Pages

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Sonic The Hedgehog Movie Has Been Pushed Back After Backlash

Sonic The Hedgehog Movie Has Been Pushed Back After Backlash
Sonic the Hedgehog movie

With a less than perfect start to its movie marketing game, Paramount’s Sonic The Hedgehog found itself sparking an outcry from fans of the beloved Sega mascot to redesign the film version of the character. Oddly enough, it worked, as director Jeff Fowler soon promised the fans afterwards that a reworking of the character was on its way.


Though now we've learned that promise has bumped Sonic The Hedgehog to a new release date, in order to facilitate that revision of Sonic’s silver screen appearance. This announcement came today, in the following form:


Jeff Fowler was once again the herald of news pertaining to the movement of Sonic The Hedgehog’s progress, and this delay was basically the other shoe dropping on his previous announcement. With only a handful of months to scrap and redesign the Ben Schwartz-voiced chili dog aficionado, the new concern of the day was that getting Sonic into fighting shape for a November release date was going to cause a lot of overtime for VFX artists, and in turn a lot of pain.




Thankfully, the February 14, 2020 release date is definitely a step in the right direction, as there’s obviously a ton of work ahead. Not only will the film co-starring James Marsden, Tika Sumpter, and Jim Carrey as the villainous Dr. Robotnik have to work on fashioning a new image for Sonic, they’ll also have to insert that vision into Sonic The Hedgehog’s entire finished product.


Looking at the box office calendar, February 2020 is going to be more competitive than usual though. With Birds of Prey and Peter Rabbit 2 opening a week before Sonic The Hedgehog, and the Kingsman prequel, The Great Game, opening on the same day, the video game adaptation will now face stiffer competition than it would have in its November 2019 release slot.


So it wouldn’t be a total surprise to hear that additional reshoots and/or another release bump, past the one announced today on Twitter, might be in the works for Sonic The Hedgehog, especially with additional work coming into play in order to boost the film’s chances of box office success.




For those curious about how that first trailer looked, or for those readers that are just in the mood to re-watch the first look at Sonic The Hedgehog, you can look that very trailer for yourself:


Who knows how long it will take to get our next look at the evolution of Sonic The Hedgehog? At this point, we’ll probably see an unveiling during the summer, with a new trailer done by the time fall starts to cool the summer winds. It’ll be worth it if it means that the VFX team behind Sonic’s big debut can work at a pace that isn’t breakneck, but still accelerated, in the name of progress.


Sonic The Hedgehog will now open on February 14, 2020. Which means there’s plenty of time for you to research your remaining options at the box office this November, through using our 2019 release schedule.



Is Poms' Box Office Failure Tied To Yikes Reviews?

Is Poms' Box Office Failure Tied To Yikes Reviews?
Diane Keaton in Poms

If the box office is perfectly balanced, as all things should be, that means that while Avengers: Endgame is breaking records, something else has to be failing spectacularly, and that something is the comedy Poms. The story of a group of women who start a cheerleading squad at their retirement community is the worst box office flop of the year so far for a film with a wide release on over 2,700 screens.


Poms debuted in 6th place, earning just $5.3 million against a $10 million budget over Mother’s Day weekend. Whenever a movie fails like this, it is worth doing a post-mortem and asking what happened. One of the first things worth wondering about are the yikes reviews Poms received, which certainly didn’t do it any favors. CinemaBlend’s own Eric Eisenberg highlighted the film’s lack of originality in his review, saying:



There is hardly a single underdog sports movie clichĂ© that isn’t employed at some point, and it’s difficult to feel entirely engaged with the story when you know exactly how every single scene is going to begin and end.





Yikes indeed. Audiences need to be sold to spend their hard-earned money to come to the theater, and when the reviews warn of a clichĂ©-ridden film that people have the impression they’ve seen before 1000 times, there is no incentive to go see it.


But maybe you’re okay with a clichĂ©d and simple story, and you just want to laugh and have a good time. Sadly, Poms comes up short in that regard, according to the Associated Press’s Lindsey Bahr, who in her review said:



It’s fine to make a film that’s just supposed to make an audience smile but this film doesn’t even get close to that level of joy.





You can definitely see how potential audiences who read that review might have been reticent to spend money to see a movie where even the hope of cracking a smile is in doubt. And if a comedy can’t make you laugh, that’s a problem and that is definitely the case here according to IndieWire’s Jude Dry, who gave the film a “D” and said:



Poms is the first narrative feature from documentarian Zara Hayes, who wrote the script with Shane Atkinson, making his feature debut. Neither have much background in comedy, and it shows.



One of the theoretical selling points of Poms is its cast of legendary actresses, including Diane Keaton, Jacki Weaver, Celia Weston, Rhea Perlman and Pam Grier. However, a common thread among the reviews for the film was lament that the actresses aren’t given quality roles in a well-written film to work with. In her review, The Hollywood Reporter’s Beandrea July said:





Poms is equal parts boring and infuriating, especially when you consider the actresses made to perform caricatures of old age.



By many accounts, Poms doesn’t treat its elderly characters with much respect, which is made even more galling considering the pure talent involved. That lends a sad quality to the film that may have turned off audiences. The Guardian’s Benjamin Lee, gave Poms 1 star out of 5, and if you read his review, you probably wouldn’t spend your money to see the movie either. He said:



It’s easy to praise the mere existence of Poms as a rare wide-releasing comedy populated by women over the age of 70 but rather than feeling inspired, I left the cinema feeling depressed… The women in Poms deserve better and so do we.





‘I left feeling depressed’ is not the blurb you want for an ostensibly feel-good Mother’s Day movie. And while it might be great that this movie got made and received a wide release, general audiences aren’t in the business of voting with their dollar at the box office to advance the cause of older actresses in the industry.


Poms currently has a 32% on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that the reviews weren’t all bad, and opening night audiences gave the film a “B+” CinemaScore, indicating those who saw it generally liked it. So is Poms' box office failure tied to the bad reviews?


It’s tough to say, but the reviews certainly couldn’t have helped. It’s difficult to know how much reviews truly influence audience’s moviegoing decisions. Plenty of horribly reviewed blockbusters make bank at the box office and countless critically acclaimed smaller films struggle to scrape together a few pennies.




I tend to think that reviews only influence audiences to an extent and that most people make up their minds before they see the reviews. It’s only when the consensus is drastically in one direction or the other that their choice can change. I also don’t know what the level or quality of the marketing across the country was for Poms.


If Poms was beloved and the reviews helped spur great word of mouth, maybe it wouldn’t have flopped in this way, but it was probably never going to really deliver. These kinds of smaller movies, rightly or wrongly, are a dying breed as blockbusters dominate the theatrical calendar. Counter-programming can be successful, and perhaps that, as well as coinciding with the Mother’s Day holiday was the strategy, but everything, including reviews, has to click, and that wasn’t the case here.


I can’t help but feel like in the current marketplace, Poms was far better suited to be released on a streaming service like Netflix. Perhaps when it arrives on a streaming service down the line, it will get a second life.




Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to see everything headed to theater this summer and stay tuned to CinemaBlend for all the latest box office news.

Monday, September 14, 2020

Looks Like Disney Is Pulling Back On Fox Projects After Merger

Looks Like Disney Is Pulling Back On Fox Projects After Merger
Walt Disney Studios Logo

We knew that once Disney took full ownership of Fox, things would change, but until it actually happened, we had no idea what that change would really look like.Yesterday, on the Walt Disney Company's quarterly earning call, CEO Bob Iger spoke a lot about Fox, as this was the first call since the merger was complete.


One of the things Iger said on the call was that he expected Fox to produce five to six films a year once the current slate of inherited movies is complete, which, if true, would be about half the number of movies the studio had been producing in recent years.


20th century Fox released 12 movies in 2018 and 14 in 2017, and that doesn't include Fox Searchlight and the other divisions of the company that Disney now owns. Clearly the new Fox is planned to be a much leaner and meaner company.




This isn't all that surprising. 20th Century Fox was a full production studio like Disney, and now its owned by Disney. For Fox to continue to output 12 movies a year would mean doubling the total output of Disney as a whole.


Disney only released 10 movies in 2018 and released all of 8 films in 2017. However, it led the box office both of those years. The Disney focus has clearly been about making fewer films that bring in more money and this strategy is sure to be used when approaching Fox movies. Maybe they'll only make six movies, but if the studio can bring in the same amount of money with fewer films, so much the better for the bottom line.


There are a couple of potential caveats to this. First off, while Iger says five or six movies is likely, he's leaving the door open for more, saying...





I'm guessing that it'll be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 films a year. But we're not locking ourselves into that, from that end.



The other thing to keep in mind is Disney+. Bob Iger also said during the call that projects from the Fox library that would be unlikely to see movies released theatrically would probably end up on the forthcoming streaming service. It seems that some of Fox's resources will be focused on Disney+, so while we might see fewer theatrical films from Fox we could see several online.


Clearly, Fox will not be the studio it once was again. It will be yet another label underneath the Walt Disney Company, and so, like Pixar or Marvel Studios, it will be working on a limited number of projects at any one time.




This isn't unexpected but it is upsetting. One of the unfortunate side effects of the purchase, in addition to there simply being fewer big studios, is that now there will likely be fewer theatrical releases overall. That just not a positive thing if you're a fan of movies or the industry as a whole.


For has seven projects planned for 2019 and nine set for 2020. After that, the only confirmed films are the animated Nimona and the multiple sequels to Avatar.

The Russo Brothers Share Set Photo From Stan Lee’s Final Cameo

The Russo Brothers Share Set Photo From Stan Lee’s Final Cameo
Stan Lee on film

Spoilers ahead for Avengers: Endgame


The Marvel Cinematic Universe is in a fascinating place, as 21 movies collided with The Russo Brothers' Avengers: Endgame. The massive blockbuster was deeply connected to the MCU's past, and contained a ton of surprise cameos and long awaited moments. And aside from the narrative implications of Endgame, the latest Marvel release also contains its final cameo from comic book legend Stan Lee.


Stan Lee died in November of 2018, and it was a loss felt by generations of comic book fans. Lee's creations are currently dominating the movie landscape, and it's doubly sad that he didn't get to see Endgame in full. Now that spoiler ban on Avengers: Endgame has officially been lifted, The Russo Brothers shared a behind the scene glimpse at Lee's final appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Check it out.




As always, Stan Lee looks pleased to be back on set. The comic visionary thoroughly enjoyed his various onscreen appearances, totaling in 22 roles in the MCU. And that doesn't even include the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises.


Stan Lee pops up in Avengers: Endgame during the blockbuster's second act. During the masterfully crafted time heist, Iron Man and Captain America travel to the year 1970. As the S.H.I.E.L.D. location is shown to the audience, we also see a vintage car driving with the license plate "excelsior". That ride is being driven by none other than Lee himself, who encourages the agency to make love and not war.


While not quite as emotional as his role in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Stan Lee is quickly able to steal the scene, and make the audience laugh. Given how high the stakes of Avengers: Endgame are, moments of levity are sorely needed, and help to buoy the movie's complicated narrative. And Lee's message of love is all the more powerful in the wake of his death.




It's hard to imagine the Marvel Cinematic Universe without Stan Lee's presence, as his creativity and excitement over the genre flow through the franchise's blood. Lee passed shortly away before Captain Marvel arrived in theaters, with his cameo in that movie being super self-aware. Additionally, screenings of Captain Marvel opened with a tribute to Stan Lee, which was particularly touching.


Stan Lee has obviously had a ton of Marvel cameos, and he wasn't shy about sharing his excitement for each new one. Lee loved getting some screen time, listing his role in Avengers: Age of Ultron as his favorite before his passing. His reasoning? Because it was the most lines, as he had two smaller scenes instead of one.


When discussing his Age of Ultron role, Stan Lee previously made his feelings known, saying:





Well, I think the cameo that's my favorite is the one I did [with] Thor. I'm standing in a bar with him and he's drinking this Asgardian drink, which is very powerful, and I ask for a sip and he says, 'No, it would kill you,' and I insist. And he gives me a sip and then in the next scene, they're carrying me out. Now you're saying to yourself, 'Why is this Stan's favorite cameo?' and you haven't thought of the real reason. It's the only one I did that has two scenes. So I'm hoping it does well. Next time, they'll give me three scenes. You never know where it'll end.



Stan Lee truly never disappointed the Marvel fandom, constantly showing his enthusiasm for the shared universe, as well as life on the page. This excitement obviously bled over to his onscreen roles, with the comic book visionary hoping to get even more screen time. But Age of Ultron remains his biggest role, unless you count the myriad hidden Stan Lees in Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse.


As a reminder, you can check out Stan Lee's Avengers: Age of Ultron cameo below. below.




Remember folks: when Thor offers you a drink, you might want to be careful. The God of Thunder has a far stronger tolerance for intoxication than we mere mortals.


Looking back on this Age of Ultron scene is quite different after seeing Avengers: Endgame, and for a multitude of reasons. To start, it seems to tease Thor's eventual problem with alcohol after the five year time jump. Thor sunk into a deep depression after Thanos' snap, and he relied heavily on beer and Fortnite to get him through.


Additionally, the rest of the party scene includes Captain America attempting to lift Thor's hammer. While he seemingly failed, Endgame revealed Steve Rogers was worthy all along. He was just sparing his friend's feelings.




Stan Lee's role(s) in the Marvel Cinematic Universe took an interesting turn during Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Lee was shown in space, speaking with cosmic characters The Watchers. In the brief scene, Stan Lee made reference to multiple past cameos, not so subtly implying that he's actually been playing one character the whole time. Unfortunately, it looks like that plot point will likely not reach its fruition, as Lee died before he could record an appearance in the upcoming Guardians threequel.


Then again, James Gunn has been known to take creative risks, so it's doesn't seem out of the question that Stan Lee's Guardians 2 role and/or The Watchers. Gunn meticulously crafted the first two installments, and no doubt has a master plan for Vol. 3. So Lee might end up getting at least a reference in final addition to the Guardians trilogy.


It should be interesting to see how Marvel Studios continues to honor Stan Lee, as he'll no longer be able to film new appearances. But given the MCU's connection to the legendary icon, it wouldn't be surprising if Kevin Feige and company are finding a new way to pay tribute. The shared universe will need to continue strong not only without Stan Lee, but also its stars in the form of Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr.




Avengers: Endgame is in theaters now, including Stan Lee's final Marvel cameo. Be sure to check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

The Avengers: Endgame Premiere Didn’t Reveal If There Will Be A Post-Credits Scene

The Avengers: Endgame Premiere Didn’t Reveal If There Will Be A Post-Credits Scene
Avengers: Endgame Nebula charging with weapons

The Marvel Cinematic Universe changed the game for film franchises, most memorably with the standard inclusion of post credits scenes that would set up a future installment once the action of the current film had ended. So naturally, with the clock ticking down towards the release of Avengers: Endgame this weekend, there’s a pretty big question looming in the air: will there be an ending tag for the end of the Infinity Saga? The answer, at the moment, is, maybe?


We say this because after last night’s big Hollywood premiere of Avengers: Endgame, the credits were actually cut off. Instead of running those customary names of people that worked on the film, and their respective roles, the cast and directors went up to the stage of the Los Angeles Convention Center and delivered some heartfelt speeches.


Admittedly, that’s not the answer that fans want to hear involving whether or not Avengers: Endgame ties up its 11 year journey of learning and betterment of oneself will have that last surprise. However, it’s not the first time that this sort of strategy was used.




In fact, going back as far as The Avengers in 2012, that film was shown at its very premiere without a post credits stinger. This left the audience, already primed to expect one or two extra moments, with the very same question we are asking today. So while no footage has been seen of any sort of coda to Avengers: Endgame, we’re totally thinking that it’s going to be in there. It’s just behind a Marvel Studios secrecy wall that we haven’t seen past yet.


CinemaBlend’s own Eric Eisenberg was at the Hollywood premiere of Avengers: Endgame last night, on hand to take in the splendor himself for the film’s big night. Not only can he confirm that there was no post-credits scene, but he also gave the following reaction to the film on Twitter:


As for what to expect in this hypothetical, but still possibly absent, post credits scene to Avengers: Endgame? Well, there’s a lot of ways it could go. We could see Peter Parker’s first words after being restored to life in time to have his adventure in Phase 3’s big finale, Spider-Man: Far From Home. Or, there might be some tease as to where Captain Marvel may go next in her adventures.




Perhaps Kevin Feige had someone shoot a Shang Chi teaser with their iPhone and a special lens, with that footage being tweaked in the editing bay as we speak. The big point is, we don’t know. But that’s part of the fun with going to see a Marvel Cinematic Universe film on opening weekend, as when any story’s door closes it tends to open the window to the future. We don’t have long to wait, as Avengers: Endgame lands on our collective cinematic doorstep on Thursday night. So there’s still time for you get a couple of the vital films to watch before heading out into your schedule.

Sunday, September 13, 2020

5 Reasons Godzilla (2014) Is Better Than You Probably Remember

5 Reasons Godzilla (2014) Is Better Than You Probably Remember
Godzilla (2014)

With Godzilla: King of the Monsters stomping, hopping, smashing and crashing its way into theaters around the world this week, I have a confession to make: I like Godzilla (2014). I like it a lot, in fact, and I don't think it deserves the flack it gets.


Gareth Edwards' assured, commanding sophomore film is a fire-breather of a Godzilla movie, one that surprisingly isn't afraid to bide its time and make the monster movie beats worth the while. It's a carefully-crafted B-movie with A-grade special effects, an expensive genre beauty that fills the big screen at choice moments. It produces a loud, roaring triumph of Spielbergian craftsmanship, complimented beautifully by its boisterous score, with a diligent desire to make the explosive finale a towering inferno of epic-ness. In short, it's a lot of fun, and it's a lot better than people give it credit.


The film does have its flaws — many of them, in fact. For instance, Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character is a soggy bread of a protagonist, lacking any real depth or nuance to make him worthy of being our central human character. The story structure can be a bit haphazard, favoring set pieces over a firm narrative streamline, and the lack of monster fights in the first two-thirds can be odd — to say the least — for a major American studio Godzilla movie. But its strengths far outshine its weaknesses, in my view, and I believe there's a lot worth celebrating in this big-budget remake. Here's my reasoning.




Godzilla Has Excellent Use Of Build-Up


Perhaps the biggest — and, in my view, most rewarding — surprise found in Godzilla (2014) is that it is an unexpectedly patient film. With Hollywood blockbusters, particularly in an era of massive superhero movies, we're used to seeing a lot of whizz-bang early and often. Blockbusters will jam-pack as many action beats as possible to keep easily-distracted eyeballs focused squarely on the big screen in front of them. You need to bring the masses, and the masses want something that keeps their attention spans stimulated, even if — or especially if — their brain is left unrewarded in the process.


There is nothing wrong with a good popcorn flick. I love them as much as the next guy. But Godzilla (2014) accomplishes something that is a little more dexterous in terms of its plotting and execution. It intentionally teases the audience, keeping the title character at a distance until it's time for the big, famous kaiju monster to make a hell of an impression. The result is a Godzilla movie with fewer action beats than you might anticipate, but one that is, nevertheless, deeply satisfying because the pay-off is so explosively enjoyable that you feel rewarded for being strung along for the last hour or so.


Godzilla Has Amazing Special Effects


With blockbusters today, we often take the wizardry of special effects for granted. Nearly every blockbuster released in theaters this weekend is filled with spectacles galore, often the work of computer animators trying to meet tight deadlines and massive expectations. Nevertheless, the VFX effects in Godzilla (2014) are truly incredible, not merely for a big-scale Godzilla movie (particularly with other Godzilla movies relying on people in rubber suits to do the job), but for a major Hollywood blockbuster such as this one.




Gareth Edwards made a beautiful looking movie, one that is complimented throughout with strong cinematography and commendable direction. But it is the lavish special effects from the movie's heavy $160 million budget that really make the visual pops in this action flick. Particularly with the very dated special effects found in Roland Emmerich's ill-fated 1998 Godzilla remake, Godzilla (2014) is the first time the big mean radioactive monster was given the proper Hollywood treatment. And he is as beautiful as he's ugly — if that makes sense.


Impressively massive and commendably fleshed-out, Godzilla looks more believable and photorealistic than he's ever looked before, and the reptilian badass is truly a sight to behold. It's a damn shame that Godzilla (2014) didn't even get a nomination for Best Visual Effects. Quite an egregious snub.


Godzilla Has Nice Set Pieces


While people are often quick to lament about the lack of monster-based action sequences in Godzilla (2014), the blockbuster does contain a wide array of impressive set pieces. Whether it's Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Francisco or the Philippines, Godzilla gets around in this new movie, and we follow him through a nice assortment of different scenic backdrops. Though Godzilla is a big, imposing, menacing dude, the skyscraper-sized creature sure knows how to get around the world in a short amount of time.




As a result, Godzilla (2014) is as expansive as it is expensive, providing audiences with a glorious blockbuster with the budget and means to jump from location-to-location. It provides moviegoers with a chance to see all kinds of locations, even if many — if not all — of them fall victim to widespread destruction in the grasp of Godzilla's fire-breathing reign. Gareth Edwards' first film, the micro-budgeted Monsters, showcased a rising filmmaker with a knack for making the most out of sparse and/or visually-dynamic locations. That filmmaking tradition continued with his next film, Godzilla (2014).


Godzilla Has A Great Sense Of Perspective


One thing that really makes Godzilla (2014) exceptional is that this major movie tends to prefer the small opposed to the big. While the film is filled with major overtures in the right key moments, it's a film that like to keep the focus on the ground floor. Picking up from the tradition of 2008's Cloverfield, it imagines the citywide destruction and global mayhem of the kaiju attacks from a view that is often closer to the floor than the sky. The result is a huge, gigantic motion picture that knows how to dish out action in a human level — even if it's human characters can often, unfortunately, be a bit lacking.


It's hard to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson brings a lot to the lead role. And it's even harder to remember much of anything about his character or personality. But through his eyes, we are often witnessing the chaos that springs worldwide in these monsters' wake. The result is a movie that knows how to bring perspective in the fold, and one that constantly keeps the action investing by never being afraid to reveal its hand too early into the game.




The Cast Is Notable


Now, listen, I won't say the humans in Godzilla are richly fleshed-out, three-dimensional characters with rich backgrounds and layered personalities. You'd be hard-pressed to find many Godzilla-focused movies with the same high pedigree of actors. Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe are excellent in in their supporting roles, while Sally Hawkins, Juliette Binoche, David Stratharian and Elizabeth Olsen are always dependable talents. Unfortunately, most of the cast is given little to work with, as the humans are often a means to the end, and that end is monster-on-monster action.


Nevertheless, while most of these actors aren't given awards-caliber performances, there are only a few truly underwhelming performances. Everyone is doing the best they can with their often paper-thin characters, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson often gets the worst of it. He's a talented actor who has proven his talents in a variety of different films, including Kick-Ass, Nowhere Boy and Nocturnal Animals, to name a few noteworthy examples of late.


Sadly, however, like I said in the introduction, his character in this film is a wet blanket who isn't as much fun as his title co-star. Nevertheless, most of these actors do commendable work to sell the gravitas in this otherwise campy genre exercise, and their hard work and talents can be under-appreciated.




Will I call Godzilla (2014) a perfect movie? No. Because it's not. Like I said, it has its flaws, and it has its shortcomings. While Godzilla: King of the Monsters seems like it will be providing the non-stop, wall-to-wall monster action that hungry fans were expecting from this much-anticipated remake, I don't think it's fair to give this Godzilla movie the cold shoulder in the process.


On its own merits, Gareth Edwards made a well-crafted, exhilarating monster movie with Godzilla (2014), one that should be admired much more than it is. And I hope I provided some compelling reasons for why that should be the case.

Final Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Trailer Goes Full Apocalypse

Final Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Trailer Goes Full Apocalypse

If you thought Superman’s fight with General Zod in Man of Steel was destructive, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Next weekend’s Godzilla: King of the Monsters pits the titular beast against a host of other Titans in a wildly destructive battle for dominance over the planet. A final trailer has been released in advance of the film’s opening and it shows that this battle is truly apocalyptic in nature. Check it out:


Godzilla versus Ghidorah may very well be the best big screen fight this year because these two Titans look to have some real brutal and awesome encounters in this movie. Ghidorah is dodging Godzilla’s atomic breath and Godzilla is tackling him through buildings and trying to drown all three of his heads. It’ll be a hard-fought victory on either side of a fight so apocalyptic that it may indeed send humanity back to the Stone Age as Bryan Cranston’s Joe warned in the first Godzilla.


This final Godzilla: King of the Monsters trailer has a good mix of shots we’ve seen from the previous trailers and new shots that give us even more of a look at the insane spectacle of this movie. We got more of the various aerial and land-based battles, as well as some really cool looks at Godzilla himself. Of particular note was a shot of Godzilla towards the end of the trailer where he looks sort of like he is covered in/made of molten lava.




In previous trailers, we’ve seen Godzilla in this kind of environment seemingly injured, so this may be when he recovers and rises like a very big phoenix from the ashes. Either way, he looks pissed and very badass with the electricity surging around his lava-covered body. It must be said that although Godzilla: King of the Monsters is about an existential threat and there are countless casualties, the apocalypse in this movie sure looks pretty.


The visuals on display in this trailer are truly stunning, and from the destruction at the capital to the battles in the sky to Ghidorah striking intimidating poses, many of the shots could be framed and hung on a wall. You’re definitely going to want to see King of the Monsters on the biggest and best screen possible.


Also, while I’m all for LL Cool J’s “Mama Said Knock You Out,” I’m not sure I like it as much for this movie as the score from earlier previews. The instrumental music in the previous trailers really helped convey the epic quality of Godzilla 2 and the stakes of the battle at hand.




However, the song choice in this trailer works well with the way it is edited and the pacing really lets audiences know that unlike 2014’s Godzilla, this film won’t hold back the monsters and it will be all action. This trailer also has a somewhat lighter tone too, conveying that although you’ll be watching the apocalypse, it’ll still be a fun time.


Godzilla: King of the Monsters looks to be headed for an opening weekend between $40-$60 million. The early reactions to the movie are very positive, indicating that it is everything you could want from a movie where giant monsters fight each other.


Godzilla: King of the Monsters stomps into theaters on May 31. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to keep track of all this summer’s biggest movies.



 

Blogger news

Blogroll

About