Godzilla: King of Monsters – Nathan Fish
“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” was released in late May. It was directed and co-written by Michael Dougherty. It is a sequel to the 2014 Godzilla movie and the third Godzilla movie to be released by a Hollywood studio. It had a budget of roughly $200 million and grossed $385.9 million, falling short of the $550 million needed to break even.
The movie follows the characters from the 2014 “Godzilla” movie, five years after the awakening of creatures called the titans. In this movie, Godzilla has disappeared and gone into hiding from his previous appearance. Then someone decides it is time to wake up the sleeping giants, believing that the world belongs to them. The big bad titan who rules all is named King Ghidorah, a monster who was said to be the reason that Venus is uninhabitable. Godzilla is portrayed as a hero in this film to save the world from devastation at his rivals’ claws.
This movie balances big monster fights and the humanistic drama of what this tragedy would actually be like to create a clear picture of their world. All characters are either relatable or big, cool monsters and it translates well to the big screen. Between the action and storytelling, it was extremely easy to follow and keep my interest. However, the movie would not make sense to someone who doesn’t like huge monster fights. I do however highly recommend anyone who has not seen this movie that they watch it. With that being said, I believe that a fair rating to give this movie would be four out of five stars.
The Lion King – Rachel Burns
“The Lion King” has become a classic for people of all ages. Disney’s animated movie is a household favorite, which influenced their decision to produce a live-action remake of the popular title. I went to see this remake and I analyzed every moment while I was sitting in those cushioned chairs.
The opinions that I developed are both good and bad. I was impressed by some scenes and disappointed by others. The entire movie looked spectacular, and there were moments when the CGI of the animals seemed too real to be programmed by a computer. The voice actors did a great job with their lines and songs as well.
Most of my disappointment laid with the decisions the director made. It was almost exactly like the original animated film. This could have worked, in theory, but it did not turn out well. There were a few new funny lines, and the only scene they added was too long for the small purpose it served. The scene I am talking about pictured a small tuft of Simba’s mane hair blowing through the breeze and the journey that it took. It felt like it lasted a couple of minutes because of how slow the scene was. Also, if they had inserted a couple of songs from the stage musical, my inner fangirl would have been satisfied, but they did not do this.
As a stand-alone movie, it was great. However, because of its history and reputation, I think Disney was too scared to screw it up by adding anything. Good movies push the boundaries and put originality in the work, and the live-action movie “The Lion King” fell short of doing this. I give it 4 out of 5 stars.
Still-shot from official trailer