What were your overall thoughts on Godzilla Vs. Kong?5,815 Views77 RepliesAdd A Reply
I, obviously thought GVK was a good movie. It certainly delivered what I wanted from this epic crossover. The film as a whole has been all over the place when it comes to everyone's individual thoughts. So, now I'm going to see which users on Scified thought this movie was good and which users thought it wasn't good.
I thought this was a good movie myself. While it was frustrating at parts, it still managed to be a winner in my eyes. How about you? Share your thoughts in the poll and in the comments below!
Godzilla Vs. Kong is now out on Blu-Ray, DVD, and Digital.
No, this isn't directed at anyone.
Just clearing that up right now.
So bad it’s good.
WAIT W H A T
I mean I really liked it, I’d watch it again, but it’s just a bad movie,
W H Y
Characters, Incoherent Plot, Why’d they need king to get into hollow earth if they already had the opening? It’s just dumb fun. No logic but really fun!
Yeah, I have to agree with SarcasticGoji here. It's brainless fun and action which is why most people really like it, but I was expecting more. My main complaints are that the human characters are the worst in the entirety of the Monsterverse thus far and logic/physic are just thrown out the window halfway through. It had its moments I guess, but still I'd give it a 3/10
Long live the king...
It's a coherent and simple plot.
The characters though are trash except Jia and our title stars.
as well as....
Sorry it was an uncropped gif but yes MECHA G
Coherent means logical and consistent and as I just said, it’s neither of those. The characters in kotm are far better
You just went too far. We barely got to know HALF of these characters in KOTM. Madison was the only one engaging and....ok yes.
But my opinion on KOTM's humans still stands that they sucked.
Ishiro and Maddie get a pass for being good characters
I wonder when Gman's scathing opinion is coming....
Emma Russel is probably a poorly misunderstood character than people think. It’s because she isn’t insane. Madison herself wasn’t even a great character just ok, especially compared to the other characters.
I mean, at least the characters from KotM had personality, a character arc and actually DID something. I don't think I can find a single character arc throughout GvK.
The most interesting character was the Mute girl because of her connection to Kong, literally every other character though we're so uninteresting that I sometimes forget they were there.
Long live the king...
Unlike most of us, G. H. (Gman) actually knows what he’s talking about, as he’s stated before, actually studied the way good movies are made.
As for my opinion, the how much you enjoy a movie doesn’t make it good
I KNOW when good movies are made too.
You're literally saying that I don't understand movies. Yes I do. I've made like three topics deconstructing the MonsterVerse.
Here they are:
Exactly, I've said the same before many times, but a good movie and a movie you like are 2 different things. I see the problems KotM has, but the positives outweigh the negatives for me and made it one of my favorite movies!
Long live the king...
I enjoy KOTM for trying to be ambitious, but it's problems are as much as the good qualities.
Thats not what I said, Unlike us, Gman was actually a movie critic, and us who have to figure it out, he studied about it.
I figured it out a LONG time ago like in 2019
2 comments on this:
1. 10/10 because its lizard vs monke
2. Better then Ape Vs. Monster.
But was it your job? Did you learn the way characters should be written, how music should tie into the film? How shots should reflect emotions? What colors should be used? How to execute these ideas? It’s like saying that since I understand cooking I am good at it.
If one is to judge Godzilla vs Kong by the standards of which movies generally are, Godzilla vs Kong is just not a good movie. The human characters are shallow apart from Jia and certain elements of the plot don't make sense. However, it appears that was specifically was Wingard was going for.
Rather than have something compelling, he delivered what he perceived people to want - Mindless monster fun. To be fair, nobody apart from the hardcore fanbase really cares to see a really compelling human storyline in a monster movie. If the average movie-goer sees Godzilla or Kong in the movie title, that's who they're buying a ticket for. They certainly don't want to see 100 minutes of humans in a 120 minute monster movie.
GvK was pretty much marketed that way (focus on the monsters), or at least that's how I felt it was. I maintain that Kong: Skull Island is the only Monsterverse movie which truly struck the balance between the humans and monsters. GvK had potential to surpass that, but it didn't.
With all of that said, it doesn't mean that it wasn't enjoyable. I enjoyed it, perhaps in part because I lowered my expectations going in.
I wouldn't say being a movie critic gave me special insight on what makes a good movie any more than most people--At least in the era of criticism as it has spiraled in the last 20 years.
I will say that working on film sets/post production did give me a different appreciation for how movies are made and was infinitely more influential in how I look at them.
Art criticism is a funny thing. There's an objective way of going about it, but it really has nothing to do with explaining why something is good or bad. It has everything to do with encouraging people to think about why something could be good or bad--Or maybe neither. It's just good if people think.
And also Gman, I'm guessing you clicked bad.
I just thought that Saying you know what makes a good movies doesn’t actually mean you do. I am guilty of doing that. But am I wrong in saying that movies critics know more than average people. And even if it is wrong, then why should we label movies as bad.
In my opinion art that is meant to commercialize loses much of its artistic value, many movies can work around this.
Wait did Gman click good but not great or bad
I just get jumpy when it seems like other people are being rude about others opinions.
Eh, we're kinda delving into a whole different topic here--One I'm quite passionate about and could go on and on over. At one point maybe they did know more. But I think if a film critic is successful he should do the following quote by Roger Ebert:
"A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged."
I admit, I only did a handful of these during my career. But now, unfortunately, film criticism is sought out as a checklist of what's good or bad in a film, usually going unread before it's transmorphed into a quantification by Rotten Tomatoes. It's a sad state the industry is in and when many wrote articles on the "death of the film critic" back in the mid-to-late 2000s they were right to an extent. I'm not sure if most critics really live up to the definition by Ebert.
I think the best way to critique films is start with successful stories. Not movies. Start out with Beowulf, Milton, Chaucer, etc. Enjoy history books. Learn about Joseph Campbell. And once you've nailed down what makes a good story, don't point it out in other works. Merely, observe and let your belief via observation do the talking. If it gets any emotional reaction, you've probably done your job right.