams of owning a dog. "626" is the malevolent product of some illegal alien engineering at the hands of megalomanic scientist "Jookiba". He's sentenced to never see the light of day again and his creation to be abandoned on a lifeless moon. Luckily for "626", though, the captain of his transport ship "Gantu" isn't the most competent so he escapes and finds himself on Hawaii. Bemused and befuddled by his new surroundings, and rather hemmed in because he cannot swim, he ends up being mistaken for a stray dog and impounded. That's where he meets "Lilo" who has been promised a mutt of her own. What now ensues is a tale of bonding. "Lilo" is facing some domestic turbulence at the hands of social worker "Bubbles" but "Stitch" is still determined to make their lives interesting and, if necessary, use the people to protect him from the pursuing agents of the "Galactic Federation". The underlying moralising is all the same as usual - teamwork, loneliness, love and the values of family and sharing, but Dean DeBlois manages to dress that all up cleverly with plenty of enjoyable escapades, some frequently pithy one-liners and even the slightest hint of menace from the Grand Councilwoman who must have been inspired by Glenn Close! I didn't love the style of animation, too much eyes - but the colours and general look of the film are vibrant and the characters are engaging til the end.

Ohana! Ein Wort, das unauflöslich mit diesen Film verbunden ist. Ein Film, dessen Stars ein kleines Mädchen und ein blaues Alien sind. Ein Alien, das, obwohl es manchmal gemein ist, die Herzen der Zuschauer im Sturm erobert. Ein Film, den man sich immer wieder anschauen kann und bei dem die Walt Disney Company mal nicht die Weg geht ein klassisches Märchen zu erzählen. Lilo & Stitch ist einfach von der ersten bis zur letzten Minute wunderbar. Humorvoll, wenn Stitch sich in Elvis Presley verwandelt. Aufregend wenn er von Captain Gantu gejagt wird. Berührend, wenn der berühmte Ohana-Satz fällt. Wer Lilo & Stitch noch nicht gesehen hat, sollte den Film dringend nachholen. [Sneakfilm.de]

Cute film.
'Lilo & Stitch' is a short and straightforward production, but that doesn't stop it leaving a charming and hearty impression. It's actually rather impressive in that regard, you can't help but feel attached to the main characters.
Daveigh Chase (Lilo), Tia Carrere (Nani), David Ogden Stiers (Jumba), Kevin McDonald (Pleakley) and, obviously, Chris Sanders (Stitch) are very good. I love their respective voices. Even some of the minor characters, like Zoe Caldwell (Councilwoman), Kevin Michael Richardson (Capt. Gantu) and Ving Rhames (Bubbles), are memorable too. A real cool set.
Animation-wise it isn't actually sensational, undoubtedly pleasant, but not out of this world or anything. As for the music, who knew Elvis Presley's discography would fit so well? An inspired choice, it must be said.
Not at the top of my list of Disney animated films, but it's certainly in the 'best of the rest' bracket. You should definitely watch this, if you haven't already.

It's rare that I wish a movie could keep going on and on, but Lilo & Stitch could have added a whole hour to its runtime and I would have welcomed it with open arms. This is a beautifully animated film, one of the best Disney has ever put out. Stitch has become something of a pop culture icon. Much like Jack Skellington and Bart Simpson, Stitch has struck an emotional chord with audiences. Aside from him being adorable, it also must have something to do with how Stitch, a being created to destroy, ends up being the missing link that brings a broken family together. There are times that Lilo & Stitch touches on dark subject matter. Lilo reminds me of many problem children that were misunderstood by parents, kids, and the system. But by the end, Lilo & Stitch will have you smiling by bringing you into a very happy place.

'Transformers: The Last Knight' is normal service resumed. I shockingly loved watching the prior 'Transformers: Age of Extinction', no idea how but I truly did. This sequel, however, is more akin to those other movies in the franchise, it's minutely better than - but still as bad as - series worst 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon'.
It's another entry that lasts for just short of 150 minutes, which is again too long. You do have to respect how much the filmmakers fit into such long run times though, like (bar last time) it's mostly all underwhelming but you can't exactly say there are any proper lull moments in there.
The whole English knights construction of a plot here just went through one ear and out the other, admittedly these flicks are nonsensical as it is so I guess this overly entwined plot does feel right at home. On the cast, Mark Wahlberg isn't as fun, though I did mildly enjoy Anthony Hopkins.
I still don't get truly annoyed by these movies, even though I properly should. I think it's because there is an essence of the flat-out action that I can find enjoyment in, so things never truly get mind-numbingly dull. With that said, they are most certainly disappointing films (usually).

You know what? I didn't hate this one. Indeed I think it might actually be my favourite! Naturally alarm bells go off when you think your hear Sir Anthony Hopkins doing the narration. Surely not? As this latest outing for the unidentifiable mechanised battle-mongers takes shapes, though, there is actually a bit more of a story underpinning it. Of course there is a secret, all-powerful gizmo for them to discover and fight over and this time we drag in Arthurian legend, Stonehenge and a belted earl in the form of Sir Anthony. This film does have a sense of imminent conclusion to it too as "Optimus" sets off in search of his duplicitous creator "Quintessa" (Gemma Chan) with a view to a showdown that will secure the future of Earth for ever. Meantime, "Cade" (still Mark Wahlberg) and "Lennox" (a well past his best Josh Duhamel) are going through the combat motions as the legendary staff of "Merlin" has to stay out of the hands of the dastardly "Decepticons". This has more of it's tongue in it's cheek, it's less intense and takes itself less seriously than some of the others in the series. We still have to endure the rather supercilious monologues from the increasingly pompous "Prime" but this, for me at any rate, had more of a substantial sense of adventure to it. As usual, the casting - Laura Haddock is terrible - isn't up to much but keep an eye out for Stanley Tucci who clearly couldn't get enough after the last film and so comes back for a brief cameo here. It's rotten, forgettable and ought to be the last of these - but I still rather grudgingly engaged with it a bit more.