Godzilla vs. Kong

Three for the price of two. See that's what I like about these movies: value. As for the cinematic value here, well, as Joe Bob used to say, there's a bunch of plot getting in the way of the movie. Hardly matters though; the storyish stuff doesn't particularly hold the real show back. The stars of the flick deliver tremendous performances, via their CGI presences. I'm not talking about the human actors, of course; they're all so lightweight that a puppy's bark could blow them away, let alone the bellows of the big guys. It's all ridiculous, absurd, hokey and ultimately entertaining, if you don't go in expecting Chekhov. Kong fu. Godzilla fu. No breasts (unless you count the monkey). It's a good day to be an eleven-year-old boy. The Bad Cat says check it out.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters

As Joe Bob Briggs would have said back in the day, there's a whole lot of plot getting in the way of this movie. They tried really hard to make it make sense--but it's a movie about monsters destroying the world. It's not about making sense, it's about spectacle. They got that part down OK; everything looks good, both in terms of scale and visual character. But none of the players really breaks out of their stock roles. Special recognition (?) must go to Kyle Chandler, who seems convinced--vocally, at least--that he's playing Batman despite the lack of a cape. More troubling, his character goes through a fairly unconvincing 180 turnaround. Other characters die, as likely as not because the actors wanted out of the further sequels more than because the story demands it. Yet, there's still enough appeal here to make it something more than bottom of the barrel. The 12-year-old boy in all of us is bound to get a charge out of watching a bunch of kaiju battle it out, and there's even a nice little piece of the world-building that ties the monsters in with our myths in a way that an "Ancient Aliens" fan, if not a classical scholar, will appreciate. As dopey entertainment, it's fine. It will take someone more adept than these filmmakers to turn this bit of pop culture into high art. For now, just watch shit blow up.

First Man

In a story about the moon landing, it's the moon that's supposed to be lifeless. Here, it's Ryan goslings performance that's a bit sterile. That may or may not be a fair assessment, because Neil Armstrong, for all of his fame, was not much of a public figure after he walked on the moon. Perhaps Gosling has the man perfectly pegged with his reserved portrayal. And, as with other Space Race films, you are reminded of what a colossal achievement the program was back in its day. It's nothing short of astounding what NASA achieved in the '60s, both in engineering missions into space and creating new perspectives for the human race in the process. This film is a good reminder of that legacy, and should be viewed for that even with its flaws. (The worst of those flaws is the decision to film everything in the execrable "shakycam" mode, even for the quietest and most intimate moments. Memo to all directors: put your damn narcissism aside and let your story hold our attention, not your presence with the camera.)

Game Night

Mildly amusing, mostly. I suspect they were going for a bit more than that, but that is in fact the level to which the film achieves. The most prominent positive aspect of the movie is the pairing of leads Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams; they have a real chemistry that makes their bits work very well. Other cast members contribute, but not quite to the level of the stars. Still, it's overall an entertaining movie; it gets the softest of purrs from the Film Felis, in that this is a flick with fairly low aspirations and it does reach them, if not much more.

The Wolf of Wall Street

Pretty standard issue Scorsese. Very high energy, actors chewing the scenery, everything very Noo Yawk...It’s an entertaining template, for the most part, but not nearly as great as his apologists like to believe. Case in point: at around three hours this film is way too long. How many orgy/drug-fiend scenes do we need to see to get the idea that your guys are debauched? We get it; in fact, we got it the first five times. There’s so much nudity here that the viewer wonders if there’s actually a comment intended in it, some sort of meta-criticism of movies...but maybe Scorsese just wants to show us a lot of tits and bush. It’s hard to say. And ultimately, what’s the message? “Chickens come home to roost”? Not sure about that, not based on the ending. I leave you to sort out the muddle on your own.